āššūtti(-)

Hapax in a Luwian ritual in MS.

[Zs.S.]

?

⸢a-aš⸣-šu-u-ut-⸢ti⸣[(-)

KUB 35.100 rev. 3

(CTH 766, MS)

Attestation following CLL:39, checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Laroche 1959a:34, Starke 1995a:118 n. 236, and CLL:39 compared also the following forms (their connection, however, cannot be verified due to their fragmentary nature and unknown meaning): a-aš-šu[- (KUB 35.102 i 7’, note that the KUB edition has obv. ii); a-aš-⸢šu⸣[- (KUB 35.108 iv 22’, note the misprint KUB 35.107 in Starke 1995a:118 n. 236); and (only in CLL:39) “perhaps” aš-šu-x[ (KBo 9.143 iii^! 1, note that the hand copy of KBo 9.143 assumes obv.). Unlike Melchert, Starke 1985b:121 tags the ŠU sign here with a question mark. The photo shows additional small verticals in the middle of the sign, making a ŠU sign unlikely. Moreover, this sign is clearly different from the ŠU in line 13’ of the same column. Hence, at least this instance does not belong here.

[A.B.], [Zs.S.]

Starke 1995a:118, 153 assumes a meaning ‘horse’ (followed by Tischler 2008a:31, Tischler 2016a:41with question mark). CLL:39 strictly rejects this idea, referring to azzu(wa)- meaning ‘horse’ according to him. However, the meaning of azzu(wa)- is unknown (see s.v. azzu(wa)-). Starke’s assumption is based on his reconstruction of the Luwian word for ‘horse’ as *āššu-, which is in turn based on the misreading of the Hieroglyphic Luwian sign *448 as <sù> instead of <zú> (on the reading of this sign see Melchert 1987a:201f., Melchert 2012a:210 and Simon 2008a:21–26). Whatever the reading of this sign may be, the unexplained <ū> also argues against this connection. Thus and since the context is too fragmentary, the meaning of this word is unknown (Laroche 1959a:34 and Ünal 2016a:953 do not translate it either). Accordingly, the assumption by Starke 1995a:118 of a “-tti-Ableitung” (followed by Neu apud Raulwing & Schmitt 1998a:690 n. 125) cannot be verified due to the unknown meaning of the word.

[Zs.S.]