wāšukini-/wāšuniki-

This lexeme is found in the incantations of the festival for the Palaic pantheon.

[D.S.]

nom. sg. c.	wa-a-šu-ki-ni-eš	KUB 35.165 obv. 12	(CTH 751, OS or MS)
	wa-a-šu-ki-ni-eš	KUB 35.165 obv. 24	(CTH 751, OS or MS)
	[w]a-a-šu-ki-ni-eš	KUB 35.165 obv. 17	(CTH 751, OS or MS)
	wa-a-˹šu˺[-ni-ki-eš]	KBo 19.151 obv. 4’	(CTH 751, NS)
	wa-a-š[u-ki-ni-eš]	KUB 32.17, 10’	(CTH 751, MS?)
	[wa-]a-˹šu˺-ni-ki-e[š]	KBo 19.151 obv. 5’	(CTH 751, NS)
nom. pl. c.	wa-a-šu-ni-ki-eš	KBo 19.154 + KUB 35.166, 8’	(CTH 751, MS?)

Pace Eichner 2010a:45-47, wāšukinieš must not always be a nominative plural in spite of the use of the sign 〈eš〉. It is clear from other examples such as nom. sg. c. pur-ta-ḫi-iš beside nom. sg. c. pur-ta-ḫi-eš, that the sign 〈eš〉 cannot be used as a decisive factor for the nominative plural; cf. Starke 1990a:74. The evidence for a nominative singular is drawn from the verb kītar ‘lies’, which is a singular form. Pace Eichner 2010a:46, his necessity to assume a mismatch in numerus due to the lack of Palaic competence on the part of the Hittite scribe is ad hoc and does not win favor against a simpler interpretation of the passage.

[D.S.]

Checked against the Photographs of the Konkordanz. The orthography of this lexeme diverges strongly regarding the second part. One finds three times the spelling with -ki-ni- and twice with -ni-ki-. Eichner 2010a:46f. explains that the variant -ki-ni- is the lectio dificilior, because our word occurs constantly after the adjective wu_ú-la-ši-ni-ki-eš having the sequence -ni-ki-. Therefore, the variant -ni-ki- in wa-a-šu-ni-ki-eš would have been influenced from the preceding adjective. However, this explanation is harmed by the fact that the variant -ni-ki- occurs once after the [^di-la-l]i-ia-an-te-eš, which does not contain the sequence. It is better to posit a phonological explanation, for which see right below.

[D.S.]

Bossert 1954a:97 sees in wāšukini-/wāšuniki- a derivative of wāšu-, which remains undebated, and analyzes it as an adjective. Melchert 1984b:41 adopts this interpretation and translates it as ‘beneficent’, which provides good sense into the context (followed by Eichner 2010a:46f.). The adjective wāšukini-/wāšuniki- modifies, on the one hand, different kinds of bread and, on the other hand, the deities [^di-la-l]i-ia-an-te-eš (KBo 19.154 + KUB 35.166, 8’).

Differently, Starke 1990a:73 translates this adjective as ‘valuable’, which does not render a proper sense for the example modifying deities. Carruba 1972a:29 interprets it as a substantive and translates it as ‘delicacy’. Starke 1990a:73 rejects the interpretation of Carruba, because he expects a substantivized adjective to be in the neuter plural only. His counterargument must be discarded here, since adjectives can be substantivized in the common gender as well; cf. Luw. ^dḫilašša/i- c. (deity), ^NINDAḫarnantašša/i- c. (kind of bread) both substantivized from the possessive adjective in -ašša/i-. A substantive for wāšukini-/wāšuniki- standing in apposition to the head noun cannot in principle be excluded, but since there is nothing supporting it, we will stay by the default interpretation as adjective.

[D.S.]