wašḫašaur-

Hapax in a Luwian ritual (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. pl. n.

wa-aš-ḫa-ša-u-ra

KBo 29.6 obv. 27’

The attestation follows CLL:263 (cf. also Starke 1990a:547; unpublished at the time of Laroche 1959a) checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[Zs.S.]

Setting aside Tischler, who considered it as a substantive of unknown meaning (Tischler 2008a:223, Tischler 2016a:429) and Ünal 2016a, who did not include it in his Luwian glossary, Starke 1990a:547 derived this word from the Luwian adjective wašḫaya/i- as the verbal noun of the verb *wašḫašša-, an iterative form of an “-ai̯i-”verb built on this adjective. Since he argued that the meaning of the adjective cannot be defined, he did not assign any meaning to wašḫašaur-, either. His views were followed by CLL:263 (who mentions “*wašḫā-”as an alternative derivational base). Yakubovich (pers. comm.) went one step further and based on the alleged meaning ‘sacred, consecrated’ of wašḫaya/i- (but see s.v.) he assigned a meaning ‘sacred object’ vel sim. to wašḫašaur- (followed now by Melchert [pers. comm.] as ‘pledged tool’).

wašḫašaur- is mentioned in an analogical spell, but the context is only partly preserved and thus, it does not help to define the meaning more specifically. Therefore the only remaining clue is the word’s derivational history. The basic idea of Starke’s explanation, the connection to the family of Luwian wašḫa- seems correct, but there are many more options for the derivation and no decision can be made without further evidence:

1. The first possibility is indeed the verbal substantive of an imperfective verb. This verb can be derived either from the substantive wašḫa- (via either a factitive verb *wašḫa- or a verb *wašḫa(i)-) or from the adjective wašḫaya/i- (which would lead with the same derivations either to *wašḫaya-, which cannot be the base of *wašḫašša-, and or again to *wašḫa(i)-). It is worth noting that Sasseville 2018b:66‒69 argues that the elimination of the -i- in this verbal class is an Iron Age development which tips the scale in favour of an underlying factitive verb *wašḫa-.
2. The second possibility is a verb based on the derivative wašḫašša- of wašḫa- , which even seems to be attested (see s.v.). The above derivations would lead to an underlying factitive verb *wašḫašša- or to a verb *wašḫašša(i)-. The above quoted argumentation of Sasseville applies here too, and thus, the factitive verb *wašḫašša- is more probable.

Unfortunately, the meaning of Luwian wašḫa- is not entirely clear, it means a kind of implement (see s.v.). Accordingly, the meaning of wašḫašaur- can only vaguely be given such as ‘(continuously / repeatedly ?) wašḫa-ized objects’ vel sim.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020