šaptame/inzu

Hapax in a Hittite ritual in NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg.

ša-ap-ta-mi-en-zu

KUB 29.1 iii 2

(CTH 414, NS)

The attestation follows CHD Š:208 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:605; EDHIL:726) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. No case is given in CHD Š:208 and by EDHIL:726, but since the word follows the number “9” and it is the object of the sentence (see under Meaning), nom.-acc. sg. is the only possibility (on Hittite congruence with cardinal numbers see Rieken 2013a). The word is booked with -enzu in Neu 1983a:288 n. 14 and CHD Š:208, but with -inzu in Tischler 2008a:161 and EDHIL:726 (on the basis of the parallel form 8-in-zu). No decision can be made on the basis of these two examples, especially since the origin of that segment is unclear (EDHIL:726).

[Zs.S.]

The word is attested in the following context (KUB 29.1 iii 1-3, Görke 2015-2017a:§31):

^(1)DTelibinuš widdu x x x[…] ⁽²⁾ḫāšu nu GEŠTIN-an udau 9 šaptami/enzu ⁽³⁾nu ḪUR.SAG-i pēdau (…)

‘Telipinu shall come! He shall open [….]! He shall bring out wine, 9 š.! He shall bring (it) to the mountain!’

Setting aside Haas 1994a:727, who does not translate the word (and misspells it as “šatamenzu”), there are several proposals in the literature:

1. Goetze 1950c:358 cautiously translated it as casks (in italics, similarly Weitenberg 1984a:45 “ein Gefäß von bestimmter Kapazität”), but CHD Š:208f. rightly pointed out that “the lack of a DUG determinative makes this doubtful” (contra CHD, Goetze did not suggest an interpretation “seven-times (bigger)” or “seven-times filled”).
2. According to the cautious suggestion of Kellerman 1980a:29, 54, the phrase 9 šaptami/enzu “probablement” refers to the amount of wine and means “neuf fois, sept fois” (with question mark). CHD Š:208 objects that one would expect in this case *9-ŠU šaptamenzu, and one indeed expects that the scribe would indicate clearly that this is not a substantive with a number, as it naturally reads. Moreover, while 9 and 7 are definitely numbers that one expects in such a text, their order, first “nine” and then “seven”, and not the other way round, i.e. ascending, is unexpected and is not really fitting.
3. A widespread explanation is based on its alleged etymology from the cardinal ‘seven’ (cf. under Origin), thus ‘sevenfold, septaplex’ according to CHD Š:208 (followed by Ünal 2007a:605, Ünal 2016a:459, EDHIL:726 [both with question mark and Kloekhorst emphasizes that its meaning cannot be determined on the basis of the context], and Görke 2015-2017a:§31). While the etymology is probably correct (cf. under Origin), the question is what the sentence really means synchronically in this case, since Görke’s translation (Görke 2015-2017a:§31), “Wein soll er herbeibringen, neun Siebenfache!” makes no sense (especially without any explanation). CHD Š:209 suggests that we are perhaps dealing with a vessel made up of seven parts, which would make sense in the context. However, as CHD rightly points out, the absence of the determinative DUG weakens this idea. Alternatively, they suggest that perhaps not the vessel was septaplex but the number of offerings to be made, i.e. “nine sevenfold (offerings)”, which however, does not fit the structure of the sentence. HEG L-S:852 claims that a numeric adverb is more probable than a measure of capacity (see below), because the suffix -i/enzu is attested with the number ‘eight’, too. While this is etymologically correct, it is synchronically true only if it is syntactically adequate (which is not, since it is preceded by “nine”) and if it leads to a meaningful sentence, which is not the case, either (this is implicitly recognized by HEG, too, which finally translates it as “siebenfach(-Einheiten)”).
4. Already earlier research suggested yet another possibility, practically ignored by CHD, i.e. a measure of capacity (Starke 1977a:50; Carini 1982a:497; Marazzi 1982b:157; Tischler 2008a:161, Tischler 2016a:304 [with question mark, but see above]), which would fit without problems.

Based on the context, the phrase “9 š.” refers to the wine Telipinu shall bring and nine is the amount of the wine. Accordingly, šaptami/enzu is either the type of the wine or its measurement. If it is a type, then it may refer to the (otherwise unknown) production of the wine (cf. semantically e.g. doppio passo with Primitivo in Puglia or három/négy/öt/hatputtonyos [‘of three/four/five/six butts’] with Tokaji Aszú in Hungary; the number may refer also to the number of spices or ingredients [cf. punch] or grape varieties used for making the wine) or the grape (which might have been named after its shape, e.g. ‘of seven clusters’). If it was a measurement, the measure of capacity already proposed is the obvious choice and the etymological origin from ‘seven’ does not need to have any relevance to its real size (cf. the case of English mile). No decision can be made based upon this single passage.

[Zs.S.]

CHD Š:208f. suggests a derivation from Luwian *šaptam ‘seven’ with the suffix -enzu known also in 8-inzu ‘eightfold’ (similarly HEG L-S:852 from Luwian *sapta- / *saptama-), but it has not been included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2006a (and of course missing also in the pre-CHD literature, Eichner 1992a:83–85 and CLL). EDHIL:726 alternatively suggests that the stem šaptam- represents the Hittite outcome of the cardinal “*sptm-”: see the discussion s.v. Luwian in Old Assyrian transmission *šaptama-, where it is shown that this is formally and methodologically false and it must be a Luwian form. It depends on the currently unknown etymology of the suffix whether we are dealing with a borrowed stem with a Hittite suffix or if the entire form is a borrowing.

[Zs.S.]