/washa(d^?)-/, (“*419”)wa/i-sa-ha-

The lexeme is attested three times in the HLuw. corpus. It occurs in inscriptions from Karkamiš, both probably dating to the mid-8^th century BCE, and once in one of the letters found in Assur, but originating from elsewhere and dating to the late 8^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

The semantic interpretation of this word has seen considerable discussion among scholars (thus also noted by Hawkins 2000a:153), not least because its contexts of attestation in HLuw. are difficult to reconcile with those in CLuw. While the CLuw. contexts are all religious in nature, whereas HLuw. uses the present word at least once in a commercial context, as do other members of the word family, cf. Melchert 2015a:409. Moreover, the interpretation of the contexts is often less than straightforward, e.g. in the transactional context of KARKAMIŠ A4a, §11: (“PANIS.PITHOS”)á-za-li-sa-pa-wa/i (DOMINUS)na-ní “*419”-sa-ha-sá-´ DARE-mi-na, which was only recently reinterpreted as ‘But a meal is to be given to the lord as (i.e., for the purpose of?) washa(d^?)-’ (cf. Yakubovich 2011a:261 and Melchert 2015a:411). Previous interpretations were based on a different analysis of the syntactic structure, e.g. Hawkins 2000a:152f. translates ‘the lord of the washa-’, commenting on the morphological problems. In TÜNP 1, §7, the word appears to denote a (monetary?) fine in case of damage to the installation: 1 (“SCALPRUM”)ma-na-sa-ha-na (“*419”)wa/i-sa-ha-sa, probably meaning ‘and 1 mina (is) the fine/payment (for?) him’. In ASSUR letter f+g, §27, finally, the context seems different again: á-pi-ha-wa/i-za (*420)wa/i-sa-ha-sa kwa/i-za VIA-wa/i-ni-ta, with a tentative interpretation as ‘And again, why did (s)he/they send us washa(d)-?’, suggesting that the word denotes a tradable commodity, in this case sent by mistake. As mentioned in the phonological interpretation above, the ASSUR letter attestation is the only one to employ a variant of the sign usually used for a logographic determinative, and this may mark the difference between the otherwise abstract meaning of the word as opposed to the concrete meaning here. However, more evidence is needed to assess this hypothesis.

On the basis of the attestations, various semantic interpretations have been proposed, e.g. ‘purchase, sale’ (Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1982a:99f. incl. n. 9, largely followed by Melchert 2014a:411), ‘(a sacralized object)’ vel sim. (Hawkins 2000a:153), ‘contribution, fee’ (Yakubovich 2011a:261), ‘Abgabe, Strafzahlung’ (HEG U-Z:392) Tischler (HEG U-Z:391f.) separates HLuw. /washa(d)-/ from the other members of the word family, which is highly unlikely given their remarkable resemblance also on the graphemic level. etc. Besides these more recent interpretations, older ones include more semantically far-flung suggestions such as ‘companion’ (“Genosse”) by Meriggi 1934a:90. Recently, Blažek & Schwarz 2016a:87-93 suggested that /washa(d)-/ may denote ‘gold’. Melchert 2015a:412 hypothesises that an earlier meaning such as ‘pledge in exchange’ may have pertained to commercial trade, payment for infractions, as well as interaction with the divine sphere, thereby uniting the disparate contextual evidence. However, until further evidence surfaces, no meaning will be assigned here.

[AH.B.]

The morphological analysis of the present noun first and foremost depends on what grammatical gender is assumed for it. So far, it has generally been believed to be a neuter gender noun because of the syntactic analysis of ASSUR letter f+g, §27 cited above under Meaning. If the interpretation is correct, /washa(d)-/ would constitute the direct object in that clause and by virtue of its unchanging form prove itself to be a neuter. In the other contexts of attestation known so far, it takes the role of the subject.

In addition to that, the neuter gender assumed for a stem /washa-/ is highly improbable for the attested forms. The expected outcome for the nom./acc. sg. of */washa-/ would be */washan=za/, spelt *〈wa/i-sa-ha-za〉 because of the dental epenthesis between the /-n/ of the ending and the neuter particle /=sa/, a process that can be observed in many other words, cf. Melchert 2003b:183. Instead, spellings such as 〈wa/i-sa-ha-sa〉, consistently with /sa/ at the end, strongly suggest a consonantal /washad-/, Neuter stems in /°d/ are rare, but seem to exist: in DEUS.DOMUS-had- ‘temple’ and /tad-/ ‘block’. because final stops underwent deletion in Luwian before the neuter particle /=sa, =za/ was attached (see e.g. Melchert 2003b:182), and the attested forms therefore fit the expected outcome perfectly. In consequence, a stem /washad-/ makes it impossible for this noun to serve as the derivational base for the adjective /washai(ya)-/, which, in that case, should have the shape */washadi(ya)-/.

However, the lexeme’s putative CLuw. cognate wašḫa- is a common gender noun, and Giusfredi 2010a:232 n. 499 f. and Melchert 2015a:412 regard the HLuw. (and by extension probably also the CLuw.) form as a combination of */was-/ and the suffix /-sha-/, the latter of which usually forms common gender nouns. If the word should prove to be a common gender noun, the interpretation of its spelling would require a reassessment and the passage in ASSUR letter f+g, §27 a reinterpretation. In that case, the stem would be /washa-/, and the attested spellings would reflect a regular nom. sg. of a common gender a-stem.

Finally, it is a fact that a stem */washa-/, of whichever gender, must have existed in HLuw. as well at some point, because the adjective /washai(ya)-/ is derived from it.

[AH.B.]

For the lemma head see HLuw. */washa-/.