THOUGHTS ON A NEW VOLUME OF A HITTITE DICTIONARY.

• Author: HOFFNER, JR., HARRY A.

Professor Jaan Puhvel's Hittite Etymological Dictionary is a primary tool not only for Indo-Europeanists, but for all who seek to interpret Hittite texts. In the absence of a complete up-to-date philological dictionary his four published volumes serve the philologian, and not merely the historical linguist. Nor does one need to agree with all his interpretations in order to appreciate the skill and industry that has allowed him, working alone and without major grant funding, to produce these volumes so quickly. For this he deserves high praise and the gratitude of all. In the present article one of the co-editors of the Chicago Hittite Dictionary evaluates the latest volume (K). While approving much that it contains, he finds some shortcomings, noticed by reviewers of earlier volumes in the set, still uncorrected.

JAAN PUHVEL'S DICTIONARY (HED), the first volume of which was published in 1984, reaches in 1997 the halfway point of the alphabet. In his preface the author raises the possibility of a slightly different emphasis and procedure for the second half of the alphabet, in view of the good philological coverage of L-P presently available in the Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CHD) and good etymological coverage of L-T in J. Tischler's Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar (HeGl; 1977 ff.). But he is yet unwilling or unable to specify what changes in approach will be implemented. One hopes that the existence of competent philological coverage of L-P will allow Puhvel to forego such dense citations of passages from Hittite texts and focus instead upon the etymological possibilities.

As he observes, given the death of A. Kammenhuber, the editor of the Hethitisches W[ddot{o}]terbuch ([HW.sup.2]), which is based at least in part on the lexical Nachiass of J. Friedrich, and the slower output of her successor, I. Hoffmann, it will be some time before a current philological treatment of the K words, which are the subject of the volume under review, will appear. [HW.sup.2] has thus far covered a to ha. The section hi, hu and all of i will probably take at least three years to cover. The CHD, having covered L, M, N, and P, needs yet to complete S, T, U, W, Z, A, E, H and I, before tackling K last.

Since earlier volumes of HED have been thoroughly evaluated by reviewers, it is necessary at this point only to make a brief estimation, supported by a selection of detailed criticisms. Puhvel's reputation in the field of Indo-European studies is well established. His work in the field of Hittitology is more restricted. He has published no text edition, nor has he written on matters of Hittite history or economy. Cultural matters (law, literature, religion, art, etc.) are only touched upon peripherally in connection with linguistic studies. Puhvel has written no systematic book or article on such subjects. Understandably, his approach is always comparative, with all the promise and risks that this entails. Although his experience within Hittitology is restricted, the citations of secondary literature in the pages of the HED are generally quite appropriate and up-to-date, although more limited than [HW.sup.2] or CHD, and somewhat non-standard in form. Puhvel's translational style is florid and adventuresome, often raising the suspicion that he likes to use his English thesaurus to find the most recherch[acute{e}] word possible (see examples under kallara-, gane[check{s}]([check{s}])-, karp-, katkattiya-, gul([check{s}])-). This style--in many ways so colorful and amusing to readers--unfortunately leads occasionally to regrettable inaccuracies and anachronism, which is particularly misleading to comparative linguists not as familiar as he with the primary data and literature of Hittite. For example, it may be etymologically acceptable to call a functionary in rituals an "operative" (p. 56, sub kantikipi-) , but in ordinary American English an "operative" is a kind of detective or spy!

The organization of the HED is for the most part happily uniform. Text citations are arranged in the sequence of the inflected forms of the word in question, regardless of the English translation or shade of meaning. This makes locating the treatment of a particular form found in a Hittite text much easier than in dictionaries which organize the citations within each article according to semantic or syntactic criteria. Of course, there is a trade-off: it is easier to find all examples of a particular meaning or syntactical construction in the other dictionaries. But since the first occurrence of an inflectional form is not marked either by bold type or a new paragraph, it is not easy to find where a new section begins. Nor does Puhvel attempt to date text citations other than by giving a rare generalization about an Old Hittite text. This makes it difficult for users to decide what is likely inherited Proto-Indo-European or Common Proto-Anatolian versus (for example) a New Hittite innovation.

The HED continues to use the transliteration system for Sumerian (i.e., for Sumerograms) employed prior to the appearance of Christel R[ddot{u}]ster's and Erich Neu's Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon (HZL; Wiesbaden, 1989), whereas most Hittitologists and both HeGl and CHD have adopted the modernized system. Even some of the improvements already used by J. Friedrich in his Hethitisches W[ddot{o}]rterbuch (HW), such as UMBIN "wheel" for earlier DUBBIN, have not been implemented in the HED. Furthermore, Puhvel retains the inadequate (indeed misleading) interpretation of the DIN sign as -tin in the 2nd p1. pret. and imperative of verbs, instead of the value -t[acute{e}]n employed by HZL and most Hittitologists.

Puhvel attempts to use the older system of citing volumes in the two major German series of Hittite cuneiform publications (KBo and KUB): volumes in the former are cited, e.g., as KBo XIV 5, but those in the latter as simply XIV 5. But he has not avoided the danger of that system, for one finds all too often, particularly in citing the Hittite laws, "VI 2" (= KUB VI 2), when what is meant is KBo VI 2.

His bibliographical references follow a system of his own, which makes using the HED a particular chore for Hittitologists. It would have been better had he followed the system established for HW, [HW.sup.2], or the CHD. And since the Studien zu den Bogazk[ddot{o}]y-Texten (= StBoT) and Texte der Hethiter (= THeth) series are so well known, it is particularly unfortunate that he chose not to use the familiar series references (StRoT 32, etc.). The use of a non-standard set of abbreviations only exacerbates the situation when he fails to list the abbreviation in his tables--for example, "Copenhagen fragment" (p. 3). Certain works that are of particular applicability seem never to be referenced. HED K bears a publication date 1997. The manuscript probably went to the printer in 1996. I failed to find in the tables of bibliographical abbreviations any of the following works that appeared prior to 1996: Pecchioli Daddi and Polvani, La mitologia ittita (Brescia, 1990); H. Hoffner, Hittite Myths (Atlanta, 1990); V Haas, Geschichte der herhitischen Religion (Leiden, 1994); G. F. del Monte, R[acute{e}]pertoire g[acute{e}]ographique des textes cun[acute{e}]iformes (Wiesbaden, 1992); idem, L'annalistica ittita (Brescia, 1993); J. Jie, A Complete Retrograde Glossary of the Hittite Language (Leiden, 1994); E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite (Paris, 1978-79); M. Marazzi, II geroglifico anatolico: Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca (Rome, 1990); G. McMahon, The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities (Chicago, 1991); H. C. Melchert, Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology (G[ddot{o}]ttingen, 1984); idem, Anatolian Historical Phonology (Atlanta, 1994); M. Popko, Religions of Asia Minor (Warsaw, 1995). I would also recommend that in future volumes the author cite the translations of transcribed passages found in volumes in the series Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta: Scholars Press), which began appearing in 1990, as well as those in The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill), edited by W. W. Hallo and J. L. Younger.

Usually the author uses proper restraint by not trying to cite every known example of a given form when that form is routine. But there are still too many cases where he abandons restraint and fills pages with unnecessary and redundant examples (see kalmu[check{s}]-, kane[check{s}][check{s}]-, kappuwai- [five full pages], karp-, katta(n), ki[check{s}]-).

Are all known words covered? Previous reviewers have already complained about the lack of cross reference entries. Without such, one has to know in advance under what basic word the editor has listed a word allegedly derived from it. This is a serious weakness in the organization of the dictionary and one that the editor can still rectify in future volumes.

ka-: In addition to the near deixis "this," Hittite kaoften alludes to what immediately follows, as apa- "that" (remote deixis) often alludes to what immediately precedes. But there are interesting, if rare, exceptions: StBoT 24 ii 29-30 "The preceding (lit, this) was my first manly deed; on this campaign for the first...