*mEu̯lādr̥/n-

The word is so far found only in the Ritual of Ambazzi (NS).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.	mu-la-a-tar	KBo 13.109 iii 10	(CTH 391, NS)
	mu-u-la-tar	KUB 57.122 r. col. 7	(CTH 391, NS)
abl./instr.	⸢mu⸣-la-at-na-za	KBo 13.109 ii 12’	(CTH 391, NS)
	mu-[la-at-na-za]	KBo 56.18 obv. 5’	(CTH 391, NS)

The attestation of mu-la-tar at KBo 18.186 rev. 11 belongs to a possibly homophonous, but different lexeme (CHD L-N:327, HEG L-N:229).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Illustrating the use of mūlātar, the CHD L-N:327 cites the following passage: ḪUL-u-wa-aš-ša UN^MEŠ-aš AN-ZE-EL-LU ḫur-ki-la-za pa-ap-ra-an-na-za mu-la-at-na-za [   ] NÍ.TE LUGAL QA-TAM-MA pár-ku-eš-du “so let the person of the king become pure from the abomination of evil men, from sexual abomination, from impurity, and from m.” (KBo 13.109 ii 10-13; see also Christiansen 2017a). It is commonly held that mūlātar denotes an evil state that the king must be purified of (CLL:150, Starke 1990a:472, CHD L-N:327, HEG L-N:229, HED M:186, HHw:107, Ünal 2007a:457). Probably, it pairs with papratar ‘impurity’ and is very close to it in meaning (HED M:186).

[E.R.]

With the nom./acc. sg. mūlātar and the abl./instr. mulatnaza, it is obvious that the noun belongs to the heteroclitic stems. In addition to the Hittite form in -ātar, Starke 1990a:472 also posits a Luwian stem mulattar/mulat(ta)n-. Since both the stem in -ātar and that in -atn- occur in the same text, the former is very likely a Hittitization of the Luwian nom./acc. stem in -attar.

[E.R.]

The Luwian origin of the underlying stem -attar/-at(ta)n- stem is pointed out by Starke 1990a:472 (followed in CLL:150, HED M:186, van den Hout 2006a:243, Melchert 2005a:449).

[E.R.]

This lexeme is found on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

dat./loc. sg.(?)

mulẽni

TL 44d.43 (Xanthos)

Kalinka 1901a:43, Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:26 and Gehrisch 2018a:89 take mulẽnipe as one word, whereas Carruba 1968a:21 introduces a word boundary to mulẽni=pe (followed by Shevoroshkin 1969a:257, Melchert (DLL:121) and Neumann 2007a:226).

[D.S.]

Lyc. B mulẽni appears to be an attribute of zppli- ‘feast (?)’ and therefore could denote a particular feast. Shevoroshkin 2002a:228 suggests the meaning ‘improvement’, which is unmotivated. The apparent root mul- could be connected to CLuw. ()mulātar ‘(an abominable state)’, ^NINDAmula(n)ti- ‘(a bread)’, ^TÚLMulili- ‘(the name of a spring)’ (see CHD L-N:327f., CLL:150). Shevoroshkin 2002a:229 links mulẽni to the Lycian personal name Mullijesi, which does not explain the geminate -l- (reflecting a recent assimilation) and does not contribute anything to its semantics. No semantic assignment is suggested here.

[D.S.]

We could be dealing with the dat./loc. sg. of a neuter n-stem, i.e. mulẽ(n)-, or with the Lycian suffix -ẽne/i- (cf. Lyc. B zrẽtẽne/i-; CLuw. -ann(i)-), which may be used for individuals. The suffix -ẽne/i- can also create adjectives (thus DLL:121), which should be kept in mind.

[D.S.]

This lemma was written together with the intern Jonas Döll.