kulimmašša/i-

The clear attestions of the lexeme are found in fragments from the Tauriša tradition.

[D.S.]

nom. (?) sg.	ku-li-im-ma-aš-ši-<iš>	KUB 35.79 iv? 9’	(CTH 765, MS)
acc. sg.	[ … k]u-li-ma-aš-ši-in	KUB 35.109 iii 5	(CTH 765, MS)
unclear	LÚku-l[i-im-ma-aš-ši-	KBo 13.261, 2’	(CTH 770, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainer Fotoarchiv). Starke 1979a:221 reads ma-li-im-ma-… in KUB 35.79 iv^? 9’, in order to attribute it to the lexeme mal(a)i-^(di) (followed by Serangeli 2016b:186 n. 8), even though the sign is too short for 〈ma〉 compared to other 〈ma〉 signs on the tablet. He claims that the scribe carved it shorter on purpose, because he was running out of space, which is not convincing considering the space he left between this word and the last one in the line (Sasseville 2021a:221). Starke 1985b:399 n. 48 admits that the reading of 〈ma〉 is uncertain and transliterates it with 〈ku〉.. Furthermore, he suggests restoring the sign 〈iš〉 at the end of the word before the clitic =wa, first by comparing the last clause, in which the first word following by =wa is in the nominative singular, and second by assuming that the genitive adjective in -ašša/i- has a dative in -an, not in -i. Needless to say, the fragmentary context renders any decision between the possibilities proposed highly uncertain. The sign k]u- in KUB 35.109 iii 5 (left undeciphered in Otten 1953c:100) is restored by Bossert 1960b:5 (followed by Starke 1985b:266).

[D.S.]

The lexeme kulimmašša/i- is found only in fragmentary contexts, which makes it difficult to suggest any meaning. Furthermore, it cannot be verified whether it is used as an adjective or as a substantive, except in KBo 13.261, where it is preceded by the determinative LÚ (attributed to this lexeme by Melchert (CLL:106)), indicating that it refers to a man. However, this attestation is for the most part restored, which calls for caution concerning the interpretation of the other two. Bossert compares the word ku-li-ma-a-aš-ši-na-a-ša attested in Hurrian (cf. Richter 2012a:220), assuming a Luwian loanword in Hurrian. Furthermore, he suggests that the base of kulimmašša/i-, i.e. kulimma/i-, might be the participle of a verb Luwian kuli-, which is morphologically adequate and further supported by Palaic kuwalima- ‘stockyard’ (cf. also Pal. kuliwali-). If the noun really belongs to the root kul- (or CLuw. kwal-) ‘to turn’, this provides a semantic basis for further discussion. The context of KUB 35.109 iii features domestic animals and their enclosure, e.g. mūdamūdalid- ‘pigs’ rooting ground’, UR.ZÍR-(i)- ‘dog’, although the fragmentary context makes it difficult to verify anything regarding kulimašša/i-. Further evidence is needed.

[D.S.]

The genitival adjective kulimmašša/i- is likely to be substantivized, although the fragmentary contexts hinder any certainty.

[D.S.]

For a possible, albeit not provable etymology, see under Meaning.

[D.S.]