ḫuitumar

The word is attested only twice, in a festival text (MS) with mixed Palaic and Luwian incantations and a Luwian ritual for a sick child (NS).

[E.R.]

Like ḫuitumar transmitted in Hittite context, ḫuitumarša is listed among blissful features such as life, health, and strength required for the sick child (KBo 13.260 iii 18’-20’), confirming the meaning assigned to the lexeme. Whether or not there is a semantic difference to wayaḫi(t)- is impossible to tell.

[E.R.]

On the stem formation, see ḫuitumar in Hittite transmission.

[E.R.]

Carruba 1970a:25f. analyzed line 13’ of the mixed Hittite, Palaic and Luwian text as Palaic and, accordingly, listed ḫuitumarša as Palaic, ibid. 56. Following Carruba, the word is also classified as Palaic in HHw:58 and HEG A-K:270. However, the lines immediately preceding 13’ are obviously Luwian, which, together with the use of the secondary particle -ša, speaks for a Luwian lexeme also in line 13’.

[E.R.]

Within Hittite transmission, ḫuitumar is found only in two duplicate NS copies of a myth embedded in a ritual, about the creation of man.

[E.R.]

Attestations following Starke 1990a:285; see also Fuscagni 2014c with references. – The nom./acc. in -umar is confirmed by the existence of the form ḫuitumarša with the secondary particle -ša within the Cuneiform Luwian corpus.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Among the blessings that the personified river chose when the world was distributed among the gods, the ḫuitumar of progeny is listed between purification and prosperity. Thus, the context confirms what the derivational chain indicates, i.e. that ḫuitumar is an abstract noun ultimately derived from the root ḫuid- ‘to live, life’, see already Carruba 1966a:18 n. 27 and Otten & Siegelová 1970a:33 (followed in Starke 1990a:285f., CLL:83, EDHIL:355f.).

[E.R.]

Starke 1990a:285 submits that the nom./acc. in -mar is combined with a reconstructed oblique stem in -m(ma)n- (see under the derivative ḫuidum(ma)naḫi(t)-) to form a heteroclitic paradigm. As in Hittite, the former is probably a back-formation based on the latter (contra Rieken 1999a:366). However, while Hittite shows numerous examples of that process (Melchert 1983a), for Luwian, this is an isolated case (Starke 1990:285f., CLL:59 s.v. ḫarnamman-).

The immediate derivational base of ḫuidumar is a matter of discussion: Melchert 1983a:17 reconstructs adjectival *ḫuidu- and thus presupposes a denominal derivative. Starke 1990a:163 assumes an intermediate denominal verb *ḫuituw-a-(ti) ‘to be alive’ built on the u-stem adjective. Puhvel (HED Ḫ:354) starts out from the root ḫuid-, which serves as the basis for the verbal noun ḫuidumar (in apparent parallelism to ardumar ← ard- ‘to saw’, but the latter itself is irregular). Among the solutions presented, Melchert’s proposal has the advantage that the adjective *ḫuidu- can be reconstructed also on account of *ḫuidwal(i)- ‘alive’ and is thus independently supported.

[E.R.]

1. ḫuidum(ma)naḫi(t)-

Luwian origin seems guaranteed by the occurrence of the word in Cuneiform Luwian context, but Puhvel (HED Ḫ:354) thinks it possible that ḫuidumar is a Hittite formation borrowed into Luwian, where it is fully integrated and could be derived further.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. ḫuid-.