warmama/i-

So far, this gloss wedge word is attested only in a cult inventory from the NH period.

[E.R.]

part. nom. or acc. pl. c.

wa-ar-ma-me-en-zi

KUB 48.105 rev. 32

(CTH 529, NS)

The morphological analysis as nom. or acc. depends on the syntactic analysis of the relevant passage as either one or two sentences: 1 ⸢É⸣ 10 NAM.RA ^LÚ.MEŠḫu-u-wa-da-a-la-an-[z]i wa-ar-ma-me-en-zi ^DUTU-ŠI p[a-a-iš(?)] “1 household, (composed of) 10 transportees, ḫuwadalanzi warmamenzi-men – His Majesty p[rovides^? (this)]” (thus Cammarosano 2018a:285). Irrespective of the tense chosen for the restored verb, the nouns have to be understood as its objects in the accusative, if the sequence constitutes a single sentence. In Cammarosano’s interpretation, however, the nouns are either elements of a list or appositions in the nominative.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The context—cited under Forms—does not provide enough information for a semantic analysis and the word is left untranslated (see Archi & Klengel 1980a:152, Ünal 2007a:788, HHw:s.v., HEG U-Z:334). On the formal side, the participial form suggests an underlying verb, for which only CLuw. warma- comes into consideration. Accordingly, there are recent attempts (Cammarosano 2018a:290) to derive a finite 3pl. pret. act. warmaunta and warmama/i- from the same verb, still with the meaning of either entirely opaque. Meanwhile a meaning ‘to conjure’ has been posited for the finite verb by Melchert & Yakubovich (pers. comm.), which is hard to reconcile with an attribute modifying the designation of functionaries. Therefore, the link is highly questionable, and the semantic elucidation of the participial form must await further evidence.

[E.R.]

The most likely interpretation is that of a participle in -mma/i- with i-mutation, but the underlying verbal stem cannot be identified (see under Meaning).

[E.R.]