Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:19:54.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Negatives in Hieroglyphic Luwian1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. D. Hawkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The reading of the Hieroglyphic signs had from the early days of decipherment been linked with that of other signs, in particular with , and with the two forms of the RELATIVE, an association based on similarity of appearance as well as the parallelism of the distinction by means of the double stroke at the base. The evaluation of as the “vowel series” i/ī/a/ā by Meriggi, and the recognition of the RELATIVE signs as such by Forrer, divided the way between these two groups. The phonetic reading of the relative remained long in doubt. An earlier reading as ia etc., based on a confusion with the “vowel signs” was rejected by Gelb, while Gelb's own reading of ki was discarded by Bossert, who on largely invalid grounds postulated a phonetic development kwa > hwa > wa. In spite of the dubious points in his argument, Bossert has generally been followed, at least in his reading hwa, especially since the identification of a number of Hieroglyphic verbs employing in their writing the signs REL/REL2 with corresponding cuneiform Luwian verbs written with a hu or ku(-wa). Most recently it has been argued that the relative belongs to the class of -i-stems with a presumed reading hwi-.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 25 , December 1975 , pp. 119 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Meriggi, Glossar 2 nos. 166 and 167. It is here recognized that 167 appears in the forms nos. 163–4 in TOPADA, and 169 in CARCHEMISH A 6, while 166 appears perhaps as 162 in TOPADA and 168 in CARCHEMISH A 6. These identifications were made by Gelb, , HH III, 62 fGoogle Scholar. It is unfortunate that Laroche does not distinguish between Meriggi 166 and 167; in the two places where he transliterates 166, he takes it as REL (p. 29—CARCHEMISH A 11 a, 7; p. 140—CARCHEMISH A 6, 8). All other appearances he includes under HH, no. 332 (REL2 for him).

3 Meriggi, Glossar 2, nos. 160 and 161. These too Laroche does not distinguish but lists all forms under HH, no. 329, and transliterates REL. Although they appear to interchange freely and no distinction between the two has yet been properly established, it is preferable to keep them separate. Here they are taken as REL (Meriggi, 160) and REL2, (Meriggi, 161).

4 ZA 39 (1930), 184Google Scholar.

5 HB (1932), 41 fGoogle Scholar.

6 HH III, 54 ffGoogle Scholar.

7 Oriens 1 (1948), 178Google Scholar; ibid., 2 (1949), 100; Belleten 16 (1952), 511 f.Google Scholar; AfO 17 (1955), 68Google Scholar. His reading of REL as wa was based on KARATEPE 62, Hu. (TERRA)ta-sà-REL+ra/ı: Ho. TERRA+LA+LA(-)wa/i+ra/i-ri+i. Bossert read these KI da-s(a)-wa+da(?)-da/KI das(a)-wa+da(?)-a+da (Oriens 2 (1949), 102Google Scholar), thereby gaining an alternation of REL(+ra/i) with wa(+ra/i). The two words are certainly in the dative (the final -ta in Bossert's Hu is an error) and whatever the second word is, it can hardly be the same as *tashwara/i-. The inference REL=wa is clearly invalid.

8 Cf. Meriggi, , Glossar2, 4Google Scholar; Palmer, TPS 1958, 60 f.Google Scholar; Laroche, , HH, no. 329 IIGoogle Scholar; id., BSL 55 (1960), 175; Gelb, , Language 38 (1962), 205Google Scholar; Kammenhuber, , Hb.Or. II/2, 171 n. 2Google Scholar; Steinherr, , Anadolu Araştırmaları 2 (1965)Google Scholar (In Memoriam H. T. Bossert), 30 ff.

9 (PES2)(REL2).REL2-ia-, Luw. (hui)huiya-, “run” (Laroche, , BSL 53 (1958), 195 and n. 5Google Scholar); REL/REL2.sà-, Luw./Hitt. kuwaya-, “fear” (Laroche, DLL, s.v.; id., BSL 55 (1960), 175 n. 2; Friedrich, , HWb, Ergänzungsheft 2, pp. 16, 41, 46Google Scholar); REL-za-(†REL-ī-), Hitt. kuwa(n)šk-(iter. kwen-). “incise” (Laroche, , Syria 35 (1958), 279 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the reading za for ī following HHL facilitates the interpretation of this verb); REL+ra/i-, Hitt. kwer-, “cut” (see below citation 50, note); pa-sà-REL- (SULTANHAN stele, 5), Hitt. paškuwai-, “neglect(?)” (pointed out by Miss Jill Hart).

10 HHL, 34.

11 Glossar 2, 4 and 155; Language 38 (1962), 205Google Scholar; Die Sprache 8 (1962), 280Google Scholar; ibid., 9 (1963), 79 f.; ibid., 10 (1964), 53.

12 For Bossert's views, cf. e.g. Oriens 2 (1949), 113 n. 108Google Scholar; for Laroche, HH, no. 332, note.

13 An. St. 19 (1969), 101 fGoogle Scholar.

14 Glossar 2, 169 (†DUMU-n.-wa- etc.); HH, no. 45 II (d-e). The reduplicated form nawanawa- shows us that here we have the full phonetic spelling.

15 By the kind permission of the General Directorate of Antiquities, Republic of Lebanon, I am preparing an edition of this stele.

16 HH III, 60 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Loc. cit. above, footnote 11.

18 HHL, 13 f.

19 The identification was made by Gelb, (HH III, 63Google Scholar); and the development noted by Laroche, (HH, no. 332, 1–5Google Scholar)

20 For the reading nawa, against the possible nawi, see below, A. Morpurgo-Davies, p. 158, n. 12.

21 See HHL, 12 f.

22 This interpretation of nawa as a secondary form is hardly disproved by the fact that it is the only form yet recognized in cuneiform Luwian. The number of contexts in which it is found there is exceedingly restricted, being confined to a few stereotyped ritual comparisons. A word na-a is attested although in a fragmentary context (DLL, s.v.) For the negatives na, “not”, nawa, “never etc.”, we may compare Hitt. natta (itself an extended form) “not”, numan/nuwan “never etc.” For another appearance of the basic root of the negative, cf. Lyc. ne (ten Cate, Houwink, Luw. Population Groups, 82 f.Google Scholar). See also below, A. Morpurgo-Davies, p. 158.

23 Friedrich, following Bossert's erroneous “construction” of a negative, realized the Phoen. correspondence and listed it (HWb, 335). Both he and Bossert correctly sought a na but found it incorrectly in the na of SUB-na-na instead of in NEG2,-wa. Thus ironically very little is needed to correct Friedrich's entry, nata should be deleted, and the reference should be to KARATEPE 108 (for the revised numbering see citation 15, note) to which could also be added KARATEPE 134 a. Properly speaking too Friedrich's entry should be “*na (NEG2), “nicht” etc.”

24 E.g. Apology of Hattusilis, iv 53 ff., “What presentations they continually brought to me, they had brought to none of my fathers and grandfathers”; Kilamuwa Inscription (Donner and Röllig, KAI 2, no. 24), ll. 2–5, “GBR was king over J'DJ and did nothing, and there was BMH, and he did nothing, and there was my father HJ' and he did nothing and there was my brother Š'L and he did nothing. But I Kilamuwa … whatever I accomplished, the predecessors had not accomplished”; Annals of Sennacherib, iv. 15 ff., “unopened ways (and) difficult paths (which) no one of earlier former kings had travelled before me”: and passim in Assyrian annals.

25 Written na/ná(-a) (Meriggi), ná/nà(-a) (Laroche), ni/ní(-a) (Mittelberger, , Die Sprache 8 (1962), 281 f.Google Scholar; ibid., 9 (1963), 74 f).

26 Most recently in HHL, 47.

27 Friedrich, , Elementarbuch I 2, 146Google Scholar (282 d); cf. Sommer, , AU, 106Google Scholar.

28 Meriggi, , RHA II/9 (1932), 49 f.Google Scholar; id., Manuale I, 108; explained by Friedrich as “<ma(n) (dissimiliert) +pa+wa, HWb, 335 s.v. napawa. Gelb was already reading ni/epawa in HH III, 48, 50, 67; the acceptance of the Gelb-Mittelberger values of ni/ní (HHL, 23) results in the acceptance of nipa-.

29 Read i × ā-pa(-wa) by Meriggi (Glossar 2, 156) and translated “oppure” (e.g. Manuale II/1, 61, fr. 22–23, 66 fr. 2, 6); followed by Mittelberger, , translating “oder” (e.g. Die Sprache 9 (1963), 106, Ta II 7Google Scholar). Laroche reads REL-pa(-wa), and translates “quiconque” (e.g. HH, 139, CARCHEMISH A 11 c, 2–3).

30 But cf. Friedrich's explanation, above, note 28. Also Carruba, Die Satzeinleitenden Partikeln, 68 f. Both these explanations would apply only to napa and are not here accepted.

page 148 note 1 Friedrich, HWb, s.v.; also Ergänzungsheft 1 and 2; Goetze, , JAOS 74 (1954), 188Google Scholar.

page 148 note 2 HWb, s.v.; Finkelstein, , JCS 10 (1956), 103Google Scholar.

page 148 note 3 Meriggi, , WZKM 53 (1956–1957), 222Google Scholar.

page 148 note 4 Orientalia 20 (1951), 113Google Scholar.

page 148 note 5 Glossar 2, 55, s.v. “23” hata-. Cf. above, citation 47 a.

page 149 note 6 For the value sí ? for HH, no. 456, see above citation 6 (ii) and (iii) and notes. The third occurrence of the sign is the passage here; the abl. ending -sa 5+ra/i points to an s-value in the nominative, and the value sí fits here as well as in the other two examples.

page 149 note 7 Goetze, , JAOS 74 (1954), 188Google Scholar.

page 149 note 8 Goetze, , Language 29 (1953), 273 ffGoogle Scholar. n. 82. His meaning “male” for this word is only a guess.

page 149 note 9 Bossert, , Symbolae … Hrozny IV (1950), 33Google Scholar; Glossary 86; Manuale I, 58, § 104Google Scholar; HH, no. 26, 2.

page 149 note 10 Bossert, (JKF 2 (1952–1953) 309 and 322–24Google Scholar) and Meriggi, (Manuale II/1, 83Google Scholar) both ignore the -wa+as, “and he…”, and tranlsate SUPER+RA-lì/li- as nom. sing. MF, which it can hardly be. Laroche (HH, no, 70/2) gains good sense by omitting the offending nalas.

page 150 note 11 PALANGA 1; HAMATH VI, 1; CARCHEMISH A 26 a, 2, 3.

page 150 note 12 CARCHEMISH A 11 a, 5; either “first” or “no” would be possible.

page 150 note 13 Cf. Iraq 36 (1974), 68 n. 6Google Scholar.

page 150 note 14 HWb, s.v.; also Ergänzungsheft 1 and 3.

page 150 note 15 DLL, s.v.

page 151 note 16 Emre, K., Anadolu 15 (1971), Plate XIIGoogle Scholar.

page 151 note 17 For such phonetic indicators attached to the logogram, cf. above citation 6 (i) and note (FINES+RA+HI-ha-hì-, irhali-).

page 151 note 18 tanimi-, “all” is an -i-stem, and most forms are written OMNIS-MI-, tanimi. However certain forms end in -ma-, i.e. nom./acc. sing./plur. N, dat. plur. MFN, genitival adj. in -asi-. These may be written OMNIS-MI-ma-. That the MI belongs with the logogram and should not be read is proved by KARATEPE 281 (see above, Appendix 1 A)—

Thus the confusing -mima forms listed by Meriggi and Laroche (Glossar 2, 117; Manuale I, 39 § 42Google Scholar; HH, no. 366, 2) do not exist and should be deleted.