iššarāšila- / ešarašila-

Attested in Hittite rituals and in a hymn to Ištar, all in NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	iš-ša-ra-a-ši-la-aš	KUB 7.1 i 23	(CTH 390, NS)
gen. sg.	iš-ša-˹ra˺-ši-la-aš	KUB 12.58 i 23’	(CTH 409, NS)
coll.	iš-ša-[ra-a-ši-laSAR]	KUB 17.27 ii 17’	(CTH 780, NS)
	iš-ša-˹ra˺-[ši]-˹la˺SAR	KUB 58.106 ii! 16’’	(CTH 780, NS)
	e-ša-ra-ši-la	KUB 24.7 ii 6	(CTH 717, NS)

The attestations follow Bawanypeck 1998a:78f. (cf. also Haas 2003a:352), with iš-ša-˹ra˺-[ši]-˹la˺^SAR in KUB 58.106 ii! 16’’ added as per García Trabazo & Groddek 2005a:267 and Haas 2007a:16 (the numbering of the column and line follows that of Haas, who additionally restores an ‹a› before ‹ši›). All attestations have been checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

Haas & Wegner 1988aI:191 reconstructed iš-ša-[ra-a-ši-la-an-na] in KUB 17.27 ii 17’ (followed by Bawanypeck 1998a:79 and García Trabazo 2002a:548 with n. 22), which was corrected to iš-ša-[ra-a-ši-la^SAR] by Haas 2007a:16 based on the parallel text in KUB 58.106 ii^! 16’’. CLL:96 amended the form of KUB 7.1 i 23 into iš-ša-ra-a-‹aš›-ši-la-aš based on the alleged etymology of the word from Luwian īš(ša)ra(i)- ‘hand’ with the suffix -ašša-. Since the etymology is not assured (cf. under Origin), this is methodologically inappropriate, and the proposal is undermined by iš-ša-˹ra˺-ši-la-aš in KUB 12.58 i 23’, not quoted by Melchert.

The formal interpretation of the attestation in KUB 24.7 ii 6 is not unanimous. For the reasoning behind the nom.-acc. coll. see under Meaning.

With the exception of Bawanypeck and Haas, all other scholars mention only KUB 7.1 i 23 (iššarāšila-) and KUB 24.7 ii 6 (ešarašila-), if they consider these words the same at all (at the time of Laroche 1959a:52 the latter one was not published yet; the spelling “iš(š)ar(aši)la-^(SAR)” in HW 2nd ed. I:99 implies that the author was aware of the other attestations, but the entry includes only a reference to “ešarašila-, iššarašila-”, where, however, only these two texts are mentioned, HW 2nd ed. E:114): Since the remark of Carruba apud Archi 1977a:309 n. 34 many scholars treat both forms as belonging to the same word (HW 2nd ed. E:114 & I:99; Lebrun 1980a:408; Bawanypeck 1998a:78f.; Haas 2003a:352, Haas 2007a:26; Ünal 2007a:115 [under the strange heading “eššarašila-/ eššarašila-/ iššarašila-”]; Miller 2008a:214 with n. 142), although none of them explained the different vocalism in the first syllable (the one with ‹e› is a “variant” according to Haas 2003a:352). Nevertheless, according to Güterbock 1983a:162 ešarašila- is a hapax; HEG A-K:372 and CLL:96 do not include e-ša-ra-ši-la-aš and mention only KUB 7.1 (none of them are quoting different views); finally Tischler 2008a:70 distinguishes between a Luwian word iššarāšila- and a Hittite word iššarašila- / ešarašila-. It will be argued under Meaning that these two words are indeed different.

But if the forms do represent the same word, the formal difference in the vocalism of the first syllable and the spelling of the following sibilant requires an explanation. There are basically two possibilities, depending on which form is the earlier one.

First, there are numerous lexemes in New Hittite showing an ‹e› instead of an earlier ‹i›. Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted explanation of this change: Melchert 1984a:153f. suggested a change before consonant clusters (including geminates) and a following /a/; Rieken 1996a:294‒297, esp. 296 with refs. argued for a position between dentals (t, n, s) or between l and a dental; EDHIL:92f. suggested the position before s, n, m and clusters involving /H/; finally Yakubovich 2010d:310‒315 (who did not refer to Kloekhorst’s explanation) restricted it to the position before š in his critical overview (although he himself opts for hypercorrect forms, cf. 330‒333); for criticism of other accounts see Melchert 1994a:140f. Melchert’s, Kloekhorst’s and Yakubovich’s scenarios fit the present case, and so may do that of Rieken, since her examples include the distal adverb iniššan > eneššan and thus her rule may be extended to the initial position, too (but see the different explanation of Yakubovich 2010d:329f., albeit based on a single restored attestation). The disadvantage of this solution is that it does not explain the different spelling of the sibilant.

The second possibility is that, since all attestations are contemporary, the opposite change cannot be excluded either, i.e., that ešarašila- is the earlier form, which would have changed into iššarāšila-. Since a New Hittite sound change e > i does not exist (Yakubovich 2010d:315‒318 with refs.), one may assume an analogical change, e.g., the folk-etymology of Luwian speakers based e.g. on the shape of the plant, cf. plant names like “Fünffingerkraut”. This would also explain the difference in the spelling of ‹š›. Thus, although the formal differences may be explained in this way, the reader must be warned that we may be dealing with two different words, see the discussion under Meaning.

Finally, Bawanypeck 1998a:78 adds iššarila- of unknown meaning as a “variant” from KUB 41.8 rev. iii 24 (followed by Haas 2003a:352 and implicitly by HW 2nd ed. I:99; not included in HEG A-K, Tischler 2008a, and Ünal 2007a) based on the described analogy similar to the one in KUB 24.7 (which is, however, not assured, cf. Miller 2008a:214). The publisher of the text left the word untranslated (Otten 1961a:131) and so did Collins in her translation (Collins 2003e:170), without explanation, despite Bawanypeck’s article. Miller 2008a:214 with n. 142 accepts the identification with iššarāšila-, moreover, he uses iššarašila- in his translation, although the text uses iššarila-. None of the scholars explain the morphological difference between iššarāšila- and iššarila-, the assumption of a “variant” by Bawanypeck and Haas is ad hoc. Note that its spelling as iš-ša-ri-la- excludes the possibility of a scribal mistake from iš-ša-ra-a-ši-la-. Until the spelling difference is not explained adequately, iššarila- cannot be identified with iššarāšila-.

[Zs.S.]

Most of the scholars assume a plant that cannot be defined more precisely (Laroche 1959a:52; HW 2nd ed. E:114 [“wohl”]; HEG A-K:372 [with question mark]; Lebrun 1980a:408; Haas & Wegner 1988a I:191, II:110 [a “Kraut”]; CLL:96; García Trabazo 2002a:549 n. 27; Haas 2006a:201, Haas 2007a:26 [a “Kraut”; but left untranslated in Haas 2003a:129]; Ünal 2007a:115; Miller 2008a:214 with n. 142), some entertain the possibility of ‘Rohr’ (Bawanypeck 1998a:78 [since it happens to be prone to break]; Tischler 2008a:70 [in case of the “Hittite” word], both with question mark). According to Haas 2003a:352 with n. 472, if the word originates in the Luwian word for ‘hand’ (which is, however, not probable, cf. under Origin), the word is to be translated “wörtl[ich]” as ‘Fünffingerkraut’ (with question mark). More cautious scholars left the(se) word(s) untranslated (Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:8; Kronasser 1961a:144; Ertem 1974a; Archi 1977a:309; Güterbock 1983a:158; Cornil 1999a:9).

Setting aside the uninformative KUB 17.27 ii 17’, we learn about this word only that it is a plant (see the determinative SAR in KUB 58.106 ii! 16’’), it has seeds (KUB 12.58 i 23’, Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:9 and Haas 2003a:129, contra Cornil 1999a:9), and that it appears in a list of garden spices and plants (KUB 7.1 i 23). This is clearly not enough for determining the precise meaning, except that we are dealing with a plant that may be a kind of spice or vegetable.

The interpretation of the attestation in KUB 24.7 ii 6, which would add the feature of being prone to be broken, is not unanimous. Its context is as follows (KUB 24.7 ii 2‒8, Güterbock 1983a:157f.):

“You [Ištar – Zs. S.] devoured your husbands: [One man] you made old, another man you [let attain] fulfilment, another you destroyed even in his prime, you devoured men like fresh leek, ˹zi˺-ik, ^dIŠTAR-iš e-ša-ra-ši-la-aš-ma-aš a-ri-ša-an-˹da˺ GIM-an du-wa-ar-ni-iš-ki-it, and devoured them like coriander with (its) [see]d(?), and completely destroyed them.”

Most of the scholars translate the word in e-ša-ra-ši-la-aš-ma-aš with a genitive (Archi 1977a:309: “Tu, Ištar, li hai frantumati come fuscelli di ešarašila”; Lebrun 1980a:406: “[T]oi, Ištar, tu les as dévorés comme un fétus d’ešarišala” [sic]; Güterbock 1983a:158, 162: “You, Ištar, kept breaking them like the … of their …” [followed by HW 2nd ed. E:114]; Haas 2006a:201: “[d]u, Ištar, zerbrachst sie wie die Samenkapseln des issarasila-Krautes”). A different translation was provided by Bawanypeck 1998a:78: “Du Ištar, zerbrachst ihnen ešarašila-Kraut wie arišanda” (note that the meaning of arišanda is unknown, cf. HW 2nd ed. A:299, 259; Ünal 2007a:51, 49; Tischler 2008a:23, 24).

The transitive verb du-wa-ar-ni-iš-ki-it ‘(she) kept breaking’ requires a direct object, which may be, in theory, arišanda or ešarašila. If it is arišanda, yet another direct object is needed, since it stands in a comparison (“like arišanda”), which can be either a pronoun or again ešarašila (for which see the next paragraph). If it is a pronoun, it can refer only to the husbands (“kept breaking them”) and then, in order to make sense for e-ša-ra-ši-la-aš-ma-aš, it should be segmented as ešarašilaš=šmaš, with a genitive (“kept breaking them like the a. of the e.”): this is indeed the solution chosen by most of the above mentioned scholars. However, being a 3^rd pl. dat. enclitic pronoun, =šmaš cannot fulfil the role of a direct object (which is formally different) and the 3^rd pl. acc. enclitic pronoun should occupy the slot after =šmaš (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:410‒412). Thus, this translation cannot be upheld.

If the direct object is ešarašila (as a coll.), then Bawanypeck’s interpretation is the correct one representing a literal translation. However, this sentence makes sense in the overall context only if =šmaš here is a possessive dative (for this in Hittite see Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:138), i.e. “You, Ištar, kept breaking their ešarašila like arišanda.” This would also mean that ešarašila is not a plant, contrary to the general assumption, but a possession of a human, the breaking of which destroys the humans (a kind of bone? backbone? or something more abstract, e.g. life?). Accordingly, iššarāšila- and ešarašila- would be two different words, as it was implicitly assumed by other scholars too (see above under Form).

[Zs.S.]

The word iššarāšila- is considered to be Luwian by Laroche 1959a:52; CLL:96; Haas 2003a:352 and Tischler 2008a:70 (but not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2006a). The reason behind this assumption is the observation of Rosenkranz that the first syllables are the reminiscent of the Luwian word īš(ša)r(i)- ‘hand’ (Rosenkranz 1952a:11 [he entertained the possibility of a compound with -(a)šila; a comparison followed by Laroche 1959a:52 [with question mark] and CLL:96 [“perhaps”, “if so”, then he assumes a suffixation with -ašša- and a diminutive -ila-]; nevertheless, Kronasser 1966a:147 rightly stressed that this word has not been found yet in Luwian context). However, a derivation from īš(ša)r(i)- ‘hand’ is excluded by the spelling -āšila-: note the plene written ‹a› and the single ‹š› that exclude the suffix -ašša-. Although one may segment a suffix -ila-, this does not lead to a transparent formation (since plant names often originate in substrate languages, one may even assume a loanword from Hattian transferred into the a-stems – note that words ending in -il are frequent in Hattian due to morphological reasons, cf. Soysal 2004b:214, 221, 228). A compound noun from the same word is excluded again by the plene written ‹a› (Rosenkranz 1952a:11 mentions the other problem of the compound theory, that the alleged second member -(a)šila is not attested). Note furthermore that it may represent a secondary folk-etymological formation, as explained under Form, if ešarašila- is indeed connected, which is, however, not proven (see under Meaning), thus the form iššarāšila- may be “original”.

All in all since there is no evidence for its Luwian status, its Luwian origin is not proven (if ešarašila- is indeed a separate word, there is no hint at all for its Luwian origin).

[Zs.S.]