*zEu̯(H)-o-/-eh₂-

Amply attested in a Hittite instruction text and in a myth (NS).

[Zs.S.]

acc. sg. c.	zu-u-wa-an	KUB 13.4 iv 67	(CTH 264, NS)
		KUB 13.4 iv 71	(CTH 264, NS)
		KUB 13.17 iv 26’	(CTH 264, NS)
		KUB 13.17 iv 30’	(CTH 264, NS)
	zu-⸢u⸣[-wa-an]	KUB 13.4 ii 20’’	(CTH 264, NS)
	zu-u-wa-an	KUB 36.5 obv. 4’	(CTH 343, NS)
	]zu-u-wa-an	KUB 13.5 ii 29	(CTH 264, NS)
gen. sg.	zu-u-wa-aš	KUB 13.17 iv 34’	(CTH 264, NS)
	zu-u-wa<-aš>	KUB 13.4 iv 76	(CTH 264, NS)

The attestations follow CLL:285 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:116; Otten 1971b:14; Ünal 2007a:828, Ünal 2016a:613; EDHIL:1039 [his KUB 13.6 ii 8 is a misprint]; HEG U-Z:792) checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (KUB 36.5 obv 4’ is mistyped as i 2 in Laroche 1959a and CLL). EDHIL:1039 includes also “zu-u-wa-an” in KUB 41.25 obv. 7’ (without Glossenkeil), but already Otten 1971b:14 fixed the first sign with a question mark (adding “Lesung richtig?”). In fact, the hand copy indicates a small vertical in the first part of the sign (also visible on the photo), which speaks for a slightly irregular ‹e› rather than for a ‹zu› (the resulting e-u-wa-an ‘a kind of grain (acc. sg.)’ would also fit the context of vessels and bread types [not included s.v. in HED A & E/I:320f.; HW 2nd ed. E:141; EDHIL:263]).

EDHIL:1039 adds also NINDA-aš from KUB 3.105 i 2 based on the old assumption that this word is a reading of the logogram, since shown to be incorrect, see under Meaning. Restoration of zu-⸢u⸣[-wa-an] in KUB 13.4 ii 20’’ is based on the duplicate (see most recently Miller 2013a:252). zu-u-wa-aš in KUB 13.17 iv 34’ followed by the postposition šer is defined as dat./loc. pl. in the dictionaries (cf. Laroche 1959a:116, CLL:285), in accordance with the New Hittite usage of šer; but Otten 1971b:14 and EDHIL:1039 point out that it could in theory also be a gen. sg. (in accordance with the Old Hittite usage of šer, which appears together with the gen. pl. as the solution in HEG U-Z:792). However, since it is preceded by the gen. form tuel ‘your’, it can only be gen. sg. (a singular form is contextually required at any rate as the passage deals with the share of a deity, cf. under Meaning). Accordingly, zu-u-wa from the duplicate KUB 13.4 iv 76 is not a dat./loc. sg. (contra CLL:285, cf. also Laroche 1959a:116) and is to be emended as zu-u-wa<-aš> (with Otten 1971b:14 and Schwemer 2009a:101).

[Zs.S.], [A.B.]

This word is widely translated as ‘bread, food’ (Laroche 1959a:116; Bossert 1960a:309; Berman 1972a:56; Hoffner 1974a:219 [only ‘bread’]; CLL:285; EDHIL:1039; Ünal 2007a:828, Ünal 2016a:613 [‘a kind of bread, food’]; Tischler 2008a:236, Tischler 2016a:462 [but cf. below]; Weeden 2011b:592 [only ‘bread’]; CHD Š:74; Zorman 2016a:598) or, more generally, ‘food’ (Otten 1950a:11 n. 1, Otten 1971b:14; Kammenhuber 1972a:440; Süel 1985a:39, 41, 89, 238; Reichardt 1998a: 10, 42; Klinger 2001a:76, 81; Taggar-Cohen 2006a:74, 85; Christiansen 2012b:334, 495; Alaura 2016a:2, 10), while further similar translations are ‘Speise, Bissen’ (Friedrich 1952a: 263; HEG U-Z:791), ‘food, morsel, meat’ (Sturtevant 1934b:401), ‘morsel’ (Goetze 1950a:208, 210; McMahon 2003a:218 [but cf. below]), ‘Essen’ (Schwemer 2009a:99; Rieken et al. 2009o:§1’), and ‘meat?’ (Sturtevant & Bechtel 1935a:153, 167). However, some translators of the above texts choose a rendering as ‘portion’ (McMahon 2003a:221) or ‘share’ (Miller 2013a:253, 265), ignored by the other group of scholars.

The connection with ‘bread’ is based on the claim of Otten 1950a:11 n. 1, Otten 1971b:14 that the phrase KAxU-aš zūwan in KUB 36.5 i 4’ is a parallel of NINDA-an KAxU-i in KUB 33.112+ iii 9, indicating that zūwa- is (one of) the reading(s) of NINDA (Friedrich 1952a:263; Laroche 1959a:116; Bossert 1960a:309; EDHIL:1039; Ünal 2007a:828; Weeden 2011b:592; HEG U-Z:792). Although the passages are fragmentary and the verb is missing in both cases, the passages are roughly parallel (cf. Rieken et al. 2009o:§1’ and Rieken et al. 2009m:§6’’’), and thus they probably have a similar meaning. However, there are some problems with this claim. First, this parallelism does not necessarily mean that their semantics are entirely identical: zūwa- may not only mean ‘bread’, but also something more general, e.g. ‘food’ (cf. above the alternative translations). Second, and more problematic, the meanings ‘bread’ and ‘food’ simply do not fit the attestations in the instruction text: in §7’ (Miller 2013a:252f.) it refers to a part of a fattened cow or sheep as the portion to be given to a deity and its phrase, ZI-aš zūwan (KUB 13.4 ii 20’’+) alternates with the phrase ZI-aš ḪA.LA ‘desired share’ (KUB 13.5 ii 26+, which makes the proposal ‘morsel’ less probable). Their reference is the same in §19’, too (Miller 2013a:264f.). The meaning ‘portion’, ‘share’ fits the remaining attestations perfectly as well, because it may contain a general phrase, as pointed out above (note that in the instruction text, the share is snatched from the mouth of the deities and the mythical passage may refer to a similar event).

[Zs.S.]

This word is frequently assumed to be Luwian (Laroche 1959a:116; Berman 1972a:56; CLL:285; not included, however, in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2006a; and Hittite in Weeden 2011b:592), although the reason for this is rarely disclosed. Berman assumes this due to the Glossenkeile and even EDHIL:1039 claims that their presence “indicates foreign (Luwian?) origin”. However, it is known that the presence of Glossenkeile does not necessarily indicate a foreign or Luwian origin, as those are only two among many other possibilities (Melchert 2005a:445, cf. already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78; there is no reason to assume language taboo for such a neutral word as ‘share, portion’ to explain their presence, contra Zorman 2016a).

Since the word does not show any productive suffix (or non-Hittite ending), the only remaining clue is its etymology. EDHIL:1039 claims that it has no etymology without any references, and instead ignores the etymological literature on this word. Although the list contains many refutable ideas (see HEG U-Z:793 with discussion and refs.), Georgiev’s (Georgiev 1965a:29) etymology from PIE *g̑i̯eu̯H- ‘to chew’ (LIV2+:168) is still followed by Melchert 2003b:195, Melchert 2012a:213 (without reference to Georgiev) followed by Rieken 2006a:291 (with modifications), implying a Luwian origin due to the phonological history of the initial cluster (Proto-Anatolian *g̑i̯ > Luwian z, note that Rieken 2019b argues for a Proto-Anatolian change *k^wy > z, but rightly underlines [Rieken 2019b:315 n. 10] that the two sound laws cannot automatically be merged without further investigation). However, this etymology is based on the meaning ‘bread, food’, which is not the case, as per above. While the derivation of ‘portion, share’ from ‘to chew’ does not seem appealing semantically at first glance, Th. Steer (pers. comm.) proposes a semantic development ‘*what is chewed > *mouthful, bite > portion, share’. If this is accepted and the sound law is not of Proto-Anatolian date, then we are dealing with a Luwian loanword.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 27 July 2020

Rejected cognate:

1. †zuwa-

1. Zuwiqeli (PN) (Neumann 2007a:441)

1. zuzuwa-