/u(-)ēkt-

The only attestation of this word with a possible gloss marker appears in a NS document, a court deposition known as the “Ḫešni-conspiracy” describing an attempted conspiracy against king Tudḫaliya IV (cf. Tani 2001a on this text).

[A.B.]

acc. sg. c.

?/u?(-)e-ek-ta-an

KUB 31.68 obv.? 27’ (lower edge)

(CTH 297, NS)

The attestation follows HW (2nd ed.) E:28f., HED E:259, and EDHIL:235 (cf. Hoffner 1977a:105–107, Zorman 2007a:758, not in Laroche 1959a or CLL). The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

This form is usually assumed to belong to Hittite ēkt-/ikt- (cf. under Meaning). The first sign of the form is uncertain (cf. under Graphic features) and generally read as gloss marker, cf. Hoffner 1977a:105, 107, HW (2nd ed.) E:28f., EDHIL:235, and HED E:259). As noted by Hoffner 1977a:105, a reading as u-e-ek-ta-an is also possible but yields no known Hittite word (cf. under Graphic features).

[A.B.]

The first sign of the form ?/u?(-)e-ek-ta-an is uncertain. The hand copy clearly shows a Winkelhaken, but based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv it is difficult to decide if it is really an intended grapheme. Rieken 1999a:143f. considers the possibility of a scribal error, as the hand copy shows no space before the sign under discussion and the manuscript has several erasures that give the impression of a hastily written text. If it should indeed be a Winkelhaken, though, its reading is ambiguous, because it could be an U-sign or a gloss marker. But as already mentioned, a form uēktan would not lead to an attested word and accordingly, the first sign of this form is generally assumed to be a gloss marker.

[A.B.]

Since a lexeme *uēkt- is not known, this form is usually identified with the Hittite lexeme ēkt-/ikt- ‘net’ (cf. under the respective lemma). The context of the form with possible gloss marker in KUB 31.68 27’–28’ shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition the hand copy as well as transliterations, restorations and translations of Hoffner 1977a:105, Tani 2001a:157 and HED E:259 have been taken into account):

(27’)[... n]am-ma-wa ku-in ?/u?(-)e-ek-ta-an ḫa-ma-x[ ...] (28’)[...]x-bu-bu mta-x-i-le-eš-ša kiš-an me-mi[- ...]

(27’)[...]“however, [... a]gain which net bi[nds? ...] (28’)[...]x-bubu and mTaškuili in the following way speak[- …]“

Hoffner 1977a:105, 107 (following Alp 1957a:29) restores the fragmentary form ḫa-ma-x[ after ?/u?(-)e-ek-ta-an with the Hittite verb ḫamank- ‘to bind’, which would fit the meaning ‘net’.

[A.B.]

As discussed under Graphic features, the assumed gloss marker is rather uncertain. Even if it is a gloss marker, this is not a certain indicator for a foreign (or Luwian) origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445). The word does not appear in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a or van den Hout 2007a. Hoffner 1977a:107 (in personal communication with Berman) correctly analyzed the form as Hittite (because of the e-vowel, which appears in Luwian as a, cf. Laroche 1959a:134), cf. Rieken 1999a:143. They also referred to other examples of Hittite words with gloss marker (cf. also examples in Güterbock 1956a:130–135 and Melchert 2005a:445f.) and assumed aggat(i)- as its Luwian cognate (cf. under the respective lemma). Differently, Tischler 2008a:34 lists the lemma ()ekt- as “Luwian in Hittite context”, cf. Tischler 2016a:47, but as explained above, this is rather unlikely because of the e-vowel. To conclude, the form ?/u?(-)e-ek-ta-an most probably belongs to Hitt. ēkt-/ikt-.

[A.B.]