154 Ana Elisabeth Harms aur Geschichte Anatoiens. Kommen- erin gen Be . gies ind Mesopotaraien um 700 v. Chr ce, Anne: aria (2008). Mu rae reer Mielmeerreum tar zur TAVO-Karte BIV 8 ‘Wiesbaden: Reichert ilya Yakubovich The degree of comparison in Luwian Abstract: The paper argues for the existence of the synchretic comparative and superlative degree in Luwian, which in the majority of cases finds a morphologi- cal expression in the suffix ->ra- appended to the thematic bases of the adjectives, sometimes in lieu of other secondary sulfixes found in the positive degree (e.g. washazza- ‘most devoted, benevolent’ vs. washaya- devoted’). This morpheme ‘etymologically goes back to the Indo-European suffix *tfo-, which is used in Hit- tite for the formation of polar adjectives (e. g. hantezzi(ya)- ‘first’ or sarazzi(ya)- ‘upper’. In addition (o the synthetic superlatives, we also have evidence of ana- Iytically formed superlative adjectives in Luwian, Keywords: Luwian, Hittite, Anatolian, Indo-European, adjective, comparative, su- perlative iiya Yakubovich (sogdiana7s3@gmail.com): Ilya Yakubovich, Moscow State University and Russian Aeademy of Sciences (Moscow), Phillpps-Unversitit Marburg A well-established feature of the Hittite language, which separates it from the better-known ancient Indo-European languages, such as Latin, Greek, or Vedic, Is the lack of morphological expression forthe comparative and superlative degrees ‘of adjectives (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 273-76) This point can be ilustrated by the passage (1) from the Hittite Prayer tothe Sun-goddess of Arinna. Ibis easy tosee thatthe adjectives nakki- important’ and sal ‘great’ occur there in such contexts that would likely prompt the use of the superlative and comparative adjectives ina language where the respective degrees would be available as morphologi ‘alcatogories. 1 The work on this paper has been supported by a Humboldt Fellowship tenured at the Philipps ‘Untoetsiat Marbare. The meaning of the Luwlan Sufix -z20- has been discussed in somedetall ‘ith Davie Sasceville, and although we hold divergent opinion on theintergretation of certain ‘acts, | have much benefited fom this discussion, Ata mare advanced stage, this payer has tenoited greatly from detailed comments by Craig Molchert and a remark by Migual Valéio. Sicoben Durnford and an anonymous reviewer contibuled to both improving its content and farrectng ts style, The usa disclaimer, ofcourse, apply.156 — ya Yakubovieh auTu YArinna nakkis salles=sa=2 thouvoneenew Sun-godessAinna_ Imporlan.Nos. se. geat.now.sc.c-an 4uTu “grinna namma=taxkkan —— damais ingodess Ariana ‘Fuathermoresthou.oot-r10.ather.nom sce ‘hou now eu S DINGIR-LAM naikkis sallis=sa OL esi eed mportant.vowse.c great NoMtse.CeAND NEG DESPA “You, the Sun-goddess of Arinna are (most) important. The great(est one) is ‘you, the Sun-goddess of Arinna. There is no other god great(er) or (more) important than you. (KUB 24.3 1 32-34, CTH 2761 A, ef Lebrun 1980: 158) By contrast, the expression of degrees of comparison in Luwian seems to havenever been the subject of systematic investigation. There is no mention of such category in Melchert 2003, while Pléch! (2003: 62) limits himself to an observation that one ‘of the apparent functions of the dative-locative case in Luwian is the expression of standard in a comparative construction. Presumably, the Anatolists assume by default that the category of degree of comparison was not morphologically ‘expressed in Luwian, because this was the case in Hittite. This issue, however, ‘mustbe revisited, since there area sufficient number of Luwian passages where the presence of formally marked superlative forms can be either proven or plausibly surmised, Unfortunately, I will have less to say about the expression of comparative ‘degree in Luwian, since Iam presently aware of only one likely context illustrating ‘a morphological comparative. It is appropriate to begin this survey with the analysis of two closely related passages from the well-understood bilingual inscription of KARATEPE. In both contexts the divine blessings are invoked upon Azatiwada, the acting regent of the principality of Que/Hiyawa and the author of the text, The Phoenician version of the inscription twice mentions the same specific boon sought from the gods, wz ‘dr ‘tel milk‘and powerful strength above every king’ (Gambel 1999: 52F., $66) 2} Throughout thie paper have tried to follow the terminelogical usage of Gorshenin 2012 in the ‘escription of the comparative and superiaive constuction. In particular, assume dat il isthe standard in the construction “John salle than Bi”, wheres tl represent te scope in the construction “Johns he ales fal his brties" 3 This pase corresponds to Luvin passages 2) and (3)in two ofthe three copies of the Phoetl- ‘an vetsion of tbe KARATEPE inseriptlon, namely PBU and PhO. These two copies properly ben to the bilingual, in a sense that they were placed inthe proximity ofthe Luwan versions Ha, and Ho, They contrast with the slighlly diferent version PhSt, which is placed onthe statue the Storm god and doesnot have an immediate Luwian counterpart. The text of PhSt contains theelipic phrase with an addtional preposition w-b'= “dr Tk mtkane’ with powerful stent above every King’s the equivalent of (2), but sno differen from the other Phoenician copies it the Instance of 3) (Camb 1999: 64.) et of fon’ brothers = Ts The degree of comparisonin tuwian — 157 ‘The Luwian versio inversion, however, uses two different strategies of complementing the use, In (3) the rough equivalent of the P! i . lers is expressed in both Luwian clauses with the scope in the dative oe SUPERera/ita= Ison! ane it ae (2), is cognate with the postposit on (2) KARATEPE §50, f. Hawkins 2000: 1, 55 (ilu) SUPER+ra/ti-ké-wa/i-sa Ssupremely-and=rre (OMNIS.MI-ma-za REX-ta-za become.gscinev.neeo allowca eee (H0.) [SUPER ‘ra/i-s-ha-wa/isa fF pees Fee 2a/ tahawa/isa IRONS Isai JOMNIS. “Lethim also become foremost among all kings! (8) KARATEPE §52, cf, Hawkins 2000: 1,55 (Hu) Ipiianrhé-wa/eta OF ce MINIS. M-maza (pihas-sa tani Aesrinncantrracheonionsen Gommaseasnee REX-za SUPER+ra/i-ta EEE engonset above (o.) _ptid-ta-hé-wa/i-ra OMNIS, waif Ml-ma-za-" *FULGUR"-hd-sd fees :a-* “FULGUR"-hd-sdl OMNIS.MI-2a “May they also give to him all the glory? above all kings the Ho, version, aaa cate pala anton ot ssc nda ‘tate ome nr chan eae ttn a nnn) enced nfo I ‘dr "powerful stengt’ ofthe Phoenician ‘lightning’ is ain in its meaning to the Akkadian ar kings. The oli comparison between Al same Luwian root has already been allie tain158 — ya Yakubovieh {would like to suggest that /sari xantili/ foremost’ functions here asan analytical superiative degree of /hantili ‘zs’ (Type INT of Gorshenin 2012: 61). A synthetic parallel to this formation can be seen in some personal names appearing in the siphabetic Luwic corpora ofthe frst millennium BC, such as Lycian hrixttbli (cf. Lye. PN. Keifidag in Greek transmission, Melchert 2004: 95), and Carian Sarkbiom and Sarusod (cf. Cat. PNs Kbjom- and uSoA, Adiego Lajara 2007: 416-18). The Lycian prefix hr- and Carian prefix Sar are both thought to be lexical cognates of the Luvvian local adver sari ‘up, above’ (Adiego Lajara 2007: 416). When added to the base X, they are likely to yield the intensifying meaning ‘superX’, which is faltly close to the superlative meaning if the base is adjectival ® A cognate of Luw. sarristhe polar adjective sari(a/)- "upper, superior’, which in turn provides the derivational base for the adverb sarl. Therefore, the derivation exemplified by 2) ray actually be common Luwic in origin, even though the superlative markers do not show a one-to-one correspondence.” "A further suggestive example of an analytical superlative in Luwian comes froma building inscription of Katuwa, ruler ofCarchemish, who bragsabout having ecorated the ancestral gates with orthostats. Theadjective ARGENTUM.DARE-stia “costly which describes the result of his work, Is modified by the advert FRONS- lafifa~ [xantili/. Hawkins loc. cl.) translates this combination as ‘foremostin cost’, but the superlative construction ‘most costly’ would yield the same meaning while better preserving the syntax of the Luwian original. In this case the con struction can be, stricly speaking, called elative ot absolute superiative, because the scope of comparison is not explicitly mentioned (Gorshenin 2012: 60). Never- theless, the semantics of the adverbial modifier /xantli/, which is derived from the Luwian adjective hantil() fist’ mentioned in connection with (2), speaks i favor of an implicit comparison with the other gates, which would presumably lack equally spectacular orthostats, Therefore examples (2) and (4) can be taken ‘F-ck Melchert forthcoming) where the Carian name Sarat is explained as “super blessed ‘The doubts of Adiege Lajare GO07; 244, f, 16) about its genetic connection with Lave wast ‘goa! appen tobe unfounded, ince he form ean be revunsticted = (etal ar asia pers a uorvatve ofthe parallel adjectival stem *wasiya-l would, hovsever, suggest that since one theaning ofthe basi Luwian root was- was tobe favored, dear (f, Yakulovich 2002: 197-202), the Carian name in question can be interpreted as ‘Gearest. As such it cam be contrasted with snother Carian name pr-uioM/!(Adiego Lajara 2007: 401), whici would then mean ‘éeartoall 7 Amore remote, merely typotosicl parallels the Slavic eupeiatvein*nat, which is normaly considered tobe related tothe Siavie peasiion ‘na ‘on’ and “nad above’ (Vasmer 195521908 inmost Siavic languages this suffix is used to reinforce the superlative sux, butin Bulgin a [Novedonian itis direetly appended to the basi adjectival stem to yield the superlative measlrg (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 459). (ene SP A The degree of comparison inLuwian — 159 as reflecting the same phenomenon, ae 1amely the superlative construction formed. @ ranafita IFRONS-la//u ARGENTUM.DARE-stia “asa.té wy ones paysasee erties begsciesr (KARKAMIS Atia §17, Hawkins 2000: 1, 95) iain of onomastics. The Anatolian divi 1d. a bins ), 7 ich was located in the Lower Land, a likely Luwian-speaking area, m apeereatt ‘Suggest that we are dealing here with a Hittite ‘calque of the wian 1¢ (C. g, *hanti-muwatalla/i- or *sarri-muwatalla/i j cae ‘Personal name kéusig and kéusoll (CE. Adiego Lajara 2007; 372), sca L008 2 0u evidences imited toa handfl ef fomallydvegent analy ind prefixal superlatives, itis hardly possible to ar the 7 degree was ever grammaticz Seta “They were most costly.” ‘d in Luwian. Fortunately fc ae wae a tonal exanse wee hese etsy apes: ohae brn pire shay anor nba os mee op cst sree W ‘main function of the Luwian suffix (a)~ soe spp facet ems? Meche (20317) observes thats orphemeiedeloyd a hee contrast should, of course, be distinguished ftom ese constuction eins rt supeatve Ron, clog sane ae ily be es ae ‘centuty ruler of Caria attested as MavowAng in Greek trate tthe ae _ ofthe Mausoleura of Halicarnassus). This name can be interpreted as * amie meena tan corte ki Laan, Haviie 2000: 1, 66 with ref,), The proposed segmentati id canbe found ia ‘elow), [tis alsa deployed inthe formation of the individualized adject rs iad pom