*kummeh₂-

The word is attested once in the Middle Hittite dupaduparša ritual of Kuwattalla.

[E.R.]

nom. sg. c.

ku-um-ma-aš

KBo 29.6 obv. 30´

(CTH 762, NS)

While the form kummaš is generally interpreted as an adjective functioning as an attribute of ^NA₄aššuš ‘stone monument’ in an comparable incantation, the common gender nominative without i-mutation points rather to an a-stem noun. Also the existence of the derived adjective kummai(ya)- presupposes such a stem. Syntactically, the substantival interpretation is unproblematic, since the word for ‘stone monument’ can easily be analyzed as an apposition, determining the character of the sacred object: zaš=pa kuwatin kummaš ^NA₄aššuš [urannuwammiš(?)] kummaiya=tta urannundu [ … ] ‘As this pure object, the stone, [is magnified(?)], let the [lord of the ritual and …] magnify the kummaiya-’.

[E.R.]

The nom. sg. c. leaves no doubt that the lexeme is an a-stem without i-mutation. While it is argued here on morphological grounds (see 4. Meaning) that the word is a noun, Yakubovich (pers. comm., January 2019) maintains that adjectival a-stems (as seen in the ethnic suffix -izza-) are commonplace and the adjectival interpretation should not be a priori excluded. However, this may be due to a recent development by which ethnic substantival formations are reinterpreted as adjectives, but kept the a-suffix (< *-eh₂-).

[E.R.]

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

acc. sg.

kumạ̃

TL 44a.28 (Xanthos)

Differently, Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:135 suggests a nom. sg. n., which is not possible in face of the substantivized possessive adjective kumehe- n., which requires as derivational base a noun kume(/i)- or kuma-. Thus, an accusative singular common gender kumã is the best option.

[D.S.]

For the elucidation of the last letter of the word as ạ̃ see Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:135 n. 23. This makes the tentative restoration as kum[ẽ] outdated contra Neumann 2007a:176 with further literature, Sasseville 2014-2015a:111 n. 16.

[D.S.]

The base kumã occurs in a fragmentary context pertaining to sacrifices. It is modified by the word przzẽ, which Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:136 interpret as ‘of the first (citizens)’. It was first read as kum[.] and assigned the meaning ‘sacrifice’ based on its obvious derivatives e.g. kumaza- c. ‘sacrificing priest’ (Neumann 2007a:176 with further literature). Schürr & Dönmez ibid. suggest the meaning ‘cultic feast’, because the derivative kumehe- n. would mean ‘cult’ (cf. under lexeme), which is not a convincing argument. Awaiting more attestations, one can only guess at what the exact semantics of kuma- are, although ‘sacrifice’ or ‘some sacred object or notion’ are the most likely hypotheses.

[D.S.]

1. kumehe-
2. kumaza-
3. kumaza-^(ti)
4. kumez(e)i-^(di)
5. kumezi(je)-
6. kumetija
7. kumaliha-

1. aškummāwa-