Sonderdruck aus UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN Internationales Jahrbuch fr die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palstinas Herausgegeben von Manfried Dietrich Oswald Loretz Band 42 2010 Ugarit-Verlag Mnster 2011 Herausgeber Manfried Dietrich / Oswald Loretz, Ugarit-Verlag, Ricarda-Huch-Str. 6, D-48161 Mnster (Manfried Dietrich: ugarit@uni-muenster.de) Redaktion Ugarit-Verlag, c/o Institut fr Altorientalische Philologie und Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde, Rosenstr. 9, D-48143 Mnster (Kai A. Metzler : metzler@ugarit-verlag.de) Fr unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewhr bernommen werden. Die Herausgeber sind nicht verpflichtet, unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen. Manuskripte fr die einzelnen Jahresbnde werden jeweils bis zum 31. 12. des vorausgehenden Jahres erbeten. 2011 Ugarit-Verlag, Mnster (www.ugarit-verlag.de) Alle Rechte vorbehalten All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Herstellung: Hubert & Co, Gttingen Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-86835-053-1 Printed on acid-free paper Inhalt Artikel Al-Shorman, Abdulla / Al-Bashaireh, Khaled / Doomi, Mohammad Bani The Paleoclimate of the Northwestern Jordan in Late Antiquity .................... 1 Best, Jan / Lia Rietveld Structuring Byblos tablets c and d ................................................................. 15 Bloch, Yigal Setting the Dates: Re-evaluation of the Chronology of Babylonia in the 14th11th Centuries B.C.E. and Its Implications for the Reigns of Ramesses II and attuili III ............................................. 41 Carbillet, Aurlie Un chapiteau hathorique indit dAmathonte (Chypre) ................................ 97 Devecchi, Elena RS 17.62 + RS 17.237 (CTH 64). Treaty, Edict or Verdict? ....................... 105 Dietrich, Manfried / Oswald, Loretz Die Seevlkergruppe der rtnm ardana/ erdena in Ugarit. Bemerkungen zum Brief KTU 2.61 und zur Liste KTU3 4.497+. . . .......... 109 Dietrich, Manfried / Oswald, Loretz Bestallungsurkunde KTU 3.11 (RS 15.117) fr Bldq als obersten Verwaltungsbeamten (skn) des Palastes .......................................... 125 Dietrich, Manfried / Oswald, Loretz Rhabdomantie im mykenischen Palast von Tiryns. Das Fragment eines kurz-keilalphabetisch beschrifteten Elfenbeinstabs (Ti 02 LXIII 34/91 VI d12.80 = KTU3 6.104) ............................................. 141 el-Khouri, Lamia Barsinia 1st Century B.C. 1st Century A.D. Pottery from the Cistern, Area A ......................................................................................................... 161 Gerhards, Meik Die Sonne lsst am Himmel erkennen Jahwe . Text- und religionsgeschichtliche berlegungen zum Tempelweihspruch aus I Reg 8,12f. (M) (III Reg 8,53a [LXX]) ................................................ 191 iv Inhalt [UF 42 Gestoso Singer, Graciela Forms of payment in the Amarna Age and in the Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks ........................................................................ 261 Gillmann, Nicolas Un exemple de hilani Til Barsip? ............................................................. 279 Halayqa, Issam K. H. The Demise of Ugarit in the Light of its Connections with atti ................ 297 Heide, Martin The Domestication of the Camel: Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Traditional Evidence from the Hebrew Bible ....................................... 331 Kassian, Alexei Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint .................................... 383 Lipschits, Oded / Koch, Ido / Shaus, Arie / Guil, Shlomo The Enigma of the Biblical Bath and the System of Liquid Volume Measurement during the First Temple Period ............................................. 453 Loretz, Oswald Ugaritisch-altisraelitische Elemente des Neujahrsfestes im nachexilischen Psalm 24 ............................................................................. 479 Naaman, Nadav Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context ......................................................................... 497 Park, Sung Jin Short Notes on the Etymology of Asherah .................................................. 527 Peterson, Jeremiah Sumerian Literary Fragments in the University Museum, Philadelphia II: Eduba Compositions, Debate Poems, Diatribes, Elegies, Wisdom Literature, and Other Compositions ................................ 535 Peterson, Jeremiah Sumerian Literary Fragments in the University Museum, Philadelphia III: Hymns to Deities .............................................................. 573 Sazonov, Vladimir Einige Bemerkungen zur altassyrischen Knigstitulatur. Entwicklungsgeschichte und sdmesopotamische Einflsse ...................... 613 Snyder, Josey Bridges Did Kemosh Have a Consort (or Any Other Friends)? Re-assessing the Moabite Pantheon ............................................................ 645 Theis, Christoffer Sollte Re sich schmen? Eine subliminale Bedeutung des Namens in Jeremia 44,30 .................................................................................. 677 2010] Inhalt v Tropper, Josef / Vita, Juan-Pablo Die keilalphabetische Inschrift aus Tiryns .................................................. 693 Tugendhaft, Aaron On ym and dA.AB.BA at Ugarit .................................................................. 697 Vernet, Eullia / Vernet, Mariona Die groe Sphinx von Gizeh. Vergleichende und sprachwissenschaftliche berlegungen zu einer afroasiatischen Etymologie .................................... 713 Vidal, Jordi Ugarit at War (3): Prisoners of War ............................................................ 719 von der Osten-Sacken, Elisabeth Aur, groer Berg, Knig von Himmel und Erde. Darstellungen des assyrischen Hauptgottes im Wandel vom numen loci zum Gtterherr ........ 731 Watson, Wilfred G. E. Getting to Grips with Ugaritic tdl .............................................................. 823 Watson, Wilfred G. E. Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (8) ......................................... 831 Yogev, Johnathan How wide should a Column be? .................................................................. 847 Yogev, Johnathan The Strange Case of Diagonal Writing .................................................... 853 Zadok, Ran Philistian Notes II ........................................................................................ 859 Zukerman, Alexander On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East During the Late Bronze Age .................................................................................... 887 Replik Pardee, D. Illustrated Epigraphic Remarks to the First Tablet of the Aqhatu Text, Lines 124 ................................................................................................... 903 Buchbesprechungen und Buchanzeigen Yoram COHEN / Amir GILAN / Jared L. MILLER (Hrsg.): Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer (Manfred Hutter) .............................................................................. 919 Charles DOYEN: Posidon souverain. Contribution lhistoire religieuse de la Grce mycnienne et archaique (Oswald Loretz) .............................. 923 vi Inhalt [UF 42 J.-M. DURAND / Th. RMER / M. LANGLOIS (Hrsg.): Le jeune hros. Recherches sur la formation et la diffusion dun thme littraire au Proche-Orient ancient. Actes du colloque organis par les chaires dAssyriologie et des Milieux bibliques du Collge de France, Paris, le 6 et 7 avril 2009 (Oswald Loretz) ................................................. 924 Giovanni GARBINI: Dio della Terra, Dio del Cielo. Dalle religioni Semitiche al giudaismo e al cristianesimo (Oswald Loretz) ....................... 925 Brigitte GRONEBERG / Herrmann SPIECKERMANN (Hrsg.): Die Welt der Gtterbilder (Michael Herles) ..................................................................... 926 Joel M. LEMON: Yahwehs Winged Form in the Psalms. Exploring Congruent Iconography and Texts (Oswald Loretz) ................................... 932 Hartmut MATTHUS / Norbert OETTINGER / Stephan SCHRDER (Hrsg.): Der Orient und die Anfnge Europas. Kulturelle Beziehungen von der Spten Bronzezeit bis zur Frhen Eisenzeit (Oswald Loretz) ............... 933 Kevin M. MCGEOUGH, edited by Mark S. SMITH: Ugaritic Economic Tablets:Text, Translation and Notes (Oswald Loretz) ................................ 934 Terence C. MITCHELL / Ann SEARIGHT: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Stamp Seals III. Impressions of Stamps Seals on Cuneiform Tablets, Clay Bullae, and Jar Handles (Ellen Rehm) ............................................................................................... 935 Ludwig D. MORENZ: Die Genese der Alphabetschrift. Ein Markstein gyptisch-kanaanischer Kulturkontakte. Wahrnehmungen und Spuren Altgyptens (Oswald Loretz) ........................................................... 936 Andreas SCHACHNER: Bilder eines Weltreichs. Kunst- und Kultur- geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Verzierungen eines Tores aus Balawat (IMGUR-ENLIL) aus der Zeit Salmanassar III, Knig von Assyrien (Ellen Rehm) ............................................................... 937 Itamar SINGER (Hrsg.): ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studied Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Manfred Hutter) .......................................................................... 940 Richard C. STEINER: Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts (Oswald Loretz) ................................................................... 944 [Raymond WESTBROOK:] Law from the Tigris to the Tiber. The Writings of Raymond Westbrook. Edited by Bruce Wells and F. Rachel Magdalene (Kristin Kleber) ................................................. 945 Lorenz WINKLER-HORAEK (ed.): Wege der Sphinx. Monster zwischen Orient und Okzident. Eine Ausstellung der Abguss-Sammlung Antiker Plastik der Instituts fr Klassische Archologie der Freien Universitt Berlin (Nadine Nys) .................................................................................... 947 2010] Inhalt vii Abkrzungsverzeichnis ..................................................................... 951 Indizes A Stellen ......................................................................................................... 967 B Wrter ......................................................................................................... 972 C Namen ......................................................................................................... 975 D Sachen ......................................................................................................... 986 Anschriften der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter ................................... 989 Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint Alexei Kassian, Moscow1 1. The Hurro-Urartian (hence: HU) linguistic family consists of two closely re-lated languages: Hurrian (with several dialects)2 and Urartian.3 Despite the chronological distance between the attested Hurrian and Urartian, it seems clear that the latter is not a direct descendant of the former, but the two languages represent two separate branches of a common proto-language (Proto-Hurro-Urartian).4 For the preliterate period, it is natural to associate the HU people with the Kura-Araxes (Early Trans-Caucasian) archaeological culture (Kassian, 2010a, 423 ff. w. lit.). External connections of the HU languages are not clear yet. The most natural assumption, in view of the geographical distribution and typological similarity, would be to include HU into the East Caucasian (Nakh-Dagestanian) stock of the North Caucasian linguistic family. This was originally proposed as early as the second half of the 19th century; more recently, this idea was further devel-oped by some Soviet and Polish authors J. Braun, G. Klimov, Ju. Deeriev, I. Diakonoff and others (see, e. g., / , 1954; , 1963, 4151; Diakonoff, 1971, 157171; , 1978), after which the monograph 1 I am indebted to my colleagues in the Global Lexicostatistical Database project (Mos-cow / Santa Fe) G. Starostin (head of the team) and M. Zhivlov: without their help, etymological analysis of the Hurro-Urartian data proposed below would be much less reliable. The Hurro-Urartian portions of the paper have been discussed with M. Khachi-kyan (Erevan) and I. Yakubovich (Oxford/ Moscow) ; I express my gratitude to them for a number of valuable additions and remarks. All possible factual errors or wrong inter-pretations are the authors only. 2 Cuneiform and Ugaritic alphabetic sources from ca. the 23rd century to the late 2nd millennium BC (Salvini, 1998a, Wegner, 2007, 21 ff.). 3 Cuneiform (and apparently hieroglyphic) sources of the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BC (see two recent editions of the Urartian corpus: and CdTU). 4 E. g., the ejective series of obstruents was lost in Hurrian, but retained in Urartian (Kha-chikyan, 2009) ; for a certain syntactical archaism of Urartian, see , 2010a, 119 f. ; another Urartian archaism is the retention of the negative morpheme *mV with the prohibitive semantics (see notes on 62. not1 below). Cf. also the following case: Old Hurr. peli ~ pili canal (Bo.Bil.) > New Hurr. pala id. (Ugar.C.) vs. Urart. pili id. with the retention of the archaic vocalism. 384 A. Kassian [UF 42 Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language by Diakonoff and S. Staros-tin appeared (Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986). However, in the last few decades, as compared to the 1980s, there has been some substantial progress in North Cauca-sian linguistics, on the one hand,5 and in Hurritological studies on the other. As a result, the East Caucasian HU hypothesis began to look much less attractive (cf., e. g., the criticism in Patri, 2009), currently it has no strong proponents.6 An alternative theory discussed by some authors connects HU to the Indo-European family, i. e., treats HU as a member of the Nostratic macro-family with a specially close relationship between HU and IE. The IE-HU theory, which originates from certain ideas of Holger Pedersen, has been developed by the Ar-menian author G. Jahukyan (see, e. g., Jahukyan, 1961; , 1967) and then followed by Fournet / Bomhard, 2010. For the criticism of this theory, see Kassian, 2010b; Kassian, 2011a. Because neither East Caucasian nor, a fortiori, Indo-European attribution of HU appears to be likely at the current stage of research, it seems reasonable to undertake a more formal analysis of HU linguistic data. 2. Over the last few decades, international linguistics continued to demonstrate an ever-increasing interest in various statistical methods of language comparison (see, e. g., overviews in Nichols/ Warnow, 2008; McMahon/ McMahon, 2005; cf. esp. the projects of S. Wichmanns team, e. g., Wichmann el al., 2010, and G. Starostins team, for which see below). It may be stated that such methods have been increasingly becoming a basic and generally acknowledged tool for formal classication of languages and dialects. Linguistic data used in such calculations can be of several kinds: 1) Lexical data, i. e., wordlists of basic vocabulary (the so-called lexicosta-tistics). 2) Auxiliary morphemes and grammatical features, which are either reten-tions or innovations in relation to the reconstructed proto-language of the language family in question (e. g., mutual phonetic changes, syncretism of cases and so on). 3) General (universal) typological features, whose formulation does not de-pend on the specic nature of particular languages (e. g., basic word order VS/ SV or the presence of rounded front vowels). The lexicostatistical method is currently adopted in the international Global Lexicostatistical Database project (headed by G. Starostin).7 As a template we prefer to use a 110-item wordlist, which consists of 100 classical Swadesh 5 E.g., a fundamental reconstruction of the Proto-North Caucasian language by S. Niko-laev and S. Starostin was completed and published as NCED (1994). 6 At the beginning of the 2000s, S. Starostin himself tended to reject the East CaucasianHU hypothesis in favour of a Sino-Caucasian attribution of HU, for which see below. 7 See http://starling.rinet.ru/new100/main.htm 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 385 words plus 10 additional words from S. Yakhontovs 100-wordlist, taken from the second part of the Swadesh, 200-item wordlist (see / , 2005, 1213 for detail). Among several important innovations of the GLD, a strong semantic standard, which is currently used instead of the blind list of English denitions proposed by M. Swadesh in the mid-20th century, must be noted (see Kassian et al., 2010). For the general principles of lexicostatistical procedure, the ways of its application to specic languages and the difference between preliminary lexico-statistics and classical lexicostatistics, see Starostin G., 2010a. As I have stated elsewhere (Kassian, 2010b, 200 ff. ; Kassian, 2011a, 142 f.), a fact important for future discussion is that any pair of languages conventionally assumed to be ge-netically related at a reasonable time depth possesses a signicant number of etymological matches with identical meanings between their basic and, most im-portantly, core vocabularies summarized as the Swadesh wordlist.8 That is, lexi-costatistics is a reliable tool for language relationship tests and, what is more, the presence of etymological matches with coinciding semantics between Swa-desh wordlists of two languages (or proto-languages) is a necessary condition of recognizing genetic relationship between languages.9 Below I offer a 110-word list for Hurrian and Urartian languages as it can be compiled on the basis of our current knowledge. Ca. 65 out of 110 slots can be lled for Hurrian with reasonable certainty, and ca. 22 for Urartian. Despite such scantiness, the available data seem to be sufcient for some conclusions. Because the genetic afliation of the HU family is not established yet, only a preliminary lexicostatistical (to use the terminology of Starostin G., 2010a) verycation/ falsication can be undertaken. This means that, lacking the knowledge of regular phonetic correspondences between HU and other linguis-tic families, we are compelled to resort to the phonetic similarity between HU forms and words of external (proto-)languages included into comparison. Phonetic similarity is not a fully formalized concept. Below, as in the case of Hattic etymologization (Kassian, 2010a), I prefer to use consonantal classes (cf. Dolgopolsky, 1986; Turchin et al., 2010 w. lit. for detail),10 on the one hand, and 8 More precisely: neither I myself nor any of my colleagues from the Moscow school are aware of even a single reliable exception from this phenomenological rule. 9 It should be emphasized explicitly that a pair of etymological cognates whose meanings are different between two compared languages constitutes positive evidence for etymo-statistics a very different and, at such time depths, much less reliable procedure but not for lexicostatistcs. For the latter, only direct phonetic and semantic correspondences are taken into account. Thus, Lat. nox night ~ Grk. night or Soqotri ed hand ~ Arabic yad- hand are positive lexicostatistical pairs, whereas Lat. nox night ~ Hitt. neguz evening, nightfall or Soqotri ed hand ~ Akkadian idu arm are not. 10 In fact, my classication is more strict. E.g., I treat r-like and t-like phonemes as two different classes; the same concerns /-like, y-like and w-like sounds, which also should represent different classes. Vowel quality is standardly ignored in such a procedure (i. e., all vowels are treated as one single class) because of the well-known instability of vo-386 A. Kassian [UF 42 more complicated (albeit typologically common) phonetic shifts,11 on the other. As opposed to Baxter/ Manaster-Ramer, 2000, and some other similar studies, where only an initial consonant of the root is taken into account, I follow Turchin et al., 2010, in the present paper and adopt a more rigorous approach, accepting that both consonants (initial and nal) of the roots compared must comply with the principle of phonetic similarity. Using data collected in the Global Lexicostatistical Database and the Tower of Babel projects, I have compared the HU list to the forms that can be recon-structed with the same Swadesh semantics for some linguistic families of the Old World, namely: Indo-European, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic, Dravidian, Se-mitic, Egyptian, Chadic, Berber, Cushitic and Omotic. The actual result nears zero. Indeed, some HU roots show a certain phonetic similarity to forms of other linguistic families, but these cases are too scanty and dispersed and look pro-babilistically conditioned.12 Cf. the following hypothetical isoglosses: Hurr. ini 2 ~ Semitic *Vny 2 (a Semitic loanword in Hurrian? See notes on 91. two below); Hurr. imi(=)gi sun ~ Semitic *xVmx (< redupl. *xVm-xVm?) sun. Hurr. tari re ~ Uralic *tule re; Urart. iwi(=)ni sun ~ IE *sw-el- / *sl- / *sw-en- sun; Hurr. tali tree ~ IE *doru tree; Hurr. iwe / iye water ~ Altaic *siuba water (one of two equal candi-dates for the status of the Proto-Altaic term for water) ; Hurr. uzi meat ~ Omotic *a- meat. On the contrary, one can conclude in anticipation that comparison to linguis-tic families, which constitute the Sino-Caucasian macro-family13 (namely, North calism in human languages (thus, there are, e. g., more than 220(!) rows of vowel corre-spondences between such close languages as Modern English and Modern German, see Dybo A. / Starostin G., 2008, 145 ff.). Note that, in accordance with this approach, roots of the shape ta or at possess the normal CVC-structure, namely T- and -T respectively. Therefore it is possible to compare a hypothetical root ta (from the language L1) to ta (from the language L2), but comparison between roots ta (language L1) and at (language L2) is much less justied. 11 Like, e. g., the consonantal cluster simplication ns > s, r > or the weakening > z. 12 Cf. Ringe, 1999, on the theoretical ease of nding isolated comparanda for any CVC-root when many languages are compared simultaneously. Note also that the correspond-ence r ~ l (as in a few hypothetical HU-IE and HU-Uralic matches below) does not fully comply with the principle of phonetic similarity. 13 For a brief sketch of the history of Sino-Caucasian studies, see now Starostin G., 2010b and esp. Bengtson/ Starostin G. forthc. The theory of a Sino-Caucasian linguistic macro-family has partially been substantiated by the late S. Starostin. For the compara-tive phonetics of the Sino-Caucasian macro-family, see S. Starostins SCC (this work was not nished and therefore remains unpublished). The highly preliminary Sino-Cau-casian etymological dictionary by S. Starostin is available as Sccet.dbf. Some other pa-2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 387 Caucasian,14 Yeniseian,15 Sino-Tibetan16 together with Basque,17 Burushaski18 and apparently Na-Dene19), seems to yield some positive results. Below, I dis-cuss possible Sino-Caucasian comparanda in the notes on HU items; for the concluding discussion, see 5. 3. It is obvious that, during the millennium that attested Hurrian was spoken, there were a number of Hurrian dialects that should differ in their basic vocabularies.20 Due to the scantiness of data, it is impossible, however, to adhere to the principle of chronological and dialectal integrity (for which see Kassian, 2011b, 66 f.). The Hurrian list below is cumulative, that is, it includes all availa-ble forms from any dialects. The following sigla are used for Hurrian sources. The so-called Old Hurrian period: Tiatal (the royal inscription of Tiatal, endan of Urke), OBab. (ca. 10 tablets with invocations, presumably all from the site of Larsa in southern Babylonia), Mari (6 tablets from Mari), Bo.Bil. (the Hurrian-Hittite bilingual series Song of Release). The so-called New Hurrian period: Mit. (the Mittani Letter), Bogh. (texts from the Hittite capitals archives, modern Boazky, other than Bo.Bil.), Ugar.A. and Ugar.C. (texts from the Ugaritic archives written in the alphabetic or syllabic cuneiform script respectively), Nuzi, Qatna, Msk., Ort., Tell Brak (texts from Nuzi, Qana, Tell Meskene [Emar], Ortaky and Tell Brak respec-tively), Subar. (Subarian glosses in Assyro-Babylonian sources). Hurrian and Urartian forms are quoted in the traditional cuneiform transcrip-tion, e. g., the main Hurrian and Urartian sibilant is rendered as , geminated pers by the same author, dedicated to the Sino-Caucasian problem, can be found in -, 2007 (in both Russian and English). A comparative grammar overview of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily can now be found in Bengtson/ Starostin G. forthc. A for-mal (lexicostatistical) verication of the Sino-Caucasian theory is currently in prepa-ration for publication as part of the Moscow-based Global Lexicostatistical Database and Tower of Babel projects and the broader Evolution of Human Language (EHL) pro-ject, centered around the Santa Fe Institute. For current major results and conclusions of the EHL, see Gell-Mann et al., 2009. 14 See NCED and Caucet.dbf. 15 See , 1982/ 2007, and Yenet.dbf, based on , 1995, and Werner, 2002 with additions and corrections. 16 See Stibet.dbf, based on Peiros/ Starostin, 1996, but seriously emended. 17 See Basqet.dbf and corresponding sections in Bengtson, 2008. 18 See Buruet.dbf and some recent publications as, e. g., Bengtson, 2008a; Bengtson/ Blaek, 2011. 19 Proto-Na-Dene reconstruction is not done (or not published) yet. Cf. some rather preliminary publications on the supposed Sino-Caucasian afliation of the Na-Dene family: Nikolaev, 1991; Bengtson, 2008b. For the criticism of the so-called Dene-Ye-niseian hypothesis, see Starostin G., 2010b. 20 Cf. notes on 34. good, 62. not, 92. to go below. 388 A. Kassian [UF 42 consonants as double letters (tt, kk, etc.),21 velar fricatives as h/ hh, front affri-cates as z/ zz, and so on. Normally, I do not discriminate between two Hurrian u-phonemes (u & o), because this difference is irrelevant for my investigation. The problem of inventory and phonetic realisation of Hurrian labial consonants is not solved so far; p, f & w in the Hurrian forms below are used accordingly to the Hurritological tradition. According to the same practice, the sign = denotes morphemic boundaries in Hurrian and Urartian forms, whereas the hyphen - is retained as a connector between signs in narrow transliteration. All Sino-Caucasian forms are generally quoted from the Tower of Babel pro-ject databases (Sccet.dbf, Caucet.dbf, Stibet.dbf, Yenet.dbf, Basqet.dbf, Bu-ruet.dbf see the list of references).22 Sumerian forms are quoted from the ePSD. In the list below, the titles of entries contain Hurrian Swadesh words without special remarks, whereas Urartian forms (when known) are cited in separate sec-tions and explicitly glossed as Urartian. 1. all (omnis): ua=lla Sg. ue ~ ua=nna all (totus) [Mit., Bogh.] / pl. ua=lla all (omnis) [Mit.]. GLH, 240; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 204, 261; Wegner, 2007, 84; Girbal, 1994, 175. The pl. stem ua=lla is apparently unattested in Bogh., but there exists another word for all in Bogh. texts: ummi all (totus/ omnis) (Girbal, 1994; Weg-ner, 2007, 84), collocations: all deities, whole sin, whole body. The difference between Bogh. ue and ummi is unclear, but the latter is less fre-quent and seems more marginal. Cf. also the verbal stem umm-, which per-haps means to assemble and therefore can be related to ummi, Campbell, 2007, 171. Both terms (ua=lla and u=m=mi) are apparently etymologically related; double mm can originate from something like n-m. A third word for all attested in Bogh. texts is heyari, pl. heyar=unna (GLH, 101), but this term is contextually bound and normally applied to deities only (all gods). Urartian: sg. ui=ni- totus / pl. uy=a- omnis (, 465; CdTU 2, 200; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 2002, 14 f.). An etymological cognate of the main Hurrian term. It could be possible that HU *u-i all contain the same root as the Hurrian numeral ukki 1 (No. 63 below), if u-kki, but note that the derivation all > 1 seems typologically problematic.23 21 For a possible reconstruction of the HU obstruent series, see Khachikyan, 2009. 22 The system of transcription is the same as in Kassian, 2010a, 433 f. 23 Diakonoff / Starostin, 1986, 38, compare HU *u-i to several ECauc. forms for every, everything, all, which are derived from the corresponding Lezgh., Andian and Tsezian proto-forms for 1 (all originating from NCauc. *cH 1). 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 389 2. ashes: al=mi Ugar.C. Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 15, Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 378. The nal =mi is a nominal sufx, for which see Wegner, 2007, 59. Cf. the verbal root alm- (Msk.) to burn(?) (Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 15). Cf. also the noun ulli (Ugar.C.) charcoal (Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 17). Semantically and phonetically, it is possible to compare Hurr. al- to Sino-Cauc. * Hu/ * Hu dirt, dust, earth, ground > NCauc. * Hu/ *Hu dirt, dust, earth, ground, sand (> Nakh *()il (~ --) ashes, dust, Av.-And. *VlV silt, slime, Lak aIlu/ aI- earth, ground, Lezgh. *il earth; oor), Basque *olho meadow; eld; eld (prepared for sowing). See Kassian, 2010a, 355 for more detail (adding Hattic ahhu/ tahhu ground, bottom). No lexicostatistical matches, however. 3. bark: unattested. 4. belly: unattested. The word kari is glossed as belly in GLH, 137, but further textual analysis does not support this interpretation, see Girbal, 1994, 173 (as lip(s)? in Wegner, 1995a, 118, 119). If the body part denoted by Hurr. kari is indeed belly, this word is an Akkadian borrowing (< Akkad. karu belly). 5. big: tal=mi, tal=a=mi Mit., Ugar.C., Bogh. GLH, 253; Wegner, 2007, 282; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 263; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 381; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 18. For other formation from the root tal- with the supposed meaning big (vel sim.), see Wegner, 1995b, 119; Catsanicos, 1996, 210, 214, 274, 256. For the nominal sufx =mi, see Wegner, 2007, 59. A second candidate for big is awoi attested once in Bo.Bil. (Wegner, 1995b, 118; Neu, 1996, 254; Catsanicos, 1996, 281), but this word is too marginal and should rather be translated as great (great Teob), not as the generic big. Cf. the verb te- to be many (Mit.), see sub 52. many. Cf. also the verb al- (Mit.) to be marvelous (vel sim. ?) (Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 234),24 which may correspond to Urart. al(a)sui great (, 433; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 280). No obvious Sino-Cauc. etymology. Cf. STib. *t[]r numerous (> Chin. *tr numerous, in a ock, Tib. ther-bum 1,000,000,000, Lushai tuar in great quantities, in large numbers), which is compared in Sccet.dbf with Bu- 24 Such an interpretation is textually possible, but not obligatory. Left without translation in Wilhelm, 1992b, 66; Giorgieri, 1999, 382; Wilhelm, 2006, 184. 390 A. Kassian [UF 42 rush. *tVrap full. 6. bird: eradi Ugar.C., Bogh. Wegner, 2007, 255; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 13; Haas/ Wegner, 2004, 341; Grke, 2010, 336. The word can be analyzed as er=adi with a nominal sufx (thus Wegner, 2007, 53). No obvious etymology. 7. to bite: unattested. 8. black: time=ri ~ tima=ri Bo.Bil., Bogh. Neu, 1996, 246; Catsanicos, 1996, 227; Wegner, 2007, 53, 285. Attested in the collocation timeri ee = Hitt. tankui tegan the Underworld, lit. black earth, not dark earth, since the primary and basic meaning of Hitt. tankui- (= Sum. GIGGI / GE6 = Akkad. almu) is black, not merely dark. Besides, the attribute black is more natural for a poetic phrase than the neu-tral characteristics dark. The element -r- seems a synchronic sufx. Hurr. tim- should be compared to the basic Yen. term *tum- black (> Ket tm black, Yug tum black, Kott. thum black). Further, following Sccet. dbf (sub Sino-Cauc. *rVmV black, dark), one can add here the poorly at-tested STib. *rVm dark. In both Proto-Yen. and Proto-HU the initial r- was indeed prohibited, the shift Sino-Cauc. *r- > Yen. *t- is regular (SCC, 26). Lexicostatistical match: Yen. 9. blood: zur=gi Bogh., Msk. GLH, 309; Haas, 1998a, 254. The nal =gi can be analysed as the sufx =ki, for which see Wegner, 1988, 149 f. ; Wegner, 2007, 5657, 59; Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 69. Wegner treats =ki as an instrumental and resultative sufx and =ka as honoricative or diminutive, whereas Diakonoff & Starostin treat both =ki and =ka as diminutive (a global diminutive in -k, attested in many language families around the world). Hurr. zur- should be compared to the basic Yen. term *sur blood (> Ket , Yug sur, Kott. ur, Arin sur, all meaning blood). Further Sccet.dbf (sub Sino-Cauc. * wV) adds here NCauc. * wV vital force (vel sim.) (> Nakh *gi blood, Av.-And. * agV- alive, Lezgh. * VV- alive; lively, animated) and Basque *i-serdi sweat ; sap. Note that it is not a basic word for blood in Proto-NCauc. as well as in ProtoSino-Cauc., although in Yen. and in the Nakh subbranch of NCauc. the meaning blood occurs 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 391 secondarily and independently.25 Lexicostatistical match: Yen. 10. bone: unattested. 11. breast: neher=ni Bo.Bil. (brisket), Ugar.C. (chest). The previous reading of this word is aherni. Catsanicos, 1996, 280; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 382; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 14; Wegner, 1995a, 121; Wegner, 2007, 269; Haas, 1993, 268. Cf. also the nursery word zizzi female breast (GLH, 306). The anatomical term irde means tongue (No. 88 below), not breast pace GLH, 125. The word huri (Ugar.C.) denotes lap, crotch (vel sim.) (Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 12), not breast pace Patri, 2009, 347. As noted in , 1998/ 2007, 749, Hurr. neher somewhat resembles the basic NCauc. term *mnq (~ -) breast (> Nakh *nqa breast, Av-And. *niqi (~ --) breast, Tsezian *mVrV (~ -i-) breast, Lak quru bris-ket, Dargwa *miqiri breast, Lezgh. *moor breast, WCauc. *mVqa arm; bosom; apparently the basic Proto-NCauc. term for breast).26 Phonetical details of the Hurrian-NCauc. comparison are obscure. 12. to burn (trans.): am- Bo.Bil. LHL 1, 70; Wegner, 2007, 246; Catsanicos, 1996, 232. For various derivative stems such as am=b- to burn (intr.) or am=b=a=nni rewood, see LHL 1, 70. Cf. also the verb alm- (Msk.) to burn(?), see notes on 2. ashes. Urartian: a good candidate is the verb am-, am=at- to burn off, down (, 434; CdTU 2, 4344; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1999b, 272273). An etymological cognate of the Hurrian term. No obvious etymology for HU *am- to burn. It resembles a not very relia-ble STib. root *Vm to blaze, glow (vel sim.) (> Chin. *wam(?) to blaze, burn, Burm. um to glow, smoulder, Lushai vm (vam) to be in a red-hot glowing condition (as re), Lepcha om to shine, Kiranti *[w]m (/-p) to burn). , 1998/ 2007, 746, compares the HU *am- with a rather questionable NCauc. root *mhlV- ~ *mhnV- warm that does not seem apt. 13. ngernail : unattested. 25 Diakonoff / Starostin, 1986, 44, 69 compare Hurr. zur- directly to NCauc. * wV. 26 Further, in Sccet.dbf, the NCauc. stem *mnq is compared with STib. *ni (~ -i-) (s-) heart (vel sim.) and Yen. *an[] mind, but it seems doubtful. 392 A. Kassian [UF 42 14. cloud: unattested. 15. cold: unattested. Pace Diakonoff (Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 60) and some other authors, Hurr. egi means inside, interior, eg=ui means pure (see, e. g., Wegner, 2004, 19; Trmouille, 2005, 314). A phonetical coincidence with Hittite ega- cold (n.), frost, ice, eguna- cold (adj.) is accidental. 16. come: un- Bogh., Mit., Ugar.A. GLH, 282; Wegner, 2007, 289 f. ; Dietrich/ Mayer, 1994, 87, 90; Dijkstra, 1993a, 160; Strau, 2001, 414; Grke, 2010, 342. Polysemy: to come (intr.) / to bring (tr.). The verb is opposed to itt- to go (away) (No. 92 below), GLH, 282. Hurr. un- may be related to Urart. nun=a- to come (see below), but details are unclear (a reduplication n=un < *un-un, as proposed in Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 32?). The second candidate is amm- (Bo.Bil., Bogh., Mit.) (LHL 1, 76; Neu, 1996, 118; Catsanicos, 1996, 228, 278; Wegner, 2007, 247), but its basic meaning is rather to arrive (corresponds to Hittite ar- to arrive in Bo.Bil.); glossed as werden zu in Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 234. Urartian: it is not easy to make a substantiated choice between known Urartian verbs of movement. Main candidates for the generic meanings to go and to come are the following three verbs that occur most frequently: 1) nun=a-, , 456 (to come, arrive); CdTU 2, 163164 (venire); 2) ul-, ul=a-, , 471 (to go); CdTU 2, 227, 229 (uladi, uli an-dare); 3) u-, u=t=a- (a cognate of Hurr. u- to go, No. 92), traditionally translated as to depart, take the eld, , 1963, 92; Haas/ Wegner, 2010, 101; , 474; CdTU 2, 239 ff. (partire (in guerra)). The verbs nun=a- and ul=a- correspond to the basic Assyrian verb for to go / to come, alku, in the bilingual inscriptions. In its turn, u=t=a- is a close synonym of ul=a-, both verbs may occur in one inscription in identical con-texts. In some passages each of these verbs can be equally well translated as either to come or to go, but in a number of contexts one of the meanings is clearly preferable.27 Proceeding from this, I treat nun=a- as the basic Urartian verb for to come, whereas ul-, ul=a- and u-, u=t=a- are provisionally regarded 27 Namely to come for nun=a- (e. g., 30 Ur. 17 = CdTU A 3-11 obv. 17) ; to go, to go away for ul-, ul=a- (e. g., 173 VIII 8 = CdTU A 8-3 VIII 8) ; to go, to go away for u-, u=t=a- (e. g., 56 6 = CdTU A 5-5 6; 446 10 = Haas/ Wegner, 2010, 101). 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 393 as synonyms for the general meaning to go (No. 92). Cf. also some other Urartian verbs of movement, which are less frequent or pos-sess more specic meanings: i=a-, , 463 (to go, come), CdTU 2, 189 (andare, venire). a=a-, , 437 (to go(?)), CdTU 2, 5152 (aadi ripartire, andare, intraprendere una campagna militare), Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 38 (to ee, leave). ku=u-, , 452 (to reach), CdTU 2, 140 f. (pervenire). Hurr. un- to come (and Urart. nun?) can be compared to Sino-Cauc. *=VwV to go > NCauc. *=VwVn to go (vel sim.), STib. * (s-, -) to go, Yen. *he-jV to go, Burush. *n- to go, ? Basque *e-oHa-n to go.28 This verb seems a default expression for to go in Yen. & Burush., probably in STib. and theoretically in NCauc., therefore it is a good candi-date for the status of the ProtoSino-Cauc. basic term to go. The meaning to come occasionally occurs for this root in daughter languages, but cannot be projected onto the proto-level. As for the Urart. verb a- (a=a-), it is compared by Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 38 & , 1995/ 2007, 630 to NCauc. *=iA (a verb of move-ment), which is theoretically possible. 17. to die: unattested. 18. dog: erwi ~ erbi Bo.Bil., Bogh. Ugar.C. GLH, 83; Wegner, 2007, 255; Catsanicos, 1996, 279; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 11. No obvious etymology. Resembles the main Sumerian term for dog: UR. 19. to drink: al- Bogh. LHL 1, 51. Urartian: Diakonoff (Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 60) singles out an Urartian root *hur- to drink from the obscure substantive hurihi (, 447 one who irrigates, moistens(?); CdTU 2, 103 abundance, fertility(?)), which seems unjustied. No obvious etymology for Hurr. al-. 20. dry: unattested. Cf. the participle ib=a (Bo.Bil. ; said of the exhausted god Teob), which 28 In Diakonoff / Starostin, 1986, 32, Hurr. un- & Urart. n-un are compared directly to NCauc. *=VwVn (> Nakh *o- to go (vel sim.), Av.-And. *=VVn- to go, Tsezian *=- to come, Lak na- to go (vel sim.)). 394 A. Kassian [UF 42 means something like ruined (thus CHD P, 62a) or exhausted, but could be narrowly translated as dried up, dried out, see Neu, 1996, 316319; Catsanicos, 1996, 275 fn. 220 (comparing to Akkad. abbu to burn (of eyes, lips, etc.)); Hoffner, 1998, 7475 (dried out (? from the heat of the day)). 21. ear: nui ~ nuhi Bo.Bil. (nui), Bogh. (nui ~ nuhi), Tell Brak (nui). Wegner, 1995a, 121 f. ; Catsanicos, 1996, 273; Grke, 2010, 71 f. ; Wilhelm, 1991a, 166. Polysemy: ear/ understanding, mind. Perhaps /nuHi/, see notes on 25. eye for the graphical variant nuhi. Distinct from hazzizzi inner ear, hearing, intelligence (GLH, 100) < Akkad. assu ear (anatomic); wisdom. The meaning of Hurr. leli- (Bogh.) is uncertain; the collocation leli haari apparently denotes a deied object (with haari oil or strength29?), but leli can hardly mean ear here, pace Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 53. This word does not seem inherited because of the initial l-. Should be compared to the basic STib. term *nH ear > Chin. *nh, Tib. r-na, Burm. nah, Kachin na1, Lushai (KC) *k-Na, Lepcha njor, Kiranti *, all meaning ear.30 Lexicostatistical match: STib. 22. earth (soil): ee OBab., Bo.Bil., Ugar.A. (e), Ugar.C., Mit., Bogh., Ort. Wegner, 2007, 256; Catsanicos, 1996, 230 f. ; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 240; Die-trich/ Mayer, 1994, 87; Prechel / Richter, 2001, 359; nal, 1998, 60; Wil-helm, 1993, 111 ff. ; Grke, 2010, 336; GLH, 83 f. (erroneously glossed as sky). Polysemy: earth (world) / earth (soil) / position / place. The specic meaning soil can be seen in the collocation timeri ee = Hitt. tankui tegan the Un-derworld, literally black earth. A passage from an Old Babylonian incan-tation (Prechel / Richter, 2001, 347 ff.) also seems to conrm the specic meaning earth, soil. The Hurrian word corresponds to Urart. esi place (, 443). Note that the phonetic correspondence Hurr. ~ Urart. s is very infrequent, if not unique. Excepting the certain ee ~ esi, I am aware of 29 Thus Wegner, 1981, 107. 30 Sccet.dbf sub *wnV adds here Yen. *-gde/ *-qtV ear and NCauc. *wnV ear (vel sim.). Such an etymologization of the Yen. term seems too factitious and should be rejected, but the NCauc. *wnV could indeed be connected to STib. *nH (note that *wnV is not the main Proto-NCauc. term for ear, the meaning of this proto-form was rather inner ear / hearing). In such a case, a metathesis n~w should be as-sumed for the NCauc. proto-form or for the STib. & Hurr. ones. 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 395 two potential instances: Hurr. ali daughter ~ Urart. sila wife31 (a parallel semantic development from some source like, e. g., *lady is not impossible, but the vowel difference is suspicious; Salvini, 1998b, 9899, may be right assuming two etymologically unreleated words here) and Hurr. al- to be marvelous (vel sim. ?) ~ Urart. al(a)sui great (if the Hurr. verb indeed means this, cf. notes on 5. big above). The set of Hurrian-Urartian lexical correspondences is too small, however, for far-reaching conclusions.32 On the other hand, M. Khachikyan (pers. comm.) suspects that there might exist an Urartian word ei earth: cf. CdTU A 12-8 1722 = 421 1722 pili nikiduli AME eia iuli when the canal overows?, when the waters ow? upon the earth?, partly paralleled by CdTU A 11-1 rev. 25 = 407 rev. 25.33 Cf. also umi=ni country, land (GLH, 281). Urartian: iura- ~ ira- earth (world); earth (soil); land (, 459; CdTU 2, 178). See also notes on the hypothetical Urart. ei earth above. The Proto-HU term for earth (soil) was apparently *eSi, because the mean-ing shift earth (soil) > ground > place is natural, whereas place > earth (soil) seems typologically odd. No obvious etymology for HU *eSi. Cf. the following proto-roots: Sino-Cauc. *jVmV soil (vel sim.) > NCauc. *jmV (> Nakh *jobs (~ --) earth, Dargwa *ani earth, Lezgh. *jo(m)V (~ -) dirt, Khin. ini earth, probably it is not the main Proto-NCauc. term for earth), Yen. *e- (~ x-, --) damp sand, Basque *hau ashes. NCauc. *en(V)sw soil, clay (vel sim.) (> Av.-And. *oni earth; mud, Lak aIri earth, Dargwa *he() (~ -) dust (of rotten wood), WCauc. *n clay, apparently it is not the main Proto-NCauc. term for earth); proposed in , 1995/ 2007, 631. Less probable is comparison with Lezghian *jis place; near (proposed by Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 39, for Urart. esi place), because this root is isolated within the NCauc. family. For Urart. iura- ~ ira-, Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 58, propose the follow-ing cognate NCauc. *qwIrV/ *rIqwV eld, arable land (> Nakh *qaw arable land, eld, Av-And. *qurHV eld, Tsezian *u- (~ *-) eld, Lak qu eld, Dargwa *qu eld, Lezgh. *uj eld, WCauc. *rq()a (arable) eld),34 which seems theoretically possible. 31 As has been demonstrated in Salvini, 1998b, 9899, Urart. sila must be translated wife, not daughter (cf., however, Wilhelm, 2008b, 112 with the traditional translation daughter). 32 See Wilhelm, 2008b, 121 f. for the most reliable HU cognate words. 33 On the traditional reading eiaiuli at the end of the passage cited, see , 443 w. lit. ; Salvini, 2002, 143 (to decrease?). In fact, the assumed verbal form eiaiuli looks somewhat atypical, therefore it could be better analyzed as two separate words. 34 Sccet.dbf (sub *qwrV) adds some dubious STib. and Basque comparanda. 396 A. Kassian [UF 42 23. to eat: ul- Bo.Bil. Catsanicos, 1996, 216. The Hurrian verb refers to a dog (ul=an=u=m (the dog) began to eat (the bread)) and could therefore mean to devour rather than the neutral to eat. But since it is translated by the basic Hitt. verb ed- to eat (of humans), not by Hitt. karap- to eat (of animals), I tentatively consider ul- to be the de-fault Hurrian verb to eat. Cf. also the scarcely attested root *a- to eat (?), LHL 1, 117. Following , 1998/ 2007, 751, one can compare Hurr. ul- to Sino-Cauc. *=wVl- to feed on (vel sim.) > NCauc. *=iwVl to feed on, Yen. *ir- (~ x-) to eat (vel sim.), Basque *aha to feed, graze, ? STib. *q(h)ir present of food; appetite. Note that it is not the basic term for to eat in the aforementioned families. As for Hurr. a- to eat (?), , 1998/ 2007, 746 proposes to com-pare it to NCauc. *=Vc V to drink; to gulp, to eat (with further Sino-Cauc. cognates), which is theoretically possible. 24. egg: unattested. 25. eye: i ~ ihi Bo.Bil. (i), Bogh. (i ~ ihe). Catsanicos, 1996, 231, 270; Wegner, 1995a, 124 f. ; Wilhelm, 1998a, 174; Gr-ke, 2010, 71, 76. The nature of the graphical uctuation 0/ ~ h is unclear, cf. the same phenomenon in the word for ear nui ~ nuhi (No. 21) and tae ~ tahe man (No. 51). Wil-helm, 1998a, 174 may be right in suspecting here bisyllabic stems with a spe-cial laryngeal phoneme: /siHi/ and, correspondingly, /nuHi/, /taHi/ (cf. also discussions in Giorgieri, 2000, 188 fn. 50; Wegner, 2007, 49). The previous candidate for eye, pai-, actually denotes mouth. The noun furi ( fur- to see, to look, see No. 72 below) more probably means something like a look, not eye per se (Wegner, 2007, 274; Wilhelm, 1998a, 174; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 272), although furi is translated as eye in an Ugaritic lexical list (Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 22). The word aye [Mit.] is glossed as Auge; Gesicht in Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 233, but in fact Auge is a loose translation of awi [Bo.Bil., Bogh., Msk.] ~ aye [Mit.] face; in front of (Wegner, 2007, 248; GLH, 34, 40; Catsanicos, 1996, 200, 278). No obvious etymology. , 1995/ 2007, 632 compares it to NCauc. *=VrwEn (~ -\-) to look, although it is phonetically uncertain. 26. fat (noun): ae Bo.Bil. Catsanicos, 1996, 278; Neu, 1996, 115; Haas, 1998b, 143; Wegner, 2007, 250; 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 397 LHL 1, 117. The fat of a killed deer is mentioned in the text. The Hurrian term corresponds to the ideogram fat, oil in the Hittite version, therefore the literal translation meat is impossible (cf. especially Haas, 1998b). Cf. the verb ed=u- to fatten (trans.), make fat (Bo.Bil.), Catsanicos, 1996, 282; Neu, 1996, 112. Cf. also the word ha=ar=i (ne) oil (Bo.Bil., Bogh.), from the verbal root ha- to oil, smear (Wegner, 2007, 259; Catsa-nicos, 1996, 279). , 1998/ 2007, 746 compares Hurr. ae to the following NCauc. root : Sino-Cauc. *=(rV) thick > NCauc. *=(rV) thick, fat (adj.), Yen. *bV-sVr thick (of paper, skin, cloth etc.), Burush. *be-s fat (n.). Such an etymologization seems theoretically possible (cf. also notes on 53. meat below). 27. feather: unattested. 28. re: tari Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C. Catsanicos, 1996, 231; GLH, 257; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 378; Andr-Sal-vini / Salvini, 1998, 18. No obvious etymology.35 29. sh: unattested. 30. to y: unattested. 31. foot: uri ~ ur=ni OBab., Bo.Bil., Bogh., Ugar.C. Wegner, 2007, 291; Wegner, 1995a, 125 f. ; Catsanicos, 1996, 204; Huehner-gard, 1987/ 2008, 379; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 21; Andr-Salvini / Sal-vini, 1999, 272; Prechel / Richter, 2001, 356. Polysemy: foot / leg; corresponds to Akkadian pnu ~ pmu thigh & Sume-rian UR2 thigh in lexical lists from Ugarit. The similar noun ugri- (Bogh.) is attested in the meaning leg of the table (GLH, 277). Cf. also the term ziyan=ni lap, hip, crotch (vel. sim) (Ugar.C.), Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 24. Urartian: kuri (, 452; CdTU 2, 137); attested several times in the stereo-typical context he embraced rulers feet and prostrated himself. The re-lationship between Hurr. uri, Hurr. ugri and Urart. kuri is unclear.36 Wilhelm, 35 Ivanovs idea (Ivanov, 1998, 148 fn. 17) that Hurr. tari is an Iranian loanword (< Ir. *tr ~ *tar re) is impossible for various reasons. 36 For Hurr. uri vs. ugri cf., e. g., Neu, 1996, 355. 398 A. Kassian [UF 42 2008b, 106 supposes that the Urartian spelling ku-ri- may cover phonetical ukri, because the sign UK was not used in the Urartian cuneiform system.37 No obvious etymology for Hurr. uri. Resembles Sumerian UR2 thigh; loin, lap; base, legs of a table. Urart. kuri (and Hurr. ugri ?) can be compared with Sino-Cauc. *wrV a part of the leg > NCauc. *wrV a part of the leg (> Nakh *urV-m bone for playing dice, Lezgh. *ir(a) hoof; leg (of animal)), STib. *k(h)rej (~ -j) a part of the leg, Burush. *kur- joint of nger or toe. Note that these proto-roots are rather scantly attested in the corresponding families, therefore the etymological nest looks dubious. The HU-NCauc. comparison has been proposed in Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 57. 32. full : unattested. Cf. the verb kapp- (Bo.Bil.) to ll (Catsanicos, 1996, 215; Wegner, 2007, 261). 33. to give: ar- Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C., Tell Brak. LHL 1, 96; Wegner, 2007, 248; GLH, 52; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 3435, 70; Catsanicos, 1996, 245; Grke, 2010, 335. Urartian: the best candidate is ar-, ar=u- and apparently ar=d=u- (, 435, 436 to give, grant, present; CdTU 2, 46, 50 dare, concedere), which corresponds to the basic Assyrian and Sumerian terms for to give in bilin-gual inscriptions (respectively nadnu and SUM). The second candidate is the stem uhan=u-, , 473 f. (to grant (?)); CdTU 2, 235 (conferire). Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 51 compare HU *ar- to give to NCauc. *= V to give (a good candidate for the status of the basic Proto-NCauc. term for to give), which is phonetically uncertain. 34. good: wahri ~ wahr=ui Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C., Ugar.A., Qatna, Msk. GLH, 292; Wegner, 2007, 270; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 22; Catsanicos, 1996, 281; Salvini / Wegner, 2004, 177; Richter, 2005, 27. This frequent term seems the most basic and neutral for the meaning good / to be good. Corresponds to the basic Akkad. term bu good in a lexical list from Ugarit. The second candidate is niri (Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C., Msk.) good / to be good (GLH, 185; Wegner, 2007, 269), whose usage seems more abstract (e. g., 37 Another instances of such a method could be the Urartian royal name Rusa (Urart. ru-sa), which is spelled in Assyrian texts both as ru-sa-a or ur-sa-a (, 487; Salvini, 2007, 464a). Note that the HU phonotactics does not normally allow [r] in the initial po-sition, but, as opposed to UK, the phonetical sign UR was known to Urartian scribes. An unclear situation (Wilhelm, 2008b, 108, suspects that Rusa was in fact pronounced as Ursa). 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 399 good price), but niri may be the main term for good in the Mittanni dia-lect (Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 252; GLH, 185; Wegner, 2007, 269), cf. Mit. good legate, good dowry. , 1995/ 2007, 630 compares Hurr. wahri to the following NCauc. root : Sino-Cauc. *HV[q]wV good (vel sim.) > NCauc. *HV

wV (~ -q

-) good (vel sim.) (> Lak uj- good, Lezgh. *HVV good (vel sim.), a poorly attested root), STib. *xH good (vel sim.) (may be the basic Proto-STib. root for good), Yen. *haq- good (the main Proto-Yen. root for good), Burush. *qha good (may be the basic Proto-Burush. root for good). Such a comparison is very tempting semantically, but not self-evi-dent phonetically. 35. green: unattested. 36. hair: unattested. 37. hand: u=ni ~ ummu=ni Bo.Bil. (uni), Bogh. (uni, ummuni ~ umuni), Ort. (uni), Ugar.C. (umuni). Wegner, 2007, 219, 281; Wegner, 1995a, 125; Girbal, 1994, 171173; Catsani-cos, 1996, 200; GLH, 242, 243; Grke, 2010, 340; nal, 1998, 59, 64. Probably with polysemy hand/ arm.38 In the light of the Urartian cognate, the Hurrian stem uni is to be analyzed as u=ni with the common nominal suf-x -ni. The double mm in um(m)u=ni apparently points to an old cluster, thus ummu- might be derived from uni with the nominal sufx -mi (on which see Wegner, 2007, 59), if mm < nm, although the vowel shift *min > mun looks strange. Cf. the word herari (Bo.Bil., Bogh.), which denotes either sinew, biceps or upper arm (Catsanicos, 1996, 201; Wegner, 1995, 118 f. ; Salvini / Wegner, 2004, 173; Grke, 2010, 74). Urartian: u-, see Girbal, 2004, 26 f. (accepted in CdTU A 14-1 obv. 10) and CdTU A 10-5 obv. 19 (--ki?-e? my? hand = Assyr. tu hand). But con-tra such an interpretation, see Khachikyan, 2006, 145 f. No obvious etymology for HU *u- hand; the root resembles Sumerian U hand. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 23, compare Hurr. ummu- to NCauc. *mr[] (~ -o) handful, armful, which seems unjustied for various rea-sons. 38 It seems that there are no unequivocal contexts requiring the translation arm, but be-cause of the polysemy ur(n)i foot / leg (No. 31 above), it is natural to assume the same phenomenon for u=ni ~ ummu=ni (semantic typology suggests that commonly a language possesses either one common term for hand/ arm and one for foot / leg, or there are four basic terms, one for each body part). 400 A. Kassian [UF 42 38. head: pahi Mari, Bogh., Ort., Ugar.C., Ugar.A. GLH, 192; Wegner, 2007, 270; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 14; Salvini / Weg-ner, 2004, 177; nal, 1998, 64; Grke, 2010, 138 f. The word also occurs several times in Mit., where it is traditionally translated as head by Wilhelm, 1992b, Giorgieri, 1999, Wilhelm, 2006 (or left without translation), but as news, message by Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 253. A phonetically and semantically satisfactory comparandum could be Sino-Cauc. *VHV top > STib. *pw (~ b-, -iw) top, upper part (> Tib. phu the upper part, Burm. paw top, upper part, above, Kachin bo1 the head, Kiranti *p[]-jV head), Burush. *-ph top, tip. 39. to hear: ha- Tiatal, Bo.Bil., Bogh., Mit., Tell Brak, Subar. Wegner, 2007, 258; GLH, 95; Catsanicos, 1996, 267, 272; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 242; Wilhelm, 1991a, 166; Wilhelm, 1998c, 140; Campbell, 2008, 283; Hra, 2010, 92 [l. 12], 239. Another verb alh- (Mari, Bo.Bil., Bogh., Ugar.A. ; Wegner, 2007, 275; Catsa-nicos, 1996, 267; Lam, 2007, 400) seems rather to have the meaning to listen (to), hearken. Urartian: ha=i-, ha=u- to hear; to listen(?) (, 446; CdTU 2, 97, 98). Corresponds to the basic Assyrian term em to hear; to listen in bilingual inscriptions. No obvious etymology for HU *ha-. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 46 com-pare it to Nakh *ac - to hear. This Proto-Nakh term is, however, isolated within NCauc. and certainly does not reect the main Proto-NCauc. root for to hear (rather a HU loan in Proto-Nakh, see 5.5 below and , 2011). 40. heart: tia Mari, Bo.Bil., Bogh., Mit., Ugar.C. GLH, 266; Wegner, 2007, 286; Catsanicos, 1996, 199 f. ; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 265. Urartian: ti=ni- (, 469; CdTU 2, 217). No obvious etymology for HU *ti-. Cf. Sino-Cauc. *rHV stomach, intestines (vel sim.) > NCauc. *rHV (~ *rHV) stomach, intestine (vel sim.) (> Nakh *VwV in, inside; belly, Av-And. *rVV-l intestine, a poorly preserved root), Burush. *-ri kidney; testicle, Basque *erce/ *ete intestine. In this case one must assume the shift *r- > HU *t-.39 Note 39 r-onset was prohibited in Proto-HU (for some recent loanwords in r- in Hurrian see, e. g., Dietrich/ Mayer, 1994, 107). This restriction is a wide areal isogloss, which affected many languages from certain East Caucasian ones (namely Proto-Nakh, Proto-Dargwa and Early Proto-Lezghian) to Ancient Greek in the 3rd2nd millennia BC. 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 401 that there is no unequivocal Common Sino-Cauc. root for heart. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 53, compare HU *ti- to NCauc. *risw throat (vel sim.) (> Av.-And. *risV throat ; gullet, Tsez. *rs throat, Lezgh. *sir(a) throat ; gullet, WCauc. *p-a (~ --) neck (vel sim.)) that does not seem more convincing semantically. 41. horn: unattested. 42. I: i-/ u- Paradigm: i- [abs. =te, erg.] (Mari, Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C.) / u- [obl.] (Mit., Bogh.). Wegner, 2007, 82 f. ; Wilhelm, 2008a, 95; Giorgieri, 2000, 219; GLH, 126, 127, 237; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 193; Neu, 2003, 297. Urartian: i-, ie- [absolutive subj. of an intr. verb itidi, ergative iei] / u=ke- [oblique]. See , 2010c, 157158; Wilhelm, 2008b, 114; Girbal, 2001; , 448 (iei), also , 328, 450, 465 with itidi as here & uki as as(?). An exact comparandum seems the Sino-Cauc. suppletive pronoun of the 1st p. sg., which possessed two stems: z-like (direct & oblique) and -like (oblique). The former is reconstructed on the basis of NCauc. *z [abs. ?] / *ez(V) [erg. ?] / *iz(V) [gen. ?] (see Caucet.dbf sub *z for detail) I, Yen. *a I, Burush. *ja I.40 Lexicostatistical match: NCauc.-Yen.-Burush. 43. to kill : the generic term is unknown. A possible candidates is the verb mar=al- (Bogh.), for which Grke, 2010, 89, 92, 338 tentatively proposes the translation to kill, cf. without translation and with partially different grammatical analysis in Campbell, 2007, 438 f. Cf. also uw- (Bo.Bil., Ugar.A.) to slaughter (ox etc.) and ur- (Bo.Bil.) to slaughter (small cattle), Catsanicos, 1996, 234; Dietrich/ Mayer, 1994, 88, 93. Bo.Bil. uw- may be in some way related to a third verb: Hurr. urb- to slaughter (cattle) (Nuzi ; GLH, 285) = Urart. urb=u- id. (, 473). Urartian: cf. the verb zag=u- to kill (humans), annihilate (enemy troops), etc., which is attested with the plural object only (, 475; CdTU 2, 248 ff.). As noted in , 1995/ 2007, 632, Hurr. uw- resembles Nakh *-w- to kill (it is a basic Proto-Nakh term for this meaning). Note that Nakh *-w- is isolated within NCauc., lacking any external etymology; for such HU-Nakh isoglosses, cf. 5.5 below and , 2011. 40 Diakonoff / Starostin, 1986, 81, with the HU-NCauc. comparison. 402 A. Kassian [UF 42 44. knee: unattested. Cf. the terms ziyan=ni (Ugar.C.) lap, hip, crotch (vel. sim) (Andr-Sal-vini / Salvini, 1998, 24) and huri (Ugar.C.) lap, crotch (vel sim.) (Andr-Sal-vini / Salvini, 1998, 12). 45. to know: pal- Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C. GLH, 194; Wegner, 2007, 270; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 253; Dijkstra, 1993b, 167; Catsanicos, 1996, 281. The occurence of this verb in an Ugaritic vocabulary glossing Sum. DUG4 & Ak-kad. ab to say is apparently an error (to be read kul- to speak? See notes on 71. to say below). Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 17 compare it to NCauc. *m\V (~ -I-, -x-) ~ *bn\V to study, teach (> Av.-And. *mo- to teach, Tsez. *mL()- (~ --, --) to teach, Lak max()- tame (adj.), Khin. mux- to know), which can be theoretically possible. 46. leaf: unattested. 47. to lie: unattested. 48. liver: ur=mi Ugar.C., Bogh. Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 20; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1999a; Grke, 2010, 76 f. Apparently ur=mi with the nominal sufx =mi, for which see Wegner, 2007, 59. Urartian: zeldi apparently means small, little (No. 77 below), not liver (as in , 476, following Diakonoffs proposal ;41 without translation in CdTU 2, 251). No obvious etymology for Hurr. ur=mi. Resembles the Sumerian term for liver: UR5. 49. long: keri ~ ker=ai Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C. Wegner, 2007, 263; GLH, 143; Catsanicos, 1996, 204; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 242. Polysemy: long (spatial) / long (temporal) (the meaning far proposed in Dia-konoff/ Starostin, 1986, 59 is uncertain). Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 59, connect it to NCauc. *qVrV (/ *rVqV) far (apparently the best candidate for this basic meaning in Proto-NCauc.), 41 Diakonoff / Starostin, 1986, 48 compare Urart. zeldi (zel=di) to NCauc. *Hl\V (one of the two candidates for the status of the basic Proto-NCauc. term for liver) which in any case should be dubious phonetically. 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 403 which seems probable. 50. louse: aphe Ugar.C. Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 9; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1999a; LHL 1, 93. The Hurr. word is attested in the lexical list, glossing Sumerian E (i. e., U) and Akkadian kalmatu. Both Sumerian and Akkadian terms may denote not only louse, but also other parasites and vermin. In fact, however, lice are the commonest human parasites, so it is natural to assume that this entry of the trilingual lexical list (which covers basic and everyday vocabulary) denotes just louse. Cf. the next entry in the same lexical list : Hurr. tame ea (An-dr-Salvini / Salvini, 1999a). It seems that an appropriate comparandum can be Sino-Cauc. *mkV louse, small insect > NCauc. *mkV a k. of insect, vermin, worm (> Av.-And. *unka name of a vermin, harmful insect ; beetle, Lezgh. *kamk worm), STib. *m / *mk (~ --) midge, moth, Yen. *oke (~ x-) louse (> Ket 4, Yug. hk, Kott. iki ; a main Proto-Yen. term for louse). The assumed Hurrian denasalization *mk > *pk requires additional examples, however. Note that the cluster mK seems synchronically unat-tested in proper Hurrian words.42 An interesting parallel is the name of the Sumerian goddess ddamkina which can sometimes be spelled as dtap-ki-in-na in Hurrian contexts (GLH, 70; van Gessel, 1998, 1: 438). It also seems natu-ral to assume the further fricativization *pk > ph, since the cluster pk is probably unattested in genuine Hurrian words.43 Lexicostatistical match: Yen. 51. man: tahe ~ tae Bo.Bil. (tahe), Bogh. (tahe), Ugar.C. (tahe ~ tae). GLH, 251; Wegner, 2007, 282; Catsanicos, 1996, 198; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 381; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 17; Dijkstra, 1993b, 168; Grke, 2010, 80. Perhaps /taHi/, see notes on 25. eye for the uctuation tahe ~ tae. Corresponds to Hittite L-n- (i. e., pesn-) man (male human being) in Bo.Bil. & Bogh. Cf. the noun tur=u=hhi male (adj.) (Bo.Bil., Bogh., Ugar.C., Ugar.A.), GLH, 274; Wegner, 2007, 288; Catsanicos, 1996, 198; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 20. Urartian: cf. ae-, i. e., phonetically wae-, man ( 439; CdTU 2, 64 f.), which is morphologically singular, but apparently attested only in the plural meaning: men (the same case as 64. person and 99. woman). 42 Cf. Hurr. tamgari merchant < Akkad. tamkru id. > Sum. DAM.GR id. (GLH, 254). 43 But cf. Hurr. tupki ? (GLH, 272; Wegner, 2007, 22; Grke, 2010, 54 f.). 404 A. Kassian [UF 42 Without Hurrian cognates. Hurr. ta(h)e is compared by Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 26, to NCauc. *dVrqwV he-goat, which is unprovable (note that there is not enough data to reconstruct *dVrqwV as a Proto-NCauc. root, in fact it is an Av-And.Tsez. isogloss only: Av.-And. *dVq()V-n he-goat, Tsez. *qV A kid about 1 year old). A probable comparandum for Urart. wae- has been proposed by Dia-konoff/ Starostin, 1986, 20 NCauc. *wr bull-calf, male > Nakh *bor bull-calf, Av.-And. *bia bull-calf, Lezgh. *wV(r)- man, husband. As for Hurr. tur=u=hhi male (adj.), it is compared by Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 52, to NCauc. *lw / *wlV man, male (vel sim.) (> Nakh *-law a sufx denoting profession, Av.-And. *lV address to a man, Lak lak- Laki (ethnonym), Dargwa *gal(i) son, boy, Lezgh. *ilV- male; man; men, Khin. lgld man, WCauc. *A male; testiculus).44 Phonetically dubious. 52. many: te=u=na(i) Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C. Wegner, 2007, 285; GLH, 260, 264; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 265; Dijkstra, 1993b, 169; Trmouille, 2005, 325. The most frequent and generic expressions for many are derived from the ver-bal root te- to be much, be many, be lot, be numerous (Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 265): adv. te=u=na(i) and adj. te=a numerous (both: Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C.). The adverb tian very (Mit.) is probably derived from the same root. Cf. an unclear akephalos []i many, much in an Ugaritic vocabulary (Hueh-nergard, 1987/ 2008, 4041, 87, 381). Urartian: cf. Diakonoffs reading !-a-e many (Diakonoff, 1971, 46 fn. 42; , 469). An entirely different reading is in CdTU 1, 343. An obvious comparandum seems Sino-Cauc. *dVHV to grow; big > NCauc. (> WCauc. *dA big; most, at all ; much, very), STib. *tajH big, many (vel sim.) (> Chin. *tj much, many, Burm. taj very, ti sign of the plural, Kachin the2 and, Lushai te much, very much, -te sufx de-noting plurality, Lepcha t, t-m to be great, large, big, Kiranti *dV big; one of two main candidates for the status of the Proto-STib. basic term many), Yen. *tj- to grow. Also Hattic te-, ti- great, big (Kassian, 2010a, 363). Lexicostatistical match: STib. ? 44 Further, as proposed in Sccet.dbf sub Sino-Cauc. *w, it is compared to STib. *lk testicle; glans penis, Burush. *lei (< *leli), *lal addressing a man; free man, great man, Basque *-le agent sufx. 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 405 53. meat: uzi Bogh., Ugar.C. GLH, 291; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 2425, 46. Urartian: cf. huu meat (?) in , 127, 447; without translation in CdTU 2, 103. Hurr. uzi could be compared to Yen. *ise meat (> Ket meat, sh, Yug. s meat, sh, Kott. i meat, Arin is meat; a basic Proto-Yen. term for meat). The Yen. root must be further connected to STib. *a meat (the main term for meat in the Tibeto-Burman branch, although superseded by unclear nhuk meat in the Sinitic one) and maybe a similar form for meat from the Na-Dene family that makes the corresponding Sino-Cauc. proto-root the best candidate for the status of the ProtoSino-Cauc. term for meat.45 On the contrary, , 1995/ 2007, 631 unites Hurr. uzi with NCauc. *=(rV) thick, fat (adj.). Despite the coincidence of the u-vocalism, such an etymologization seems more problematic. First, it is possible to con-nect NCauc. *=(rV) to Hurr. ae fat (n.) (No. 26 above). Next, the meaning shift fat (adj.) > fat (n.) is possible, whereas fat (n.) > meat seems atypical cross-linguistically. Hurr. uzi resembles the main Sumerian word for meat: UZU. Lexicostatistical match: Yen.-STib. 54. moon: kuuh Mari, Nuzi, Ugar.C., Ugar.A., Bogh., Msk. GLH, 156; Wegner, 2007, 265. The Moon-gods name; can be analyzed morphologically as ku=u=h. Another designation of the Moon-deity can be umbu (GLH, 280), although it is uncer-tain. Urartian: elardi Moon-god (, 490). Both and CdTU A 3-1 41 read the rst sign as I ; see , 51 for sometimes proposed reading ME (i. e., melardi, cf. an enigmatic Armenian hapax meard, glossed as moon in Aayan HAB 3: 299). How we should reconstruct the Proto-HU term for moon is unclear, cf. notes on 82. sun. Sccet.dbf tentatively unites Hurr. kuuh, Yen. *q (~ -) skewer, spit ; (sun-)beam and Burush. *uha (< *u?) new moon, time without moon; time of waning moon as Sino-Cauc. *QVV(?), which does not seem justi-ed. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 37 compares Urart. elardi (i. e., el=ardi) to NCauc. *VlV (~ -, --, --) light, ray (> Nakh *sa light ; eye-sight ; 45 In Sccet.dbf (sub *Hmc), Yen. *ise meat is connected to NCauc. *jomc bull, ox (very well attested), STib. *chu (~ -, -n, -w) cow, bull (poorly attested), which is a less probable solution. 406 A. Kassian [UF 42 dawn; to dawn, Tsez. *ri()V (~ l-, , u) sun ray, Dargwa *ala light, WCauc. *P-sV to shine), which is semantically possible.46 55. mountain: pab=ni ~ pab=a=ni OBab., Mari, Bo.Bil., Bogh., Ugar.A. GLH, 190 f. ; Wegner, 2007, 271; Catsanicos, 1996, 231; Grke, 2010, 85, 336; Prechel / Richter, 2001, 357. Pace Laroche (GLH, 190), the root is rather pab- (with the common nominal sufx -ni) than the triple consonantal paban-, see Richter, 2007, 110. Urartian: bab=a=ni-, 440; CdTU 2, 65 f. No obvious etymology for HU *pab-a-ni ; the root resembles the Hattic term pip stone. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 19, analyze the Proto-HU stem as *fan-fan-, supposing a reduplication of the well preserved NCauc. root *fnV shady slope of a mountain (vel sim.) (> Nakh *un forest, Av.-And. *xan-dV (~ -o-) shady side, slope; hill ; meadow; haying place, Tsez. *en A a part of mountain, Lak han shady slope of a mountain, Dargwa *xVna northern slope, Lezgh. *[a]na northern slope of a mountain, WCauc. *xA mountain), which does not seem apt from the morphological viewpoint. 56. mouth: fai Mari, Bogh., Ort., Ugar.C., Ugar.A. Wegner, 2007, 272; Wegner, 1995a, 123; GLH, 197; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 22; nal, 1998, 58; Lam, 2007, 401. Previously interpreted as eye. No obvious etymology. Cf. Sino-Cauc. *mw[]li (~ -e) face, cheek, jaw > NCauc. *mwIli (~ -e) edge, tip, Yen. *bin- chin, cheek, Burush. *mel jaw. 57. name: tiye Bogh. Giorgieri, 2001, 144 f. Attested once with the meaning name, corresponding to UM-an from a parallel Hittite text. In fact, the word is well-attested in two phonetical variants with the following polysemy: tiwe [OBab., Bo.Bil., Bogh., Ort., Mit.] ~ tiye [Bogh.] word / speech, word(s) / name / thing, see Wegner, 2007, 285; GLH, 267 f., Giorgieri, 1998, 71, 77 ff. ; Giorgieri, 2001, 144. Giorgieri sug-gests that tiwe and tiye differ in meaning, namely tiye speech vs. tiwe word; thing, and treats w as a nominal sufx of unknown semantics, but I suspect, following H. J. Thiel, that we are more likely to deal with a sporadic phonetic process EwE > EyE here. The glide uctuation is actually the same 46 Sccet.dbf (sub *HVlV) unites NCauc. *VlV with STib. and Burush. terms for moon, but I suppose that this is incorrect. 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 407 as in the pairs iwe ~ iye water (see No. 94 below) or awi [Bo.Bil., Bogh., Msk.] ~ aye [Mit.] face; in front of (Wegner, 2007, 248; GLH, 34, 40; Cat-sanicos, 1996, 200, 278). Urartian: ti=ni , 468; CdTU 2, 215 f. A cognate of the Hurrian term, modied by the common nominal sufx =ni with the loss of intervocalic -w-. HU *tiwi(=ni) word/ name is clearly related to the HU verb *tiw- to say, for detail, see the etymological discussion sub 71. to say. 58. neck: kudu=ni Bogh. Wilhelm, 1998b, 180; Campbell, 2007, 418; Grke, 2010, 72. With reservations, in Wegner, 1995a, 120. No obvious etymology. Theoretically can go back to a metathetical variant of Sino-Cauc. *dHq

w nape of the neck (vel sim.) > NCauc. *dHq

w back of head (> Lezgh. *taqI back of head, WCauc. *tqA/ *qta neck; back of neck), STib. *tk neck (a possible candidate for the status of the main Proto-STib. term for neck), Yen. *tuGV (~ --) back, behind. 59. new: uhe Ugar.C. Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 17; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 378. Urartian: uhi (, 465; CdTU 2, 198 f.). An etymological cognate of the Hurrian term. Proto-HU *uhi new can probably be compared to the basic Sino-Cauc. term *V new > NCauc. *nV new (> Nakh *in-, Av.-And. *inhV-, Tsez. *-Vn- A, Lak u-, Dargwa *i-, Lezgh. *enj-/ *enw-, WCauc. * A, all meaning new, a Proto-NCauc. term for new), STib. *sn/ *s new (> Chin. *sin new, Tib. gin good, ne, Burmese sa new, a Proto-STib. term for new), Yen. *-sa (~ --) to begin.47 HU *h in *uhi can be a reex of *. Another solution is to treat the nal =hi in HU *uhi as a frequent HU adjectival sufx (see Wegner, 2007, 54, for the Hurrian data). If so, the Proto-HU root is *u- with the loss of a nasal before a laryngeal (* > * > 0/ ). Lexicostatistical match: NCauc.-STib. 60. night: unattested. 61. nose: punhi ~ puhhi Bogh. (punhi ~ wunhi), Ugar.C. (puhhi ~ wuhhi). Wegner, 1995a, 123; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 3839, 82; Andr-Salvini / Sal-vini, 1998, 22; Grke, 2010, 72. 47 The Urartian-NCauc. comparison has been proposed in Diakonoff / Starostin, 1986, 34. 408 A. Kassian [UF 42 Apparently a dialectal assimilation nh > hh, cf. the same phenomenon in paban-hi ~ pabahhi mountainous; east (GLH, 191) < pab=a=n=hi pab=a=n- mountain. No obvious etymology. , 1995/ 2007, 630, compares Hurr. puhhi to Tsezic *poro part of face under the nose ~ WCauc. *pA nose (one of the two main candidates for the status of the basic NCauc. term for nose), whose proto-form is reconstructed in Caucet.dbf as NCauc. *prV, though proto-forms like *plV, *plV, *prV are also allowed; the Hurr. -n-, however, remains unexplained. 62. not1: =u= ~ =wa= Campbell, 2007, 63 ff. ; Wegner, 2007, 94, 96, 136; Wilhelm, 2008a, 97; , 2010b, 137; Giorgieri, 2000, 233; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 216. The basic Hurr. negation morpheme is the sufx =u= which is attested as =u= ~ =wa= in ergative indicative forms of the 1st & 2nd p. (Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh.), =u=d= in ergative indicative forms of the 3rd p. (Bo.Bil., probably Ugar.C.), =wu=r= normally with the root mann- to be (Bo.Bil.), =wa= in non-indi-cative (jussive) ergative/ non-ergative forms of the 1st & 3rd p. (Mit.). Although in the 3rd p. u-based morphemes began to be superseded by the enclitic =ma already in Bo.Bil., Bo.Bil. still retains negative ergative forms in =u=d-, Wegner, 2007, 96 (some lexicalized negative forms with =ud= are also observed in Bogh.). Note that the enclitic =ma ~ =mma used in the negative forms of the 3rd p. (Bo.Bil., Bogh., Mit.) can hardly be genetically related to the negative sufx =u= discussed above (pace , 1985, 95, Giorgieri, 2000, 233, Weg-ner, 2007, 9648). It seems more probable that =ma represents an old pro-hibitive morpheme *mV,49 the so-called global prohibitive in m, attested in many language families around the world. It is strange, however, that the synchronic Hurrian prohibitive (scil. negated jussive or vetitive), which is attested in the 1st & 3rd p. only (Mit., also Tiatal, Bogh., probably Mari, Tell Brak), is formed by u-sufxes, namely =wa=, =we=, =o= (Campbell, 2007, 241, 264 ff. ; Wegner, 2007, 108; , 2010b, 137; Giorgieri, 2000, 233; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 220; Wilhelm, 1991a, 164). The proper pro-hibitive of the 2nd p. seems, however, unattested in Hurrian texts. As for Urartian, it retains this particle mi in the prohibitive function (Wilhelm, 2008b, 119). Cf. the particle u=ya (Mit.) no! (Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 267). Urartian: the antiquity of the Hurrian negative morpheme =u= is proven by Urartian data, where the particle ui (a cognate of Hurr. u=ya) and the sufxal 48 Justied doubts in Campbell, 2007, 65 f. 49 The morphosyntactic status of =ma in the synchronic Hurrian (an enclitic occurring at the end of verbal wordforms) should also suggest that its usage in the function of nega-tion of an afrmative statement is a recent introduction. 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 409 =u=ri are default verbal exponents of negation of an afrmative statement, see Yakubovich, 2010 [2011] w. lit. No obvious etymology for the HU morpheme *u not. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 91, compare it to one of the several NCauc. negative morphemes: *wV not (> Av.-And. *-hi, Tsez. *-(V), Dargwa *e, Khin. -i-). Such an etymologization is theoretically possible, but not necessarily correct. Note that NCauc. *wV is a rather marginal negative morpheme, although this in-deed became a main exponent of negation of an afrmative statement in ProtoDargwa-Kninalug. 62. not2: =kkV= Campbell, 2007, 35 f., 47 f. ; Wegner, 2007, 97, 137; Wilhelm, 2008a, 97; , 2010b, 137; Giorgieri, 2000, 233; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 222; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 2425, 48. =kkV is the basic Hurr. negative exponent in non-ergative (i. e., intrans. & anti-pass.) indicative forms (Mari, Bo.Bil., Mit., Ugar.C., Bogh.). This morpheme seems lost in the Urartian branch. No obvious etymology. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 91, compare it to the poorly attested NCauc. *-k-, a marginal morpheme expressing some kinds of negation in several NCauc. subgroups. The comparison is formally possible, but does not seem very reliable. 63. one: ukki ~ ukku Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh. Wegner, 2007, 81, 280; Wilhelm, 2008a, 101; Giorgieri, 2000, 222; Catsanicos, 1996, 249; GLH, 241 (without translation); Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 261 (with a different translation, namely weiter(hin); auerdem). Urartian: apparently u=sini means 1, thus , 466; CdTU 2, 205, 331; with some doubts in Wilhelm, 2008b, 119 and , 2010c, 159; see Girbal, 2001, 142 for detail. If morphologically u=kk- with a k-sufx (cf. Urart. usini, if its meaning is indeed one), then the HU root *u- 1 is comparable with the main NCauc. word for 1 *cH (thus already Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 38) > Nakh *ca, Av.-And. *ci-, Tsez. *hs, Lak ca, Dargwa *ca, Lezgh. *sa, Khin. sa, WCauc. *zV, all meaning 1.50 The Hurrian (Hurro-Urartian?) numeral may contain the same sufxed root as 50 In the current version of Sccet.dbf, NCauc. *cH 1 is united with the following forms: STib. *t (~ -), Yen. *u-sa, Burush. *he-, all meaning 1, under the Sino-Cauc. proto-form *HVc. In fact, however, the relationship between the NCauc., STib. & Burush. forms is doubtful due to phonetical reasons. Next, besides *t, there is an-other candidate for the main Proto-STib. term for 1 (namely *djik). As for Yen. *u-sa 1, the main meaningful element here is *u, whereas *-sa is a singulative sufx (the latter may indeed be cognate to NCauc. *cH 1). 410 A. Kassian [UF 42 ue/ ua=lla all (No. 1); note, however, that the development 1 > totus (further > omnis) is typologically normal, but probably not vice versa. Lexicostatistical match: NCauc. 64. person: taruwa=ni Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.C., Ugar.A. Wegner, 2007, 284; GLH, 258; Catsanicos, 1996, 198; Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 2425, 47, 379, 381; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 264; Grke, 2010, 156. Probably with occasional polysemy person, human being / man, male human being, cf. Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 47, 388, but note that the basic word for man (male) is tahe (No. 51). The well-attested anatomic term edi body can occasionally be used in the meaning person (GLH, 73; Wegner, 2007, 257). Cf. also an unclear form [x]-lu-a-[x] people in an Ugaritic lexical list (Huehnergard, 1987/ 2008, 3839, 77, 386). Urartian: cf. tarua=ni person (, 467; CdTU 2, 209; Wilhelm, 1981), a clear cognate of the Hurr. term, but the Urart. word is apparently attested only in the plural meaning persons, people (the same case as 51. man and 99. woman). Cf. also the word nara, whose meaning is unknown (without translation in CdTU 2, 161 f. ; Wilhelm, 1981), although , 456 glosses this as people. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 39, analyze HU *tarua as a compound *tar-ua, whose rst part is unclear (cf. the Hurrian root tur- in the adjective tur=u=hhi male), whereas the second one is a cognate of NCauc. *wjo person (> Nakh *psu bull, Av.-And. *VjV person; man, Tsez. *i- A / *zi- A person; man, Lak uw man, Dargwa *sub male (n.), Lezgh. *ij man, WCauc. */ * person, the main Proto-NCauc. term for per-son).51 Theoretically possible. Lexicostatistical match: NCauc. ? 65. rain (n.): iena Ugar.C. Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1998, 13; Andr-Salvini / Salvini, 1999a. Urartian: Diakonoff (Diakonoff, 1971, 167; Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 44) quotes an enigmatic verb i- to ow, to rain without references. The Common Sino-Cauc. root for rain, to rain is *=GwV, but apparently this is not the case. It seems possible to compare Hurr. iena to Sino-Cauc. *HorwV to be cloudy, to rain (vel sim.) > NCauc. *HorwVn to be-come cloudy (of weather) (> Nakh *j-, Av-And. *-ir-, Lak =aa-/ =ai-, Lezgh. *raI()Vn- (~ --), all meaning to become cloudy), STib. 51 Cf. also Sino-Cauc. *wjo person > Yen. *e- people (- is the plural expo-nent), Burush. *ses person(s), people. 2010] Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint 411 *[j] shower, rain (> Kachin ca2 to fall, as a light, cooling shower, to squirt, Lushai h to rain continuously), Basque *orci / *oti sky; storm; thunder; Thursday; rainbow; cloud. The loss of *r in such a cluster can be regular for HU. All these forms also resemble Sumerian E3 to rain; rain (n.) (a second Sume-rian term for rain (n.) is IM rain; wind; storm, perhaps with the semantic development wind > storm > rain). 66. red: unattested. 67. road: hari Mari, OBab., Bogh., Mit. Wegner, 2007, 258; GLH, 94; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 242; Prechel / Richter, 2001, 360, 362; Grke, 2010, 337. Occasionally borrowed into Hittite (HW2 H, 275). Urartian: the best candidate is hari, which probably means both road and military campaign (, 445; CdTU 2, 97). Cf. the word arhe (attested several times in an untranslatable formula), which is glossed in , 435 as path (uncritically following Diakonoffs interpretation), but prudently left without translation in the main section of ; in CdTU also without translation. Cf. also utipte military campaign; highway, road(?) (see Salvi-ni in avuolu et al., 2010, 45; , 474; CdTU 2, 242 f.), derived from the verb u-, u=t=a- to go (see No. 16. to come and 92. to go1). HU *hari road is a member of a set of similar Near Eastern forms with the semantics of road: Luwian (C) haruwa- road, Akkad. arrnu road; journey,52 Sumerian arran (AR-RA-AN) route, passage; path.53 The Su-merian form represents a transparent Akkadian loanword, but the origin of Luw. haruwa- and Akkad. arrnu is obscure, because these words lack obvious etymology within their families (Indo-European and Semitic respec-tively). Another phonetical shape is represented by NCauc. *ari (~ -) trip, march (> Lak aIri trip, march, journey, Dargwa *arIa (~ -I-) road; journey, Lezgh. *ja(r)I(a) foot-travelling) and Semitic *ur- road (vel sim.) (> Akkad. [OA+] ur- road, way, path, Aramaic Bibl. ar, Pal. wr, Syr. ur-, Mand. uhr-, Urm r-, all meaning road; one of the candidates for the status of the main Proto-Sem. term for road). An unclear situation.54 52 This competes with other Akkadian terms for road : uru, girru. 53 This is not the main Sumerian word for road, the basic term is apparently KASKAL way, road; journey, caravan. 54 Caucet.dbf connects HU *hari road to the aforementioned NCauc. *ari (suspect-ing the dissimilation **harhi > *hari), but this is uncertain. 412 A. Kassian [UF 42 68. root: unattested. 69. round: unattested. 70. sand: unattested. 71. to say: hil- ~ hill- Mari, Bo.Bil., Mit. Bogh., Ugar.C., Ugar.A., Tell Brak. GLH, 105 f. ; Wegner, 2007, 259 f. ; Catsanicos, 1996, 256 ff. ; Dietrich/ Mayer, 1994, 74, 77, 87, 88, 89, 93, 96; Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010, 243; Grke, 2010, 107 f. A difcult case, because there are several verba dicendi attested in the Hurrian corpus and available contexts do not always permit to choose the basic verb (it is also probable that the presumable difference of semantic nuances be-tween various Hurrian verba dicendi has a dialectal origin). Provisionally I choose the verb hil- ~ hill- as the basic word. It seems to be the default verb to say (that) in Mit. In Mari, the verb is likewise used for to say (that) (Wegner, 2007, 236237), the same apparently concerns the Bogh. usage (e. g., Campbell, 2008, 270; also Grke, 2010, 107 f.). In Bo.Bil., hil- ~ hill- is normally used in combination with al(u)- (another verbum decendi), with the whole expression meaning to say (from smb.s heart) that. Cf. also hill=u=i=t=an I has informed in Tell Brak, Wilhelm, 1991a, 163. The second candidate is kad- (Bo.Bil., Mit., Bogh., Ugar.A.), GLH, 132; Wegner, 2007, 262; Catsanicos, 1996, 256 ff. ; Wegner, 1994; Girbal, 1994, 173. It seems that, in Bo.Bil., Bogh., Mit., Ugar.A., the normal usage of kad- is to speak the word, pronounce the word (with tiwe word), although some contexts in Mit. demonstrates the usage to say that (translated as to report that and so on in Dietrich/ Mayer, 2010). For the Ugar.A. attestation, see Dijkstra, 1993a, 158, 161. The verb kul- (Bo.Bil. Mit., Bogh. ; see GLH, 151; Wegner, 2007, 264;