uš^?nuwant(i)-

Hapax in Luwian passages of a Palaic ritual fragment. Although Carruba 1970a:66 booked it as a Palaic word, Starke 1990a:521 n. 1924, 593 pointed out that the word ḫa-am-šu-uk-ka₄-la-a-ti ‘great-grandchild’ in the next line shows Cuneiform Luwian ablative. This can be interpreted in several ways: if the passage is in Palaic, then it can be (1) a Palaic word and case, which was not attested until now, but also (2) a not fully integrated Luwian loanword, and even (3) code-switching – but it could also point to the possibility that (4) the entire paragraph in question is in Luwian. The paragraph is as follows (KBo 19.152 + KBo 27.77 ii 1’-6’, cf. Starke 1990a:593):

3’ [ -]˹ru˺ šu-wa-a-ru ḫa[-

4’ x-nu-ú-wa-an-te-eš a-a-aš-˹tu˺[(-)

5’ ḫa-am-šu-uk-ka₄-la-a-ti ḫar-˹tu˺[(-)

6’ ka-aš-ti ki-iš-ta-a-i̯a-am[(-)

Despite these several possibilities, CLL booked all of these words as Luwian, mostly without any doubts (CLL:33, 50, 61, 103, 105), mentioning only in the case of šuwāru and -]ru that their Luwian status is not assured, but (at least in his views) supported by the context (CLL:198 [followed by HEG S:1233], 31, resp.).

Nevertheless, Yakubovich 2010d:257 n. 65 argued that ḫa-am-šu-uk-ka₄-la-a-ti does not show specifically Luwian phonological or morphological features, whence it is impossible to exclude that we are dealing here with a genuine Palaic word and the first attestation of ablative-instrumental in Palaic.

If we look at the text, from the next paragraph (lines 7’-12’) onwards it obviously continues in Palaic demonstrated by the sign wu_ú in line 8’. The preserved words of the first paragraph (lines 1’-2’), ānnak[and šugātta are not attested in Luwian – just in Palaic, exactly in the third paragraph of this text (lines 11’, 12’, Carruba 1970a:22, Carruba 1972a:34). The first paragraph must be accordingly in Palaic and not Luwian (contra Melchert 1993g:13, 196; Tischler 2008a:174, Tischler 2016a:332; Ünal 2016a:950). The paragraph of ḫamšukkalāti is thus squeezed between two Palaic paragraphs.

As for the words of the paragraph, ḫamšukkalāti, kašti and kištāyam[(-) are not attested either in Palaic or Luwian and āšt[u(-), 3^rd sg. impv. of ‘to be’, can be both in Palaic and in Luwian, thus they are not helpful (for ḫart[u see above; Melchert 1993g:31 restores -]ru as Luwian [a]ru ‘high’, which, however, does not fit the context: cf. the following word, šuwāru, meaning ‘full’). šuwāru is, however, attested in Palaic (Carruba 1970a:71) and in Hittite (HEG S:1232f.; EDHIL:796). One of the copious Hittite attestations shows gloss wedges (KUB 44.50 i 10, cf. s.v.), which may mean that this word is a Luwianism but not necessarily. As we will see below (under Form and Meaning), “x-nu-ú-wa-an-te-eš” can be interpreted formally both as Luwian and as Palaic, but only the Luwian interpretation (as ˹uš^?-nu-ú˺-wa-an-ti₇-ìš) leads to an attested word.

All in all, although a clear decision cannot be made, the presence of ḫamšukkalāti and probably “x-nu-ú-wa-an-te-eš” (if it is indeed uš^?nuwant(i)-) rather argue for a Luwian paragraph.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.

˹uš?-nu-ú˺-wa-an-ti7-ìš

KBo 19.152 + KBo 27.77 ii 4’

(CTH 751, MS)

The attestation follows Carruba 1970a:22 and Starke 1990a:593 checked against the photograph of KBo 19.152 in the Konkordanz (there is no available photo of KBo 27.77). Soysal 2016a:315 n. 1. retains the OS dating, contra the Konkordanz.

The reading of the first sign is unknown (it remained “x” also in the transcription of Starke 1990a:593), since the remaining traces allow multiple choices (cf. the photo at hethiter.net/: PhotArch N04370 and also the hand copy): the traces consist of a long horizontal wedge (approximately in the middle of the height of the sign), below it a shorter horizontal wedge slightly pointing upwards and both are closed by the lower part of a single vertical wedge. These traces are compatible with du and perhaps even with uš, if the spot above the point of the upper wedge is the trace of a Winkelhaken, as well as with k/gad/t, GIŠ / e/iz, ḫap/b, ma , although the horizontal wedges seem too long for this latter group. Note that the reading with uš leads to a meaningful sentence (cf. under Meaning) and thus, this is suggested here with due caution.

The proposal of Carruba 1970a:22, Carruba 1972a:34, i.e. ba^?, is not supported by these traces, since then the lower horizontal wedge should be completely horizontal and there should be one more wedge (either horizontal or pointing downwards) below the visible horizontal wedges, but this is not the case (the autograph shows such a deleted (!) wedge pointing downwards, which is, however, not visible on the photo). Not even the variant with a Winkelhaken at the point of the longer wedge and without an additional horizontal wedge fits, since the blank spot here is above the horizontal wedge, and, more importantly, the lower wedge should point even in this case downwards and not upwards.

[Zs.S.]

Carruba 1970a:66 connected this word with Palaic bānnu- ‘liver’ (see s.v.), but it was not included in the other Palaic and post-1990 Luwian (cf. under Origin) glossaries (CLL; Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a; Ünal 2016a).

The word is followed by āšt[u(-), 3^rd sg. impv. of ‘to be’, thus the meaning of the phrase is clear: ‘(he/she/it) shall be x-nūwant-!’ with x-nūwant- as a (lexicalised) participle (or, less probably, a denominative derivative by any of the -ant-suffixes, an ergative form is not possible due to the intransitive verb). Carruba’s proposed connection with ‘liver’ does not fit semantically and it is not supported by the preserved traces of the first sign either (cf. above). Nevertheless, the reading possibility ušnuwant- (but see under Form) recalls the Hieroglyphic Luwian word ušnu(wa)- ‘to bless, please’ (see s.v.), which fits perfectly semantically: ‘He/she shall be blessed […] (together) with his/her great-grandsons and des[cendants]^?’ (for this restoration as ḫa-am-šu-uk-ka₄-la-a-ti ḫar-t[u-wa-a-ti] see Starke 1990a:521 n. 1924 and Yakubovich 2010d:257 n. 65 [latter with wrong translation ‘with/by/from great-grandfathers and ancestors’]).

Although the word could be interpreted formally also as a Palaic word (uš^?-nu-ú-wa-an-te-eš a-a-aš-˹tu˺ ‘they shall be blessed’), since this word is not attested yet in the (very scarce) Palaic corpus and due to its probable syntactic connection with the probably Luwian phrase ḫa-am-šu-uk-ka₄-la-a-ti ḫar-t[u-wa-a-ti] of the next line and the presumable Luwian status of the paragraph (see under Transmission), a Luwian interpretation is proposed here.

[Zs.S.]