?kula?[-

The attestation of this word is very uncertain, it is supposed to appear with a gloss marker in a small NS tablet that records an oracle text.

[A.B.]

?

?ku?-la-x[

KBo 18.146 l.e. 12

(CTH 581, NS)

The attestation follows Starke 1990a:236 and CLL:105 (cf. Zorman 2016a:580, not in Laroche 1959a). The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Starke 1990a:236 reads the form as kula and points out that it remains obscure (cf. CLL:195). The form cannot be further determined, cf. below for the details.

[A.B.]

The form is written on the lower edge of the tablet (the text runs across this edge). According to the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (and the hand copy), the first sign, which is interpreted as a gloss marker by Starke 1990a:236 (cf. CLL:105), seems to be a diagonal rather than a Winkelhaken. However, a Winkelhaken cannot be completely excluded, in which case the sign could also be read as U. Furthermore, the following sign is likewise not clearly identifiable as KU on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (the photo and the hand copy also show differences to other KU-signs on the tablet). There are traces of another sign after the sign LA (also indicated in the hand copy), which cannot be identified, because the tablet breaks off at this point. The form therefore remains completely obscure due to the fragmentary context (cf. under Meaning) and the uncertain reading of the of the signs at hand.

[A.B.]

As noted by Starke 1990a:236, the form remains obscure. CLL:105 follows this view, while not excluding a connection to kūla- ‘link (in chain)’ (?), under which the attestation is mentioned (for this word cf. HEG A–K:619f., HED K: 236), whereas Starke 1990a:236 n. 807 points out that kūla- (which appears in inventory texts and had also been considered by Bossert 1958a:121) is “sicher fernzuhalten”.

Starke’s view is probably correct since KBo 18.146 includes the report of a liver oracle and not an inventory text. It also mentions the king (“My Sun”) in a temple (line 14) and the performing of a prayer (line 15) on the reverse side of the tablet.

However, the form under discussion appears in a fragmentary context (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition, the hand copy has been taken into account): ⁽¹²⁾[... -]x-at ul ^?ku^?-la-x[...]. It is unclear to which word the form belongs. But since it appears after the negation ul ‘not’, it is most likely a verb. A similar verb that also appears as Glossenkeilwort is /kulāni(ya)- ‘to complete, to be completed’ (or sim.), cf. under the respective lemma). If this fragmentary form belongs to the present verb, the sequence could perhaps be translated as: “not complet[ed^? ]” (or sim.), but since the form and the context remain unclear, this proposal remains uncertain.

[A.B.]

The origin of this word is unknown. If the first sign is a gloss marker, this could point to a Luwian origin (although it does not necessarily indicate a Luwian origin, cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445). If the form belongs to the Glossenkeilwort /kulāni(ya)-, its origin is Luwian (see s.v.). However, since the form cannot be further determined, its morphology remains unknown.

[A.B.]