išarwili(ya)-

Attested in Luwian rituals (from NS to LNS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	i-šar-ú-˹i-li˺-iš	KBo 29.31 iv 3’	(CTH 756, NS)
	[i]-šar-ú-i-li-iš	KBo 29.31 iv 4’	(CTH 756, NS)
	i-˹šar-wi5-li˺-iš	KUB 35.133 iv 10’	(CTH 665, LNS)
nom.-acc. sg. n.	˹i-šar-ú-i˺-li-ia-an	KBo 29.16 ii 10’	(CTH 760, NS)

Sumerographically:

nom. sg. c.

ZAG-iš

KUB 35.133 iv 11’

(CTH 665, LNS)

The attestations follow CLL:94 (not yet in Laroche 1959a, cf. also HED K:164), checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (the signs marked as fragmentary are practically not readable). Contra Melchert and Puhvel, išarwiliš and ZAG-iš are adjectives and not a noun meaning ‘right side’ (see under Meaning) and thus, belong here.

Melchert suggested very cautiously (with two exclamation and question marks) that […]-ú-i-ri-ia-a-ti of KUB 35.103 ii 10’ could be restored as [i-šar]-ú-i-ri-ia-a-ti (with assumed rhotacism; followed by EDHIL:471; not followed and left untranslated by Francia 2014a:12f.; Carruba 1982a:49 cautiously proposed that we are dealing with the entire word and derived it from “witi-” ‘water’ with rhotacism either as a noun or as an adjective, but this is clearly not the full word). While formally possible, the context requires an adjective qualifying a (ritually) cleaning substance and the meaning ‘right (in physical sense)’ (see under Meaning) does not fit.

[Zs.S.]

While HED K:164 provided no meaning for ˹i-šar-ú-i˺-li-ia-an (and Ünal 2016a did not book it), Starke 1990a:30 translated this word as ‘right’ (in physical sense) and CLL:94 as ‘of the right hand’ > ‘favourable’ (?) (followed by EDHIL:471 and similarly Tischler 2008a:70, Tischler 2016a:129 [‘richtig, günstig; rechts’]). The context requires an adjective, but the substantive is missing. išarwili(ya)- is obviously a derivative of išarwil(i)- ‘right side’ (see s.v.). Considering, however, the entire context, in which right bones appear, Starke’s translation as ‘right’ is probably the precise one. This can be further supported by išarwiliš in KBo 29.31 iv 3’, 4’, which qualifies a paired body part (presumably ‘thigh’, see s.v. ^(UZU)kaldunni-).

The case of išarwiliš in KUB 35.133 iv 10’ and of ZAG-iš in KUB 35.133 iv 11’ is different, since it refers to the behaviour of a divinity and thus, Sasseville’s translation as ‘favourable’ is fitting (Sasseville 2021a:29, 326). Since, however, the two adjectives (‘right (in physical sense)’ and ‘favourable’) are formally identical and the latter can easily originate in the former from a semantic point of view (as in Hittite kunna-), they are booked here under a single lemma.

[Zs.S.]