Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon
NOTES ON CLUVIAN GRAMMAR
demonstration of Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies and Neumann, HHL (1974), that
HLuvian and CLuvian are closely related dialects means that the best current
descriptions of CLuvian grammar are those for HLuvian: see Massimiliano
Marazzi, Il geroglifico anatolico. Problemi di analisi e prospettive
di ricerca (Rome: 1990) or Rudolf Werner, Kleine Einführung ins
HieroglyphenLuwische (Freiburg/ Göttingen: 1991). Readers should note the
following points where my analysis differs from that of Starke or other
share in the consensus that the particle -ša/-za marks neuter
nominative-accusative singular, contra Starke, StBoT 31.46ff.
forms in -a beside animate singulars in -iš/in are collectives
(Eichner, MSS 45.18f), not reflexes of duals, pace Starke, StBoT 31.29
et al. See e.g. lalama/i- or dušduma/i-.
adjectives do not show "i-motion" in Luvian, contra
et aliter, who wrongfully emends exx. such as NSgC a-ru-uš. The
secondary appearance of -inzi in the animate nominative plural alone (kuwanzuinzi
for *kuwanzunzi) does not alter this fact.
forms of adjectives in -ašša/i- with an inserted element -anz- are
genuine, contra Starke, StBoT 31.38ff. As I will argue in detail in the
forthcoming memorial volume for Charles Carter, the -anz- in these forms
marks plural number of the underlying possessing(!) noun.
1. Starke, StBoT 31 passim, consistently ignores the
possibility that originally deverbative suffixes can secondarily come to be
denominative as well. As a result, he arbitrarily reconstructs several dozen
unattested and totally unmotivated verb stems. Oettinger, MSS 40.146f,
has properly criticized this procedure for Hittite -ant-. The same argument
applies to CLuvian suffixes such as -a(i)mma/i-, -ttar/-ttn- and -aæit-.
2. Starke, StBoT 31, ignores the class of CLuvian
deverbative animate nouns in -(a)ma/i- (NB single -m-!): lalama/i-
'receipt' < lala- 'take', dušduma/i- 'manifest, voucher' <
*du-šdu- 'make known', etc.. This suffix corresponds to Hittite
3. Pace Laroche, DLL 137, & Starke, StBoT 31.63f,
there is no class of i/ya-stems in Luvian. As shown by Carruba, Fs
Neumann 35ff, all alleged cases of ya-allomorphs in nouns actually
belong to derived adjectives in -i(ya)-. See also Melchert, HS 103.198ff.
4. Contra Starke, StBoT 31.384ff, there is no class of
Luvian neuter nouns in **-štar, only animate(!) nouns in /-s(t)ra/i-/,
as already established by Neumann, Sprache 11.82ff.
1. I follow Morpurgo Davies, KZ 94.10624, in
assuming a CLuvian second singular present ending -tiš corresponding to
HLuvian -ti-s(a), but one should compare the alternative analysis of
Starke, Sprache 31.249ff. The issue cannot be regarded as settled. I do
call readers' attention to the likelihood of a CLuvian second singular "æi-present" ending -ti beside
third singular -(a)i: see under lāla-, nana-, and waliya-.
2. CLuvian shows an unexplained preterite third plural ending -aunta
matching HLuvian /-aunta/: see under nakkuššā(i)- or warmā(i)-. As shown by HLuvian wa/i-la-u-ta
'they died' to a stem wal(a)-, the -u- is not part of
the stem, and one should not set up otherwise non-existent stems in **-aw- (contra
CLuvian shows four distinct verbal classes which must be kept clearly
distinguished (even if the sparse attestation makes certain individual cases
1. Denominatives in -ā- without "lenition" of the endings: e.g. tūrā- 'pierced' (or simil.) < tūra/i- (a tool or weapon). This type
corresponds to Hittite verbs in -aææ- and Lycian non-leniting verbs in -a-
(e.g. prñnawa- 'build' < prñnawa-'(grave)-house').
2. Denominatives in -ā-/-āi- with "lenition":
e.g. arunā(i)- '?'. This type corresponds to
Hittite verbs in -ā(i)- and Lycian leniting verbs in -a(i)-
(e.g. xtta(i)- 'harm' < xtta- 'harm, violence'). Examples
such as kiša(i)- 'comb' or wida(i)- 'strike' (sic!) may represent
inherited lengthened-grade iteratives (cf. Lat. cēlāre) instead of denominatives.
3. Denominatives in -i(ya)- without "lenition":
e.g. tummanti(ya)- 'hear' < tumman(t)- 'ear'. These correspond
of course to Hittite verbs in -ye-/-ya- and Lycian verbs in -i(je)-.
4. Denominatives/Iteratives in -i-/-ai- with "lenition":
e.g. tarmi-/tarmai- 'nail, fasten' < tarma/i- 'nail, peg'; tūpi-/tūpai- 'strike'. These correspond to Hittite
verbs in -e-/-a- < *-eye/o- and Lycian leniting verbs in -i-/-ei-
(kumezidi/kumezeiti 'sacrifice' < kumaza- 'priest'; tubidi/tubeiti
The distinction between types 3 and 4 was already established by
Morpurgo Davies, KZ 96.245-270. Starke, StBoT 31 passim, ignores
the difference between cases like unlenited tummantitta (with only -i(ya)-
forms!) and lenited tarmita (with weak stem tarmai-!) and
posits a wide-ranging but non-existent "suppletion" between stems in "-i@i-" and stems in "-ai@i-". This fictitious suppletion and
the many consequences drawn from it must be rejected.