--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
> There's no way to be sure if it's /xartka-/ , /xartaka-/ , or /xartakka-/ , but /xartka-/ is implied by other branches. Keep in mind the order of TK in PIE isn't proven by this any more than the presence of a in Skt vs e/o in Latin proved a but no e/o in PIE.
I think the order TK rather then KT is demonstrated by markedness.
I've now dug up the spelling in Puhvel's Hittite Etymology.
For the plain animal meaning:
HAR-TÁG-GA-AS (nom. s.)
HAR-TÁG-GA-AN (acc. s.)
HAR-TÁK-KAN (acc. s.)
HAR-TÁG-GA-AS (gen. s.)
(TÁK, TÁG and TÁQ are contextual transliterations of the same symbol.)
For the person in ritualsː
LÚ-HAR-TÁG-GA-AS (nom. s.)
LÚ-HAR-TA-GA-AS (nom. s.)
LÚ-HAR-TA-KA-AS (nom. s.)
LÚ-HAR-TA-GA-AN (gen. s.)
LÚ-HAR-TÁK-KI (dat-loc. s.)
(LÚ is interpreted as a determinative.)
I don't see any sound evidence for /hartaka-/ - the writings as a single consonant are overridden by the geminate *writings*.
One awkward thought arises - I don't see any basis for reading HAR as /har/ rather than /hur/.
Richard.