*uss(i)-

The lexeme occurs 33 times in the HLuw. corpus. Its attestations span the entire HLuw. era with texts dating to all centuries between the late 12^th and the early 7^th century BCE. The geographical distribution is nearly as wide, and texts containing the lexeme originate from all HLuw. areas except the far west and far south.

[AH.B.]

The meaning of the word is elucidated by its appearance in the Karatepe bilingual inscription, where it occurs twice and translates Phoenician šnt ‘year’ in KARATEPE Hu. & Ho., §51. Because of its spelling, the word also served as a basis for identifying the meaning of logogram *336, first recognised by Bossert 1952-1953a:171f., who assigned the denotation ‘year’ to it in a comparison of contexts from different inscriptions; he also realised right away (albeit on the basis of an erroneous identification by Meriggi) that the sign’s phonetic value does not derived from the word it most frequently represents in HLuw., viz. /uss(i)-/.

[AH.B.]

The word has been subjected to i-mutation and therefore alternates a stem in /-a-/ with one in /-i-/ throughout the paradigm (cf. Melchert 2003b:187f.).

[AH.B.]

1. /ussalli(ya)-/
2. /ussallizza-/

The word is attested ten times, but so far exclusively in the Kuwattalla tradition, with the earliest manuscripts featuring MS.

[E.R.]

The assignment of u-uš-ša-š[i to the present paradigm is probable, but not assured due to the insecure reading of the final sign š[i^?. – For lexical items previously adduced, see the Lemma ušašša and the Lemma ušamma/i- (or šamma/i-).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (with the exception of KUB 35.50, 5’).

[E.R.]

The elucidation by Otten 1953a:103 regarding the meaning of ušš(i)- is based on the match of ˹a˺-ar-ra-˹ia˺-t[i u]š-ša-a-ti at KUB 35.43 ii 40 with a-ar-ra-ia-ti MU^ḪI.A-ti ‘with long years’ at KUB 35.21 rev. 13’ in parallel lists of divine bestowments on the ritual client (cf. also the well-known MU.KAM^ḪI.A GÍD.DA ‘long years’ in Hittite texts). It is further confirmed by its exact HLuw. match /uss(i)-/ ‘year’. The interpretation has since been generally accepted, see Čop 1956b:41, Laroche (DLL:103), HW 2nd ed.:329, Szemerényi 1979a:627, CLL:245, Tischler 2008a:211, HEG U-Z:572, EDHIL:1014f.

[E.R.]

The variation between endings with initial -a- and -i- confirm the expected mutation of the common gender stem.

[E.R.]

This lexeme is attested in the dating formulas of various inscriptions and sacrificial instructions.

[D.S.]

Neumann 2007a:402 interprets uhi in TL 35.1 as an accusative of time, i.e. 3 (or 4) years long. However, such wording would be rather unusual for a dating formula, as one would rather expect ‘in the third year, king Pttule’. A dative singular is also posited by Laroche 1979c:104 and Melchert (DLL:76), though without addressing the issue further. Further evidence is needed.

[D.S.]

In the trilingual inscription, the Lycian compound uhazata corresponds to Greek κατ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν. The meaning ‘year’ for uh(i)- had already been suggested based on the etymological comparison with CLuw. ušš(i)- ‘year’ (Laroche 1974b:138, Laroche 1974a:122f., Neumann 1974a:113). Its co-occurrence with numbers in dating formulas lent further support to the interpretation. The meaning has been generally accepted (DLL:76, Neumann 2007a:402).

[D.S.]

The mutated status of Lycian uh(i)- is not entirely assured by its attestations. One could synchronically posit a stem uha- instead, but this is less probable in view of the dat./loc. in -i. An a-stem noun might be expected to use the locative in -a in such formulas. If the noun uh(i)- is mutated and nevertheless has a genitival adjective in -ahe/i- instead of -ehe/i-, it would indicate an original consonantal stem (Sasseville 2018a:315f.) or perhaps an original i-stem; cf. Lyc. B al(i)-. The choice between these two possibilities depends on the historical interpretation of the stem.

[D.S.]

1. uhazata-
2. uhazit(i)-

Attested in a stele with a priest list (among others) from Hyllarima (its Carian heading is dated to 320 or 320/319, Adiego 2019b:20–22) and in two fragments from Keramos of unknown date (Varinlioğlu 1986a:11f.). Adiego 2007a:23, 150 had some doubts regarding the Carian character of the Keramos inscriptions, which seem to have been retracted in Adiego 2019b:42f.

[Zs.S.]

The attestations follow Adiego 2019b:19, 25f., 42f. (cf. Adiego 2007a:386) checked against the photograph in Laumonier 1934a:347 Fig. 26. and in Varinlioğlu 1986a:Taf. VI.2 (C.Ke 1, there is no photograph of C.Ke 2). Adiego 2019b:43 speculates if aitusi in C.Ka 5 (cf .s.v) can be segmented as “ait usi” with usi in dative-locative singular meaning something like “they made/(will) make in a year”, but admits that the context is completely obscure (note also that “usi” does not fit the known or assumed dative singular endings [-s, -e, zero], either).

The ending -τ was previously identified as genitive plural (Laumonier 1934a:350; Schürr 1992a:146; Hajnal 1995b:15 n. 9 [only as genitive]; Adiego 2002a:17, Adiego 2007a:319), but Melchert 2010f:185 argued for dative plural, to which also Adiego 2019b:25f. assented. Simon forthcoming, in contrast, argues for an ablative ending on semantic and formal grounds (note that in C.Ke 1 & 2 usoτ seems to be preceded by the sign for the number ‘1’).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 27 July 2020

The meaning ‘year’ was convincingly identified on contextual grounds (in a dating formula) by Adiego 2019b:19, 25f.

[Zs.S.]

Rejected derivatives:

1. *u/wśoλ