/washai(ya)-/

This lexeme has hapax legomenon status in the HLuw. corpus, and its sole occurrence can be found on a stone basin from Aleppo, tentatively dated to the 8^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

With the present word attested only once, its meaning is difficult to gauge based on the context. An earlier connection of the CLuw. cognate wašḫai(ya)- with Hittite išḫa- ‘lord’ (thus Meriggi 1957a:196 and Laroche in DLL:109) has long been abandoned, cf. e.g. Weitenberg 1984a:408 n. 822 and Hawkins 2000a:153. In BABYLON 2, §4, it occurs in the fourth and last sentence of an inscription on a stone basin: á-mu-pa-wa/i-tu (“*419”)wa/i-sa-ha-i-za ku+ra/i-i-sà ka-tara/i-hi-ha i-zi-i-ha, approx. /ammu=ba=wa=du washain=za kuri=sa katrihhin=ha izzihha/, meaning ‘But I made the washaiya kuri(d)- (a sacred object?) and the katrihh(i)- for him (scil. the aforementioned storm-god)’, and besides /washai(ya)-/ being unclear, the two unknown nouns /kuri(d)-/ and /katrihh(i)-/ further stand in the way of drawing any conclusions regarding the semantics of the adjective. What appears to an exact cognate in CLuw. wašḫai(ya)- is likewise semantically opaque.

Like its HLuw. cognate /washa(d?)-/ ‘(unknown)’,The noun was thought to be the derivational base for the adjective /washai(ya)-/, but this is only possible if the stem of the noun should be /washa-/ after all, which is possible, but less likely; see the discussion there. the present word has seen a lot of controversy regarding its meaning. Scholars have variously refrained from assigning a meaning, e.g. Hawkins 2000a:155 and 396, Melchert 2003c:148 n. 9. Suggestions have been e.g. ‘consecrated’ (Rieken 2005b:68 and Melchert 2015a:409), ‘sacred’ (Yakubovich 2010d:2019), all based on the presumed function of the carrier material in HLuw., i.e. a stone basis possibly intended for ritualistic purposes. Melchert 2015a:412 advances the hypothesis that the meaning may have developed out of an earlier ‘pledge in exchange’, pertaining to commercial trade, payment for infractions, as well as interaction with the divine sphere. Without further evidence, however, its meaning in HLuw. remains out of grasp.

[AH.B.]

The present adjective is in all likelihood derived from an unattested noun */washa-/ by way of the frequently used suffix /-i(ya)-/, which forms adjectives of appurtenance (cf. e.g. Melchert 2003b:197). Formations of this type are usually semantically transparent, and the same should therefore be assumed for the word under discussion, i.e. its denotation is ‘of washa-’.

[AH.B.]

Attested in a Luwian ritual (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	wa-aš-ḫa-i-iš	KBo 7.68 ii 7’	(CTH 764, NS)
		KBo 7.68 ii 8’	(CTH 764, NS)
nom.-acc. sg. n.	wa-aš-ḫa-i-ia-an-za	KBo 7.68 ii 6’	(CTH 764, NS)
nom.-acc. pl. n.	wa-aš-ḫa-i-ia	KBo 7.68 ii 7’	(CTH 764, NS)
	wa-aš-˹ḫa˺[-i-ia]	KBo 7.68 ii 2’	(CTH 764, NS)

The attestations follow CLL:264 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:109 and HEG U-Z:391) checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Starke 1985b:361 with n. 7 leaves open if wa-aš-˹ḫa˺ in KBo 7.68 ii 2’ is the entire word or if it should be restored as wa-aš-˹ḫa˺[-i-ia]. CLL:264, Melchert 2015a:409 follows the latter proposal, which seems morphosyntactically better motivated and thus, it is followed here, too. The alternative restoration of wa-a[š-ḫa-an] in KBo 7.68 ii 4’ as wa-a[š-ḫa-i-ia-an] proposed by Starke 1985b:361 n. 8 is contextually not supported, see s.v. wašḫa-.

[Zs.S.]

Setting aside those scholars who did not translate the word (Starke 1990a:548 with n. 2028 and Ünal 2016a:976) or gave a false translation (Meriggi 1953b:196 [‘herr(schaft)lich, fürstlich’] based on the formally impossible assonance with Hittite išḫā- ‘master, lord’, but followed by Laroche 1959a:109, Kronasser 1962c:328 [“erilis”], and Carruba 1982a:44f., Carruba 1982b:10, cf. also Otten 1953a:43 with n. 95) there is a widespread view that this word means ‘sacralized’ (Melchert 1990a:202 n. 10 [adding ‘pure’], CLL:264; van den Hout 2001a:181 n. 70; Hutter 2003a:257 [adding ‘holy’]), ‘consecrated’ (Melchert 2015a:409, similarly Tischler 2008a:223 [‘geheiligt’], Tischler 2016a:429, HEG U-Z:390f. [‘geheiligt, geweiht, (kultisch) rein’]) or even ‘devoted, benevolent, consecrated’ (Yakubovich 2013b:161). The word is attested either as an epithet of ^DLAMMA (see s.v.), for which Melchert 2015a:409 suggests a translation ‘patron (<*dedicated)’ (and Tischler 2008a:223 ‘Herr’, with question mark), or as an adjective describing specific objects in the ritual KBo 7.68. These objects are parts of a ritual meal and consist of only partly identified wooden objects (including a table), bread types, a vessel, morsel, wine, and people (baker, drink-server, chamberlain) who are all wašḫaya-. It is of course possible that they are all “sacralized” or “consecrated”, but there is no evidence for this meaning. Wašḫaya- is an appurtenance adjective from wašḫa- and thus, it simply means that these entities belong or are connected to wašḫa-. While there is evidence that wašḫa- is an object, a closer definition is not possible, except that it might be an agricultural or garden implement (see s.v., setting aside the theoretical possibility that wašḫa-, the object, and wašḫa-, the base of wašḫaya-, are only homophonous and both were used in the ritual, for instance, to create an alliteration).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 25 November 2020

Attested in a Hittite fragment and a ritual (NS and LNS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.	wa-aš-ḫa-i[-iš]	KBo 12.100 obv. 13	(CTH 765, LNS)
dat. sg.	wa-aš-ḫa-i	KBo 34.186, 5’	(CTH 642.5, NS)

The attestations follow van Gessel 1998a:700 and CLL:264 checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The contextually supported restoration of wa-aš-ḫa-i[-iš] in KBo 12.100 obv. 13 follows Starke 1985b:244 (and accepted by CLL:264, Melchert 2015a:409).

[Zs.S.]

The word, an epithet of ^DLAMMA (plausibly restored also in KBo 12.100 obv. 13, see Starke 1985b:211 and Melchert 2015a:409), is undoubtedly identical to Luwian wašḫaya/i-, see the discussion s.v.

[Zs.S.]

Although the word is not included in the collection of Luwianisms in Hittite texts (Melchert 2005a, van den Hout 2007a), it is identified as Luwian by van Gessel 1998a:700, Melchert 2015a:409, and HEG U-Z:390 and its identity to Luwian wašḫaya/i- clearly shows that we are dealing with a Luwian word.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 25 November 2020

For the lemma head see Luw. wašḫa-.