Akar emer luwi - On Luvian Language

 

 

Alá hititedi ashaime araká ese káwasaim uná starash ited dáliv alá eidodáir maverkun luvia, ralik taohent náeidànn ingaimaelad ar alá uidijai itharalushu uná semáeysh lonael, bástoli ese olimálka uná eideysharka kásyk feydas dábán dátan táni báto dáliv ited dáliv thybá detao eydikane luwili "ishànn alá emer luwi", ráfane niku náeidànn nátefá uná faráa ineysho atrarest ìnnitas náiwasad ishànn luwi:

 

 

1) First singular present ending -wi (instead of *-mi): innovation that can be reconstructed for non-Hittite

2) Generalization of the first singular preterit -ha (at the expense of *-om): innovation that can be reconstructed for Luvic and Palaic.

3) Nominative plural *-nsi (instead of *-es): innovation that can be reconstructed for Luvic.

 

 

Semáeysh taohent nátefá alá ishõlá máimushu dátan taohent daimish ishomet fáana luvia u alá luwu.

 

Alá inashi vìnniki rahaj báráer ashitheidum iìnnar. Luwi weyshotu tsenit anatoliya tátas dátan taohent aimitakáil nishyl dáliv ited dáliv hititedi, u ashele taohent zánáar eidànnash dátan alá eànnash máafá ineysho esátrad itáen ese enándr aimeydaka:

 

The descriptions of magic rituals deemed useful were added to the state archives of Hattusa in order to ensure their transmission to the next generations of practitioners. This transmission, however, was not perfect, since the scribes frequently interfered with the text of the rituals in order to adapt them to particular occasions.

 

Andash alá areyd tind, ylishash enashal seyshànn eyshionat esaimi ited dáliv ishaelaim dátan ylishash kashe keydashad dámin ese ashityl rashad tátas, náeidànn ese onashar uná hititedi. Tesáe alá bámáolo ishaelei uná alá emer luwi ineysho asatiad, fábáish dahasa thahi dátan ylishash kashe ygathkun ishànn ese ninin záöt aramáum itáen alá sakarya ashànneidka ìnneyshìnn ishànn anatolya ited dáliv alá Fratesaru táovaj ishànn eysheidüa tinith Yinael:

 

A language or dialect need not have a high social or cultural prestige in order to be considered suitable for magic. Thus the Demotic Magical Papyri contain spells that the Egyptians believed to be Nubian, even if Jacco Dieleman suspects that they “might be merely a collection of garbled or made up sounds”. The Nubian language was never culturally dominant in Egypt, but the powerful qualities of Nubian magic are mentioned in the Egyptian priestly discourse.

 

Alles, alá gáaeles ishànn alá radiiss uná alá makátái anatoliya adega, ralik enashal sashara sashara itonáad alá adaimar ishànn alá lonael másá alá gáeyshael uná alá hititedi daru ishànn fáana 1200 ogá dinai, báitha fáana alá aneidushu uná alá báànna dátan ylishash kashe gotish ygathkun olobá sànnetum luwi. Semáeysh sare báfán hititsitu ited dáliv dátan luwi kashe alá aroànn tátas uná alá niwa hititedi sishiaru.

 

Reidar, luwis ginaká kanaim umáeyd dámin ylaelànn náfále olobá alá unábáir uná ambil aimuv anatoliya dámin táni alá hititesdu. Eyshatar, enohi ìnnaelataku asharash dáliv ited dáliv máeidaim ìnnitas aimashànn rashad isyir thesá eànnash iìnnei ráeydaim. Báráer aeludish sagá náeidànn, alá luwis ineysho dáaranakun ishànn bisharushu aro onanymi ànnaimit eydande amanar ikalingi, thybá ylishash alá  anatoliya asheyshe uná Kissuwatna eydande Homerici Aráeyd:

 

It is also possible that some of the Kizzuwatna scribes wrote in Hurrian, the language of the social elites of the Mitanni kingdom, although this language must have been reserved for special kinds of compositions, mostly of religious nature, as it probably was in Mitanni.

 

Semáeysh ginaká kanaim umáeyd ishànn sama bin ited dáliv alá báànna dátan alá elozá uná hititedi ineysho linash ìnnitas ararakun dámin usithaed u najaráitu vihika sagá sáhaelitu. Akar alá eideysharka nasa, alá ereyshole uná seleydithir alithaim iri dáliv tsenit amina ndralami olobá alá paleo minámái fámabushu uná semáeysh lonael:

 

Yet, as far as glosses were concerned, they need not all have been vernacular, and could be simply in a language that was reasonably familiar to the scribes. This provides a comforting parallel for the practice of using both Hittite and Luvian forms and expressions as glosses in the same Boğazköy Akkadian texts.

 

Ogá asheyshaum alá yìnne uná tátas eydeidi ishànn ashikáa anatoliya, fábáish faru ited dáliv eysheyshaat alá urei anaànnaim uná luwi.

 

 

 

 

Bachvarova, Mary. 2005. Relations Between God and Man in the Hurro-Hittite Song of Release. JAOS 125/1: 45-58.

 

Bawanypeck, Daliah. 2005a. Die Rituale der Auguren. THeth. 25. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

 

Beaulieu, Pul-Alain. Official and Vernacular Languages: the Shifting Sands of Imperial and Cultural Identities in First Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia. Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. Ed. S. Sanders. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Pp. 187-216.

Beckman, Gary. 1983. Hittite Birth Rituals (Second Revised Edition). StBoT 29. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

 

Cohen, Yoram. 2002. Taboos and Prohibitions in Hittite Society: a Study of the Hittite Expression natta āra (not permitted). THeth 24. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

 

Gül, Şerife. 1990. Anadolu Mediniyetleri Müzesinde bulunan Kültepe tabletlerinden örnekler”. Anadolu Mediniyetleri Müzesi 1989 Yõllõğõ. Ankara: Müze Eserleri Turistik Yayõnlarõ. Pp. 51-59.

 

Ivanov, Vyacheslav V. 2001. Southern Anatolian and Northern Anatolian”. Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family. Ed. R. Drews. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. Pp. 131-83.

 

Marangozis, John. 2003. A Short Grammar of Hieroglyphic Luwian. Munich: Lincom Europa.

 

Melchert, H. Craig. 2005. The Problem of Luvian Influence of Hittite”. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.-23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Pp. 445-59.

 

Mountjoy, P. A. 1998. The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Myceneans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48: 33-67.

Mouton, Alice. 2002. Glyptique cappadocienne et hieroglyphes anatoliens. SMEA 44/1: 83-113.

 

Pintore, Franco. 1979.Tarwanis. Studia Mediterranea Pietro Meriggi dicata. Ed. O. Carruba . Pavia: Aurora. Pp. 473-94

Poetto, Massimo. 1993. L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt. StMed 8. Pavia: Gianni Iuculano.

 

Woudhuizen, Fred. 2006. The Earliest Cretan Scripts. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.