Thoughts On A New Volume Of A Hittite Dictionary

by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.
Citation
Title:
Thoughts On A New Volume Of A Hittite Dictionary
Author:
Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.
Year: 
2000
Publication: 
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Volume: 
120
Issue: 
1
Start Page: 
68
End Page: 
75
Publisher: 
Language: 
English
URL: 
Select license: 
DOI: 
PMID: 
ISSN: 
Abstract:

Professor Jaan Puhvel's Hittite Etymological Dictionary is a primary tool not only for Indo-Europeanists, but for all who seek to interpret Hittite texts. In the absence of a complete up-to-date philological dictionary his four published volumes serve the philologian, and not merely the historical linguist. Nor does one need to agree with all his interpretations in order to appreciate the skill and industry that has allowed him, working alone and without major grant funding, to produce these volumes so quickly. For this he deserves high praise and the gratitude of all. In the present article one of the co-editors of the Chicago Hittite Dictionary evaluates the latest volume (K). While approving much that it contains, he finds some shortcomings, noticed by reviewers of earlier volumes in the set, still uncorrected.JAAN PUHVEL'S DICTIONARY (HED), the first volume of which was published in 1984, reaches in 1997 the halfway point of the alphabet. In his preface the author raises the possibility of a slightly different emphasis and procedure for the second half of the alphabet, in view of the good philological coverage of L-P presently available in the Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CHD) and good etymological coverage of L-T in J. Tischler's Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar (HeGl; 1977 ff.). But he is yet unwilling or unable to specify what changes in approach will be implemented. One hopes that the existence of competent philological coverage of L-P will allow Puhvel to forego such dense citations of passages from Hittite texts and focus instead upon the etymological possibilities.As he observes, given the death of A. Kammenhuber, the editor of the Hethitisches W[ddot{o}]terbuch ([HW.sup.2]), which is based at least in part on the lexical Nachiass of J. Friedrich, and the slower output of her successor, I. Hoffmann, it will be some time before a current philological treatment of the K words, which are the subject of the volume under review, will appear. [HW.sup.2] has thus far covered a to ha. The section hi, hu and all of i will probably take at least three years to cover. The CHD, having covered L, M, N, and P, needs yet to complete S, T, U, W, Z, A, E, H and I, before tackling K last.Since earlier volumes of HED have been thoroughly evaluated by reviewers, it is necessary at this point only to make a brief estimation, supported by a selection of detailed criticisms. Puhvel's reputation in the field of Indo-European studies is well established. His work in the field of Hittitology is more restricted. He has published no text edition, nor has he written on matters of Hittite history or economy. Cultural matters (law, literature, religion, art, etc.) are only touched upon peripherally in connection with linguistic studies. Puhvel has written no systematic book or article on such subjects. Understandably, his approach is always comparative, with all the promise and risks that this entails. Although his experience within Hittitology is restricted, the citations of secondary literature in the pages of the HED are generally quite appropriate and up-to-date, although more limited than [HW.sup.2] or CHD, and somewhat non-standard in form. Puhvel's translational style is florid and adventuresome, often raising the suspicion that he likes to use his English thesaurus to find the most recherch[acute{e}] word possible (see examples under kallara-, gane[check{s}]([check{s}])-, karp-, katkattiya-, gul([check{s}])-). This style--in many ways so colorful and amusing to readers--unfortunately leads occasionally to regrettable inaccuracies and anachronism, which is particularly misleading to comparative linguists not as familiar as he with the primary data and literature of Hittite. For example, it may be etymologically acceptable to call a functionary in rituals an "operative" (p. 56, sub kantikipi-) , but in ordinary American English an "operative" is a kind of detective or spy!The organization of the HED is for the most part happily uniform. Text citations are arranged in the sequence of the inflected forms of the word in question, regardless of the English translation or shade of meaning. This makes locating the treatment of a particular form found in a Hittite text much easier than in dictionaries which organize the citations within each article according to semantic or syntactic criteria. Of course, there is a trade-off: it is easier to find all examples of a particular meaning or syntactical construction in the other dictionaries. But since the first occurrence of an inflectional form is not marked either by bold type or a new paragraph, it is not easy to find where a new section begins. Nor does Puhvel attempt to date text citations other than by giving a rare generalization about an Old Hittite text. This makes it difficult for users to decide what is likely inherited Proto-Indo-European or Common Proto-Anatolian versus (for example) a New Hittite innovation.The HED continues to use the transliteration system for Sumerian (i.e., for Sumerograms) employed prior to the appearance of Christel R[ddot{u}]ster's and Erich Neu's Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon (HZL; Wiesbaden, 1989), whereas most Hittitologists and both HeGl and CHD have adopted the modernized system. Even some of the improvements already used by J. Friedrich in his Hethitisches W[ddot{o}]rterbuch (HW), such as UMBIN "wheel" for earlier DUBBIN, have not been implemented in the HED. Furthermore, Puhvel retains the inadequate (indeed misleading) interpretation of the DIN sign as -tin in the 2nd p1. pret. and imperative of verbs, instead of the value -t[acute{e}]n employed by HZL and most Hittitologists.Puhvel attempts to use the older system of citing volumes in the two major German series of Hittite cuneiform publications (KBo and KUB): volumes in the former are cited, e.g., as KBo XIV 5, but those in the latter as simply XIV 5. But he has not avoided the danger of that system, for one finds all too often, particularly in citing the Hittite laws, "VI 2" (= KUB VI 2), when what is meant is KBo VI 2.His bibliographical references follow a system of his own, which makes using the HED a particular chore for Hittitologists. It would have been better had he followed the system established for HW, [HW.sup.2], or the CHD. And since the Studien zu den Bogazk[ddot{o}]y-Texten (= StBoT) and Texte der Hethiter (= THeth) series are so well known, it is particularly unfortunate that he chose not to use the familiar series references (StRoT 32, etc.). The use of a non-standard set of abbreviations only exacerbates the situation when he fails to list the abbreviation in his tables--for example, "Copenhagen fragment" (p. 3). Certain works that are of particular applicability seem never to be referenced. HED K bears a publication date 1997. The manuscript probably went to the printer in 1996. I failed to find in the tables of bibliographical abbreviations any of the following works that appeared prior to 1996: Pecchioli Daddi and Polvani, La mitologia ittita (Brescia, 1990); H. Hoffner, Hittite Myths (Atlanta, 1990); V Haas, Geschichte der herhitischen Religion (Leiden, 1994); G. F. del Monte, R[acute{e}]pertoire g[acute{e}]ographique des textes cun[acute{e}]iformes (Wiesbaden, 1992); idem, L'annalistica ittita (Brescia, 1993); J. Jie, A Complete Retrograde Glossary of the Hittite Language (Leiden, 1994); E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite (Paris, 1978-79); M. Marazzi, II geroglifico anatolico: Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca (Rome, 1990); G. McMahon, The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities (Chicago, 1991); H. C. Melchert, Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology (G[ddot{o}]ttingen, 1984); idem, Anatolian Historical Phonology (Atlanta, 1994); M. Popko, Religions of Asia Minor (Warsaw, 1995). I would also recommend that in future volumes the author cite the translations of transcribed passages found in volumes in the series Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta: Scholars Press), which began appearing in 1990, as well as those in The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill), edited by W. W. Hallo and J. L. Younger.Usually the author uses proper restraint by not trying to cite every known example of a given form when that form is routine. But there are still too many cases where he abandons restraint and fills pages with unnecessary and redundant examples (see kalmu[check{s}]-, kane[check{s}][check{s}]-, kappuwai- [five full pages], karp-, katta(n), ki[check{s}]-).Are all known words covered? Previous reviewers have already complained about the lack of cross reference entries. Without such, one has to know in advance under what basic word the editor has listed a word allegedly derived from it. This is a serious weakness in the organization of the dictionary and one that the editor can still rectify in future volumes.ka-: In addition to the near deixis "this," Hittite kaoften alludes to what immediately follows, as apa- "that" (remote deixis) often alludes to what immediately precedes. But there are interesting, if rare, exceptions: StBoT 24 ii 29-30 "The preceding (lit, this) was my first manly deed; on this campaign for the first time my lady Sauska proclaimed my name" (p. 4). See also ki[check{s}][check{s}]an in kar[bar{u}] ki[check{s}]an [bar{e}][check{s}][check{s}]ir kinun=a 6 G[acute{I}]N.G[acute{I}]N "formerly they did as previously described, but now ..." (p. 11). HED K 3 adds a translation "my, mine, our(s)," which is totally gratuitous, as shown by such explicit writings as ki[check{s}]ahha(n)=met "this is my [check{s}]ahhan." The form ke-e-et (p. 5) in both its cited occurrences is in Old Hittite Script (OS). The form ke-e-da-an-na (KBo 13.78 obv. 8), which is a variant of ke-e-da-an-ta and as such is listed as instrumental (p. 6) is clearly corrupt, as shown by the corrupt pattaniu[check{s}] (for pattanit) th at accompanies it. The abl.-inst. form kez also has a temporal meaning "at this time," which Goetze showed existed inter alia in AM 104 (translated in HED K 6 as "hence"). Contra HED 6 the toponym Kizzuwatna has nothing to do with the abl. kez, since Luwians would not have used a Hittite (versus Luwian) abl. form! "Luwoid phonetics" indeed! The form ke(-e)-ez-zi-ia is to be analyzed as kezzi -ya "and," not kezz-iya (p. 7). There would have been no need for the allomorph -ya "and," had not the preceding form ended in a vowel. Cf. Luwian ablative ending -ati. After assibilation of the dental before the high vowel, the i in unprotected final position elided. In kezziya it is neither final nor unprotected, and is therefore preserved. The loc. pl. form ki-i-e-da-a[check{s}] (p. 10) is also unreal, the product of a scribe uncertain which plene vowel writing to use. Cf. p[acute{i}]-e-da-i commented on in CHD P 346. The writing ki-i[check{s}]-[check{s}]a (for ki[check{s}][check{s}]an) in ki[check{s}][check{s}]a mem ai "he speaks as follows" is either due to sandhi or is a scribal error.kaena- "in-law": KUB 13.20 i 32-33 (p. 13) is the most helpful passage, showing relationships from the closest (members of the same house or nuclear family), through other blood relations (ha[check{s}][check{s}]anna[check{s}][check{s}]i), and marriage ties (kaenanti), to social or business ties (are=[check{s}][check{s}]i): The sequence is from closest to most remote. There is a serious and unnecessary error in translating KBo 3.14 i 16-18, which must be rendered "slaughtered him before the eyes of [check{S}]arma[check{s}][check{s}]u and Nunnu." See below, remarks on ku[check{s}]a-.kakkapa-: Puhvel does not inform the reader that, although this word apparently denotes a bird, it never has the MU[check{S}]EN determinative.HED's kakapi- (p. 15), allegedly written ga-qa-p[acute{i}](i-)e[check{s}], is actually a misreading of [[blank].sup.DUG]qa-p[acute{i}]-(i-)e[check{s}], whose usual writing is [[blank].sup.DUG]kappi-.kakkari-, k[bar{a}]hari-: The "k : h variation in Hittite" adduced here (hazkara- [greater than] hazhara-, i[check{s}]ki[check{s}]aza [greater than] i[check{s}]hi[check{s}]aza) is conditioned by direct contact with a sibilant.gaga[check{s}]tiya-: Just because this animal leaps (watku-) doesn't mean it has to be a hare. One also thinks of antelope, grasshopper, etc. Since not all grasshoppers are locusts, the existence of a separate word ma[check{s}]a- for the latter does not exclude "grasshopper" as a candidate for gaga[check{s}]tiya-. The partial reduplication may suggest a repetitious sound such as that of a cricket.kaki- may be kaka- "tooth" with a different stem vowel. If the [check{s}]uppiwa[check{s}]har is a head of garlic, peeling it back to its core would produce tooth-like cloves. See my discussion in Hoffner 1974.kalank-: At times the author's flowery English produces entirely the wrong effect. A "decked man" (p. 19), rather than one "decked out," conveys to the average speaker a man knocked down by another!kalle[check{s}][check{s}]-: Of the six(!) English verbs proposed to translate this word, only "summon (up)" is valid. English "adduce" in common use only means to cite as an example or to bring forward for consideration. When the priest of Telipinu goes to kal1e[check{s}][check{s}]- the king's son, he goes to call or summon him, not to cite him as an example. "House of kalli[check{s}]tarwana-" is translated "house of feasting" and "house of partying" within four lines of one another on p. 23. This conveys an attitude of carelessness on the part of the editor, unless he wishes seriously to suggest that the two mean different things. The wekantan T[acute{U}]G-an is hardly an "in-demand dress," since the Hittites weren't shopping at Neiman-Marcus at Christmas! Rather the dress was "borrowed" (passive participle of wek- "to ask for, request").kallikalli-: The Sumerogram should be read [SUR.sub.14] with HZL, not the obsolete "S[acute{U}]R." Puhvel's translation of KUB 19.20 rev. 19-20 "the falcon does not chase alone" suggests that the bird hunts in flocks or groups, which of course is not true of falcons. Either the translation is incorrect or the kallikalli bird is not a falcon. I suspect the former is the case. The question could be a rhetorical one, implying that the opposite is true.kalgalinai-: HED renders "clash, crash." Verbs in -ai-are usually denominatives, not noted here by Puhvel. Both Laroche and Otten wisely took the subject of kalgalinaizzi in the funerary passages to be a person, not the pottery vessel that falls to the ground and breaks. They conceived the verb to describe a kind of singing or wailing. When a pottery vessel breaks, it does not "clang" like a metal one does! By the way, [[blank].sup.MUNUS]tapdara[check{s}], though formally singular common gender, is actually a collective noun, denoting wailing women, not one wailing woman. In this it is like [[blank].sup.MUNUS]hazgarai-. It would have been wise to give a bibliography for words for singing and music at the end of this article.kalmara-: Nowadays many (among them H. C. Melchert) would prefer to regard the neuter-like forms of nouns clearly common gender in the singular as collectives. Thus kalmara and galmara "rays" are collective, as opposed to count-plurals. On p. 27, I seriously doubt that the rare word herina[check{s}] should be translated "cedarbrands" with Puhvel, since the correct form irimpa[check{s}] is in the same context of KUB 15.34, and there is no evidence of h in words for cedar in ancient west Asiatic languages (Akk. erinnu, West Semitic [rz.sup.[contains]]).kalmu[check{s}]-: Far too many routine and uninstructive examples are cited. The many similar examples of the nom.acc. sg. tend to obscure the few significant different ones, like the dative-locative sg. [[blank].sup.GI[check{S}]]kal-mu-[check{s}]i (p. 29). And despite this proliferation, Puhvel has missed a few crucial ones: Luw. abl. [[blank].sup.GI[check{S}]]kal-mu-[check{s}]a-ti-ia KUB 28.9 44.60 rev. 10, abl. [[blank].sup.GI[check{S}]]kal-mu-[check{s}]a-az KBo 34.149 KUB 34.127 ii 15, instr. [[blank].sup.GI[check{S}]]kal-mu-[check{s}]a-tiI[check{S}] 473/t i 13'-15' cited in H. Hoffner, Mem. Finkelstein, 105. I remain skeptical of Puhvel's theory that kalmu[check{s}]-is derived via metathesis from Akkadian gamlu. Pace Puhvel, Hittite had no trouble with the sequence aml, as seen in [check{s}]amluwant- and [[blank].sup.URU]Tamluta[check{s}]. And where do we see other examples of Akkadian forms metathesized when entering Hittite? If there is evidence, it should be adduced.galdi-, kalti-: The explanation of Hittite syllabic gal-di originating in Sumerian "GAL.DI = GAL.SILIM matching Hitt. [bar{a}][check{s}][check{s}]u z[bar{e}]ri" stretches to the breaking point. All of this wild theorizing comes from one who is neither a Sumerologist nor an Assyriologist. A "pot of comfort" is a very anachronistic expression to read back into Hittite culture.kalulupa- "digit, finger, toe": The passage cited from KBo 32.13 describing the goddess Allani has been misunderstood. Had Puhvel consulted (or at least cited) the edition in StBoT 32, he might have translated correctly. Miyaw[bar{a}][check{s}]...kalulup[bar{e}][check{s}] is not "soft fingers" (miu- "soft"), but "four fingers."kaluppa-: Contra Puhvel, a lupanni- is certainly not a "bonnet"! The [[blank].sup.T[acute{U}]G]E.[acute{I}]B is a sash or belt; the English word "girdle" (especially in describing women's attire!) conjures up a corset.kaluti-: Under the derived verb kalutiya- the participation form kalutiyante[check{s}] KBo 23.67 ii 23 has been missed.kammara-: Although it is certainly true that kammara- "mist, smoke" was also used to denote a swarm of bees, it is an unsupported supposition pairing with tuhhui[check{s}] disproves this. But one would also have expected NIM.L[grave{A}]L (.HI.A)-a[check{s}] kammara[check{s}] "a swarm of bees," had the narrative really meant this.kane[check{s}][check{s}]-: The meaning is uncontested, although Puhvel has again dumped his thesaurus on the hapless reader with twelve roughly synonymous English expressions! On p. 43 in citing the Hittite laws dealing with theft of stud livestock he has retained the obsolete interpretation of parkunu- "to purify" as "cleans it [viz., of markings," ignoring G[ddot{u}]terbock's decisive demonstration (1961) that the meaning is "castrates." See now CHD P sub parkunu-. kane[check{s}][check{s}]- means "to know, recognize, honor." It never means "reward," as is erroneously claimed on p. 44 for KUB 26.58 obv. 7-8, and p. 45 for KBo 4.12 obv. 8-12.Kank-: Under the derived verb kanganu- the alleged neut. Sg. Iterative part. k[acute{a}]]n-ga-nu-u[check{s}]-k[acute{a}]n is from KUB 42.83 iv 5, not "KUB XLII 29 VI 5," and the trace of the first sign makes the reading k[acute{a}]]n very unlikely.kanka(n)ti- denotes a specific kind of herb or green plant. It should not itself be translated "garden produce, garden greens" or the alike. Again, far too many unproductive and redundant examples are cited over two pages.kangur denotes a large container for liquids. In KUB 35.36 ii 20-21, 33-34 a cup (GAL-I-) is taken from a kangur, which may indicate that it occasionally served as a place on which cups were set. Puhvel's sole translation "tankard" is highly misleading, since a tankard is a small drinking vessel. If the connection with kank- "to hang" is not merely coincidental and superficial, it does not indicate that the kankar itself "hung," but rather that other smaller vessels (e.g., cups) hung from it.kant-: This and other entries in the K volume (e.g., kara[check{s}]) deal with cereal names. They should have been dealt with more systematically, with consistent comparing of what each contributes to the total picture of Hittite cereal culture. This has not been done here, although reference is made to discussions in HED K, 35 (halki-). Rather, each term is summarily and arbitrarily assigned a specific botanical identification. Kant- is confidently called "einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum)." Reference to Hoffner 1974 in the bibliography is routine, but not much is used from that (albeit now somewhat dated) systematic study. As it showed even in its day, one cannot derive botanical identifications of even Sumerograms in Hittite texts, much less the syllabically written terms, without comparison with botanical remains from Hittite sites. In recent years these have in fact been forthcoming. Hoffner 1974 already cited Korucutepe results. What evidence has emerged suggests a much smaller role for emmer wheat t han has been assumed from knee-jerk translations of Z[acute{I}]Z as "emmer," or even "spelt"!kantas[check{s}]([check{s}])u(w)alli-is considered a derivative of kant- and its function (without any textual support!) even surmised on this basis: it is a vessel to be filled with kant- wheat. All this without considering whether or not there is any evidence to suggest that the Hittites ever stored cereals in metal containers (k. often has the determinative URUDU "copper").kappani- "cumin": Usually HED provides quasiencyclopedic information about the items described by the key word. It is therefore surprising that in this long article nothing is said about either the units of measure (B[acute{A}]N, UPNU) or the kind of containers used ([[blank].sup.KU[check{S}]]lagga[check{s}]du). [[blank].sup.URU]K[bar{a}]panuwanta should be compared with [[blank].sup.URU]Wiyanuwanta rather than a Greek parallel.kapa/irt-: In this article the logograms P[acute{E}][check{S}] and P[acute{E}][check{S}].TUR are treated as essentially synonymous with kapart-, although the only similarity is the use of P[acute{E}][check{S}] as a determinative for k. This is not unimportant, since it is P[acute{E}][check{S}].TUR (ma[check{s}]uil-), not k., that is the so-called "scapemouse." k. is a rodent; that is about all that can be determined at this point.kappi- "small": The KBo 11.14 ii 20-21 passage has been mistranslated. It should be rendered "just as a small particle escapes from the grindstone" ([AR[grave{A}].sup.[NA.sub.4]]za is an ablative, not the subject of the verb). Puhvel's example for the nom. p1. is mistranslated rather ludicrously as "the midgets dance," whereas L[acute{U}].ME[check{S}] kap-[pi.sup.HI.A] should actually be read [[blank].sup.L[acute{U}].ME[check{S}]]HUB.BI.HI.A "the acrobats." One can just imagine how this passage will be used by the unwary to prove the Hittites used midgets!kappilai-: Under the derivative kappilalli- the verb .[check{s}]uppiyahh-, with object a city devoted ([check{s}]ipant-) to a deity, is strangely translated twice as "cleaned it out," whereas the obvious meaning is "made sacrosanct." The procedure was to transplant the population of such cities to other cities and place a ban on the resettlement of the tabooed city. Thus nu = war = an dannatahhun flu = war = an [check{s}]uppiyahhun is the expected sequence.kappuwai-: Fourteen verbal phrases are offered to translate EGIR-an kappuwai- (p. 66)! This seems an extreme case of thesaurus-dumping.karap-: On p. 73 Puhvel gives a nice summary of the distinction between ed- "to eat" and karap- "to devour." But it is not nuanced. While it is generally true that edis used for normal human eating and karap- for animals and demonic deities, sometimes even ed- is used for the demonic deities' eating (KBo 8.35 ii 19-20), while even humans can devour one another (KBo 34.121 2-3, KUB 8.18:2), just as fire devours (KBo 12.128 right 5').Kara[check{s}] is declared to be wheat, specifically emmer wheat, without real evidence.karimn-: The relationship between [acute{E}] DINGIR-LIM [check{s}]iuna[check{s}] per?) and karimn- is difficult to ascertain. Puhvel suggests the former is a temple complex and the latter an isolated cult edifice. This is possible. But there is evidence that points in the opposite direction. KUB 13.4 iii 36-37 "within a temple ([acute{E}] DINGIR-LIM) or other shrine ([[blank].sup.[acute{E}]]karimme)" implies that the [acute{E}] DINGIR-LIM itself is a karimmi. This in turn implies that it is the broader term representing a cult building in general.karp-: Among the scores of cited passages (far more than necessary) there are a few which allegedly support (or illustrate) the meaning "pluck." These are incorrect. For example, on p.94 KBo 19.128 iv 17-18 and KBo 4.9 v 29-31 are cited without telling the reader that in the context the king orders that the instruments be karp-ed, whereupon his servants karp- them and bring them in to the king. The sequence indicates that they "lift" (karp-) them and bring them in (anda pedanzi); it would make no sense for them to be played first and then brought to the king. The karp- action is merely preparatory to anda peda-. On p. 97 it is claimed that the use of karea/ip- of picking fruits illustrates the basic meaning, from which the "lift" meaning derives. But it seems to me that "lift [greater than] remove [greater than] pick (fruit)" is the most obvious line of semantic development.Kar[check{s}]-: Again, far too many English synonyms are loaded in the lemma. Some have little chance of being accurate. In colloquial American English the verb "sequester" is used chiefly of isolating a jury from outside influences. This is not the meaning of kar[check{s}]-. It is true that, with animals belonging to herds, flocks or other groups, kar[check{s}]can refer to isolating them from the rest. But HED translates all of these differently: "sequester' "segregate," and "cutoff" (pp. 100-101). I would prefer "isolate" or "segregate" for all three passages. In KUB 8.50 iii 15-16 (p. 101) the "stakes" are not winat, but winala, the singular of which is [acute{u}]-e-na-al (derivative of verb wen- "to strike"), as cited on p. 196.Kar[check{s}]i-: The meanings suggested are almost all wrong. The base meaning of the adjective is "real" or "true." The adverb means "truly" or "loyally." With the verb zahhiya "to fight" the adverb kar[chech{s}]i (HED's "all out") means "loyally," from which it follows that it is also "wholeheartedly." There is no necessary connection with the plant name kar[check{s}]ani(ya)- and hence no need to posit "astringent, caustic" as the common denominator. Nor is there any reason to assume that kar-[check{s}]e-ia-a[check{s}]KUB 32.103 ii 10 is nom. p1. of kar[check{s}]i-, instead of a gen., which would make it a noun indicating the cereal out of which the bread was made. Accordingly, it does not mean "unbaked (bread)." The plant name kar[check{s}]ani(ya)- may have a distant relationship to kar[check{s}]a-, the alternate form of kar-a[check{s}].kartai- probably has nothing to do with tar-ta-an or tar-ta-an-ti, since TAR as a logogram of this verb has never been established. Puhvel's "solution" of the difficult tar-ta-an is therefore ad hoc. Sumerian TAR occurs in Hittite only as the second component of [[blank].sup.L[acute{U}](.ME[check{S}])] GADA.TAR, not (so far) as an independent verbal logogram. Here it is claimed that lammar TAR-tan refers to the hour when the "thread of life" is severed. But grammatically it is nothing but the "hour" (lammar) itself that is TAR/tarta-an" ... ed."Kar[bar{u}]: To my knowledge there is no evidence that [[blank].sup.L[acute{U}]KAL (i.e., [[blank].sup.L[acute{U}]GURU[check{S}]) in Hittite denotes a "champion." Rather it means mayant- "young adult male" (ct CHD, s.v.). The spelling ka-a-ru-[acute{u}] in 91/div 5, if verifiable, poses a serious problem for Puhvel's etymology. He objects to E. Neu's etymology, claiming that "kar[bar{u}] has clear reference to cosmic time rather than circadian rhythms of living beings" (p. 115). But this conflicts with his earlier claim (p. 114) that "There is a clear connection [of kar[bar{u}] with kariwariwar . . . 'at daybreak.'" The latter is obviously circadian and has nothing to do with cosmic time.karza: This word has recently been clarified in a public lecture by H. C. Melchert, which will soon be published. I would say that karzanaz da[check{s}]kanzi should mean "they take . . . from [abl.] the k." not "with the k."k[bar{a}][check{s}]a: Like others before him, Puhvel has overlooked my remarks (Hoffner 1968) which demonstrated the inadequacy of the translation "look here, lo, behold" and pointed out the true force of k[bar{a}][check{s}]a, k[bar{a}][check{s}]ma in affecting the verbal action.ka[check{s}]i-: Perhaps nothing illustrates better the arbitariness of some of the semantics of HED than this article. With no objective control, confronted with three Hittite words allegedly meaning "white" (harki-, a[check{s}]ara-, ka[check{s}]i-), Puhvel decides that a[check{s}]ara- is "bright white," ka[check{s}]i- "off white," while harki- is passed over in silence. What either in texts or archaeological remains can possibly verify such a claim? Nothing is offered as evidence other than an etymology.ka[check{s}]dupai-: One would think that it might have occurred to Puhvel that the rare kadupai- treated elsewhere (p. 140) is the same verb, perhaps by scribal omission of the -a[check{s}]sign. On the other hand, no evidence is given why we should emend GA ka-a[check{s}]-du-la-a[check{s}] to GA ka-a[check{s}]-du[less than]-pu[greater than]-la-a[check{s}]. The pu sign is certainly a larger sign to omit than -a[check{s}]-. All that we can determine about ka[check{s}]dupai- is that (with [check{s}]ar[bar{a}] "up[wards]") it takes oil as its object. Puhvel's "to sprinkle" is only one of many possible translations. "Scoop up" is another. Only he knows why ka[check{s}]dupai "makes the impression of a more homespun, phonesthetic addition" to the alleged synonyms hurnai- (actually harnai-) and pappar[check{s}]-.katta(n): Under the derived verb katterahh- (p. 133) the translation "disparage" should be deleted; Puhvel does not attempt to document this meaning. All cited examples show a judiciary act "rule against."katkattiya-: According to the OED, the verb "shrug" in the meaning "to shiver or shudder from cold or fear" is archaic and now obsolete. Its only current meaning is to raise the shoulders in a gesture of doubt, disdain or indifference. It should not, therefore, be used to translate katkattiya- in the action of horses after they have been doused with water. "Shiver" or "tremble" are the clearest translations.katra-: The term "operative" has unfortunate and misleading overtones. "Functionary" or "official" would have been more accurate.kattu-: KUB 43.60, the only place where this term occurs, is admittedly difficult to understand. But I am convinced that C. Watkins was right in his understanding of kaddu[check{s}]mit as the instrumental *kaddut = [check{s}]mit "with their k." confirmed by kad-du-ut udau in KUB 43.60 i 17, not cited here by Puhvel. The translations of kattu- and kadduwai- here ("aggrieved") are to me quite unconvincing. kattawatar and its cognates are another story; I am not convinced they are derived from this *kattu-.kadupai-: See remarks above on ka[check{s}]dupai-. Here we have another regrettable lapse into the "touchy, feely" world of "phonesthetic feel." Oh, to be so intuitive!gem-, etc.: This is a very good article, containing a helpful assemblage of information about spellings and forms. This isn't to say, however, that one agrees with all that is in it. On p. 144, in discussing KUB 13.1 iv 12-13 and KUB 13.2 iv 23-24, Puhvel has overlooked Hoffner 1971, where these two passages were combined and clarified. aniyatta[...] is not "vestments" here, nor should one read G[grave{U}]B-a[check{s}] "leftovers"! The latter is the KIN sign and is the logographic equivalent of the former. Winter "work" or "tasks" are in view in both passages. KBo 2.5 iv 11 is cited without its direct join, KBo 16.17 iv, which restores the end of the verb. On the more substantive level it would have been helpful to inform the reader that the syllabic writings predominate in the historical and "literary" texts, while KUSSU and [[check{S}]E.sub.12] are more common in cultic and administrative documents.genu-: This article, too, is carefully composed and rich in information. But again far too many unnecessary examples of routine forms are cited in full context. The truly significant forms can easily be swamped by the routine and unimportant ones. Puhvel does not explain why he transcribes gi-e-nu instead of the more correct ge-e-nu. If a phonological reality is hinted at, it is unexplained. In the bound transcriptions he writes genu. Neither Puhvel nor E. Neu (in StBoT 25:24 and 26:97) explain the form gi-nu-ut-ti-at-k[acute{a}]n as a dupl. of instr. gi-nu-ta-at-k[acute{a}]n. One should make some analysis in a dictionary article! On p. 150 ad KBo 10.52 vi 6-7 peran is postposition dependent upon kinuwa[check{s}] = [check{s}]a[check{s}] "in front of his knees" rather than preverb with par[check{s}]iya "he fritters forth." The ograde forms of kanu[check{s}]([check{s}]a)riya- are exceedingly interesting. One would have welcomed some explanation of the grade alternations in the same verb. Is the criterion diach ronic? A Middle Hittite script example in KBo 38.57:17' k[bar{a}]nu[check{s}]ariyezzi has been missed.kinun: In re the discussion on p. 185 of markedness in time expressions, note that lammar "immediately," "(this) moment" (CHD L-N, s.v. lammar 2) shows that the immediate hour is unmarked, while more remote time is not.kipriti-: The link between kipriti- bird and kipriti- "sulphur" may not be a connection to riverbanks or shores, but to the sulphur-color of the bird's plumage.Ki[check{s}]-: Far too many examples of routine forms are given here, especially since virtually all of the spellings were already documented in Neu, StBoT 5. Rare and significant forms should always be given in full, which was not done for the participle ki[check{s}]ant- (p. 197). Add: KBo 10.6:6-7 and PP 2 A obv. 42. The occurrence of a supine built to the reduplicated form ki-ik-ki-i[check{s}]-[check{s}]u-u-wa-an (p. 198) is significant, since in post-OH supines were inevitably built only to the iterative (-[check{s}]ki-) stems of verbs. And since reduplication performs the same semantic role as the -[check{s}]ki-forms, this is precisely as expected.-k(k)u: Regarding immakku "just now" (p. 203) Puhvel has failed to give priority and credit to Hoffner 1995. Regarding nikku/nekku, reference should have been made to CHD, s.v.ku(e)luwana-: I'm afraid Puhvel has rather made a mess of the evidence for this word. Not only has he missed several occurrences (KBo 27.69 rev. 9, KBo 22.203 left 6', KUB 31.100 rev. 11-17), but he has mistransliterated and mistranslated the key passage in KUB 9.1 iii 14-22. The actions in the latter are quite similar to some in KUB 31.100. Water is brought in and used to wash the ashes and filth out of the braziers (ha[check{s}][check{s}]u[check{s}]). This waste water flows ([ar-a][check{s}]-zi, insufficient room to restore lahuanzi, as does Puhvel) into the k.'s. The I[check{s}]manali-men bring water with leather bags ([[blank].sup.KU[check{S}]]gazzigazza., not [[blank].sup.URU]Gazzigazza, as with Puhvel). They also bring cow bellies, and pour the water of the k.'s (gen., not abl.; therefore not "from the k.") into the cow bellies. The passages uncited by Puhvel indicate that the k. is not a rigid portable implement ("basin"), as implied in his treatment. For it is malleable and can be the direct object of i[check{s}]ta lk(iya)- "to smooth over" and wanalli[check{s}]ki- (denominative of wenal "pole"). Perhaps it is a basin of hardened mud into which the waste water flows. In KUB 31.100 it seems to be associated with the hu[check{s}][check{s}]elli "mud pit."kuen-: On p. 210 apud KUB 13.35 iii 25-26 "we have not killed it by force" is an unsatisfactory rendering of damme[check{s}]ha[less than]z[greater than], which means not "by force" but "by abuse."kulawan(n)i-: The translation (and interpretation) "military" involving haplology is unconvincing. This remains an obscure term denoting a kind of vassal ([grave{I}]R).gul([check{s}])-: The sibilant is not optional nor should the a-vowel in spellings like gul-a[check{s}]-zi be considered more than a graphic prop vowel. The word was gul[check{s}]zi. Otherwise it would have been written *gu-la-a[check{s}]-zi. To our knowledge the Hittites did not keep beer in wooden "kegs" (p. 240). To use this term raises false expectations, especially among non-specialists.kunk-: This is a very problematic verb. Puhvel has followed the old interpretation given by Friedrich and others, but without their indications of uncertainty and caution. Most of the analysis is fraught with problems. I would certainly not take the long list of English synonyms used to translate it seriously. Needless to say, this makes any attempt at etymology premature.kuntarra-: Since the word is clearly borrowed from Human kundari, it is very likely that the stem to which the Hittite built an a-stem theme vowel was kundarra [less than] *kundari-na, a plurale tantum. Such pluralia tantum are common in terms for buildings or residences. Puhvel has not been careful to use the latest (joined or re-drawn) copies of some of his texts. KUB 32.106 was recopied with joins in KBo 26.65, which reveals a fuller text: nu [[blank].sup.[acute{E}]]kuntarran [[acute{E}].]ME[check{S}] DINGIR.ME[check{S}] anda wemi[check{s}]kizzi. It appears then that kuntarra- was paired with both [[blank].sup.([acute{E}])]karimmi- and [acute{E}] DINGIR-LIM.kupahi-: Puhvel seems troubled by the "much-repeated Semitic tie-in," as though repetition of a phenomenon somehow invalidates it or reduces its importance. I would also like to point out that my treatment in JNES 23:67, cited by Puhvel as the "Semitic" one, was like E. Sapir's not so much a "Semitic" one (for in what other Semitic language do we find the word?) as a Philistine one. Already C. H. Gordon (1965, s.v. in glossary) pointed out that the unsystematized writing of the initial velar ([kb.sup.[subset]] and [qb.sup.[subset]] with alternating k and q) in the word for Goliath's helmet points to a non-Hebrew word.kurimma-: In re the verb kuripahh-, which I (JCS 29:155f.) rendered "she has widowed (me)," new evidence supports this interpretation. O. R. Gurney (by letter) has called my attention to the fact that the verb preceding kuripahh-, which I transliterated tal-wa-tal-la-it, should be read hu!-wa-tal-la-it and compared with the Luwian loanword huwa(n)tallai- that occurs a handful of times in NH texts. Particularly interesting is its use in KUB 21.8 ii 4-5: [[blank].sup.GI[check{S}]][KIRI.sub.6].HI.A[GRAPHIC CHARACTER NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]ya [GRAPHIC CHARACTER NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]h[bar{u}]wantal[ait...] katta vineyards bare; he utterly ruined [...]." Translating ammuk=ma huwatallait [ammuk=ma=p]at kuripahta as "she stripped me (of my dear wife); she widowed me" of the passage in the Mur[check{s}]ili prayer KBo 4.8 iii 3 would be excellent. The -pat would indicate that huwa(n)tallai- and kuripahh- are virtually synonymous here.kurutawant- doesn't mean "helmeted," but rather "wearing a homed crown," according to Th. van den Hout (1995). There is a noun kurut(a) which denotes this horned crown and which is probably related to the Luwian kuru(n)ta, etc.gurzip(p)ant-: One should delete the parenthetical p, as the word is never written with geminate p.k[bar{u}][check{s}]a-: This is a very good article, even if the ideas are not original with Puhvel. I am particularly pleased with Carruba's observation, cited on p. 289, that ku[check{s}]a- denotes the relatives on the wife's side, while kaena- denotes the husband's. A very nice distinction.ku[check{s}]i[check{s}]i-: In the summary paragraph Puhvel omits reference to the West Semitic parallels with the root ksy "to cover," often used of clothes covering the body. The Hittite word underlying [[blank].sup.T[acute{U}]G]N[acute{I}]G.L[acute{A}]M.ME[check{S}] is neither ku[check{s}]i[check{s}]i- nor adupli- ([less than] Akk. utuplu), but terma-.Kutri[check{s}]-: I would concur that this word does not mean "shortness," but "reckoning, counting." The argument is also well made here.ku(wa)liya-: I believe that Puhvel has hypnotized himself into accepting what is essentially a contradiction: being calm or idle and flowing are inherently antithetical, and no amount of fudging with translations like "flow smoothly" can mask this. Furthermore, the body of water most often described as kuwaliu is not a flowing river or stream, but the huwanhue[check{s}][check{s}]ar, which Beckman has persuasively shown is not a wave of the sea, but the subterranean deep. This latter certainly does not "flow," smoothly or otherwise. I would accept Beal's demonstration that the fundamental idea of this word family is inactivity, rest, or calm. I would also choose a different word to denote the male homosexual in the Ur[check{s}]um story, rather than "fruit" (p. 303). If idleness or passivity is the reason for describing a male homosexual's activity as kule[check{s}][check{s}]ar, I would think he was the passive partner. The colloquial term for this is not "fruit," but "queen."kuwan-: If Melchert is right that this word is etymologically identical to the word in PIE for "dog," I would argue that it has been transferred in Hittite to another type of canine animal, since L[acute{U}] kuwana[check{s}] is listed alongside L[acute{U}] [UR.GI.sub.7] and cannot be synonymous. But I cannot accept Puhvel's idea that it denotes a different breed of dog, since in Hittite (as in Akkadian) different breeds of dog are denoted not by new words, but by genitival complements such as [UR.GI.sub.7] [[blank].sup.L[acute{U}]]SIPA-a[check{s}] "shepherd's dog," L[acute{U}] [UR.GI.sub.7]-a[check{s}] [UR.GI.sub.7] "hunter's dog," [UR.GI.sub.7] hilanna[check{s}] "dog of the farmyard" (laws [ss][ss]87-89).ku(w)an(a)- "woman": Obviously, this is a controversial (and indeed important) lemma. Puhvel takes a middle position between Neu, G[ddot{u}]terbock, and Carruba, accepting a little of each's contentions. The final word has not yet been spoken or written on this issue, but I commend Puhvel for his balanced treatment and good coverage of the secondary literature. It appears, however, that--if he is right--"dog" and "woman" in many grammatical cases would have been written and perhaps spoken alike!ku(wa)nna(n)-: On the origin of the name of the island Cyprus, discussed on p. 310, one should now see E. Neu (1995-96 [1997]).Finally, it is very considerate and conscientious of Puhvel to include at the end of this volume a list of corrections and additions to volumes 1-3 of this dictionary. I have not taken the time to check any of them for this review.This is a review-article of: Hittite Etymological Dictionary, vol. 4: Words beginning with K. By JAAN PUHVEL. Trends in Linguistics, vol. 14: Berlin: WALTER DE GRUYTER, 1997. Pp. ix 333. DM 248.REFERENCESGordon, Cyrus Herzl. 1965. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. Analecta Orientalia: commentationes scientificae de rebus Orientis antiqui, vol. 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.G[ddot{u}]terbock, Hans Gustav. 1961. Review of Johannes.Friedrich, Die hethitischen Gesetze (1959). Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15: 62-78.Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 1968. Review of Onofrio Carruba, Das Beschw[ddot{o}]rungsritual f[ddot{u}]r die G[ddot{u}]ttin Wi[check{s}]uriyanazaa. JAOS 88: 531-34._____. 1971. Hittite ega- and egan-. Journal of Cune iform Studies 24: 3 1-36._____. 1974. Ailmenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. AOS, vol. 55. New Haven: American Oriental Society._____. 1995. Hittite immakku: "moreover" or "just now"? In Atti del II congresso internazionale de hittitologia, ed. Onofrio Carruba, Mauro Giorgieri, and Clelia Mora. Pp. 191-94. Pavia: luculano.van den Hout, Theo P. J. 1995. Review of Peter J. Neve, Hattu[check{s}]a: Stadt der G[ddot{o}]tter und Tempel (1992). Bibliotheca Orientalis 52: 545-73.Neu, Erich. 1995-1996 [1997]. Zur Herkunft des Inselnamens Kypros. Glotta 73: 1-7.COPYRIGHT 2000 American Oriental Society

Comments
  • Recommend Us