winal- (or GEŠTIN-na-la)

This word is attested only in a NS prayer to the Sun-god.

[A.B.]

nom./acc. pl. n.

ú-e-na-al

KUB 31.127++ rev. iv 3

(NS, CTH 372)

The attestation follows CLL:269, HEG U–Z:493f. (cf. Starke 1990a:313, van den Hout 2006a:252; Josephson 1972a:113, Zorman 2016a:597, Ünal 2016a:592, Ünal 2007a:800f., not in Laroche 1959a). The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The word uenal- is frequently connected to the Glossenkeilwort winal- (cf. under the respective lemma and below).

[A.B.]

Based on the context, a (figurative) meaning ‘support’ is usually indicated for this word (cf. Singer 2002a:39 ‘support’, cf. Schwemer 2015a:389, Rieken et al. 2017-2018a, Starke 1990a:313, Ünal 2007a:800f., Ünal 2016a:592, HEG U–Z:493f., Tischler 2008a:226, Tischler 2016a:441, Zorman 2016a:597, CLL:296, and Zorman 2016a:597). Moreover, it is frequently connected with the Glossenkeilwort winal- ‘(punting) pole’ (cf. Starke 1990a:313, CLL:296, HEG U–Z:493f., Ünal 2007a:800f., Ünal 2016a:592, Tischler 2008a:226, Tischler 2016a:441, Melchert 2005a:449, Zorman 2016a:597), but this connection remains uncertain (cf. under the respective lemma and under Origin).

The context of KUB 31.127+ABoT 1.44 rev. iv 2–3 shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition the hand copies as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations by Singer 2002a:39; Schwemer 2015a:384, 389; Rieken et al. 2017-2018a; Starke 1990a:313 and HEG U–Z:494 have been taken into account).

⁽²⁾i-na-ni-mu-za ma-a-ni x-x[- …] a-ra-a-an-t[i … ] ⁽³⁾ú-e-na-al ki-iš-ḫu-u[-ut …] ⁽⁴⁾ar-nu-ut a-ar-ša-ti-m[a … ] ⁽⁵⁾nu-uš-ma-aš-ta ar-ḫa ḫa[- … -]x ar-nu-ut ⁽⁶⁾nu-(eras) ša d[ingir ... -u]š la-a (erasure) i-na-{na-x-x}-ni-pát ⁽⁷⁾an-da-an ḫal-lu-wa^! -⸢i⸣ ⸢ú-i⸣-el-ú-i-li le-e

⁽²⁾for me in illness […], standin[g] in māni […] ⁽³⁾becom[e] a uenal […] ⁽⁴⁾bring/move, bu[t] it flew^(?) […] ⁽⁵⁾and […] away from them bring/move ⁽⁶⁾release […] of the dei[ty …], ^(6–7)let not be in illness in the low meadow

The praying person describes himself as being “in illness” and addresses the deity to “become a uenal” for him (for māni, which seems to be a kind of body liquid, viz. ‘pus’ or sim., cf. CHD L–N:163, HEG L–S:119 and HED M:43f.; note, however, that according to the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv the sequence ma-a-ni x-x[- …] appears in small script running above the line, apparently added later).

We are clearly dealing with an instrumental noun that denotes an object to help or support the praying person. The base verb could be Hitt. wen-^zi ‘to copulate, to force, to enslave’ (or sim., cf. HEG U–Z:491, EDHIL:999f.) with a meaning ‘to force’ or ‘to push’, which would fit in this context if the instrument uenal- is required to push the praying person out of the bad condition.

The formal similarity of uenal- with the Glossenkeilwort winal- ‘(punting) pole’ (or sim.) and the possibility that it is semantically appropriate in the present context with providing support to the praying person to hold on to or as an instrument to push the person out of a bad condition (the context also mentions a low meadow in connection with the illness [for welwila- cf. HEG U–Z:482f. denoting a meadow by a riverside], which could describe the situation of being stuck and unable to move), led to an assumed connection between these words. This is possible, but the details of the connection between uenal- and winal- remain unclear (cf. under Origin for a discussion of different proposals); uenal- could literally mean ‘instrument to push’ (or sim.) in this context, matching the meaning of winal- ‘(punting) pole’ (or sim.), and/or it could have a figurative meaning ‘support’ as generally assumed.

[A.B.]

Rejected derivative:

1. wanalliške- ‘scrape off’ (assumed by Hoffner 2000a:74 as derivative of wenal- but problematic due to different vocalism and semantics)

The origin of uenal- is unclear. The unambiguous writing of the vowel -e- points to a genuine Hittite word (note that Luwian /i/ probably had an allophone [e] but its conditions do not apply in the present word, cf. Rieken 2017a:27).

Regarding its stem formation with the suffix -al- forming neuter instrumental nouns from verbal bases in Hittite (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:54), it could be a derivative of the Hittite verb wen-^zi (cf. under Meaning).

On the other hand, uenal- is frequently connected with the Glossenkeilwort winal- (cf. Starke 1990a:313, CLL:296, HEG U–Z:493f., Ünal 2007a:800f., Ünal 2016a:592, Tischler 2008a:226, Tischler 2016a:441, Melchert 2005a:449, Zorman 2016a:597) and assumed to be a Luwian loan word in Hittite, which is possible since the suffix -al- is also attested in Luwian (cf. Melchert 2003b:197); for a discussion of possible base verbs cf. under the lemma winal-. It also appears in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a:449 and van den Hout 2006a:252.

If uenal- is a Hittite word (e.g. based on the verb wen-^zi) and belongs to the same word as winal-, it would also mean that the Glossenkeilwort is a genuine Hittite word, which is statistically rare (cf. under the lemma winal-). But it is also possible that the word existed in both languages as cognates. Hence, uenal- is most probably a genuine Hittite word.

[A.B.]

This word is attested in a NS manuscript of the epic of Gilgameš.

[A.B.]

nom./acc. pl. n.

⸢wi5⸣-na-la!

KUB 8.50+ rev. iii 22’

(CTH 341, NS)

The attestation follows Laroche 1959a:111, CLL:269, CHD Š:202, and HEG U–Z:493f. (cf. Ünal 2007a:800f., Ünal 2016a:592, Friedrich 1929a:55, Rosenkranz 1950a:197, Starke 1990a:313, van den Hout 2006a:247, and Zorman 2016a:597). The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The same word can probably be restored in line 18’ (cf. Friedrich 1929a:24, 55 [with different line numbering], and Beckman 2019a:49). For the similar word Hitt. uenal-, which is frequently connected with this word, cf. the respective lemma and the discussions below. Theoretically, the attested string of signs could also be read as ⸢geštin⸣-na-la^! (for a discussion cf. under Meaning).

[A.B.]

Friedrich 1929:24, 55 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:197 and Laroche 1959a:111) read the last sign as AT. However, the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv shows the similar sign LA, which is now generally accepted (cf. e.g. Rieken et al. 2009b, Beckman 2019a:49, also pointed out in HEG U–Z:493, Tischler 2008a:228).

The form ⸢wi₅⸣-na-la^! is written with the sign GEŠTIN and the syllabic value of this sign is wi₅ with unambiguous i-vowel, thereby raising doubts with regard to its identity with Hitt. uenal-, which is written with the E-sign (cf. under the respective lemma).

[A.B.]

Laroche 1959a:111 does not give any meaning, but generally a meaning ‘pole’ (or sim.) is assumed for this word. CLL:269 suggests a meaning ‘stick, staff, pole’ (cf. Starke 1990a:313, Melchert 2005a:452, Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:54, Beckman 2019a:88), more detailed Tischler 2016a:437 (cf. HEG U–Z:493f.) describes it as “perche de bois typique de la Mésopotamie, avec laquelle on fait avancer de petites embarcations, comme de barques, sur des eaux peu profondes” (cf. Ünal 2007a:800f. and Ünal 2016a:592 ‘prop, stake, punting pole’). Besides the suggested meanings, some authors add the figurative interpretation ‘support’ (cf. Ünal 2007a:800f., Ünal 2016a:592, HEG U–Z:493f., Tischler 2008a:226, Tischler 2016a:441, Zorman 2016a:597) based on the assumed identity with Hitt. uenal- (cf. CLL:296), for which cf. under the respective lemma.

The context of KUB 8.50+ rev. iii 22’–23’ shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as transliterations and translations of Friedrich 1929a:24f.; Starke 1990a:313; Beckman 2001a:165; Beckman 2019a:49, 51; Rieken et al. 2009b; Tischler 2010a:314; CHD Š:202 and HED Sa:134 have been taken into account):

^(22’)nu-kán ⸢wi₅⸣-na-la^! ša 50 gi-pé-eš-na-aš ^(23’)kar-aš-ta na-at šap-pa-at-ta pa[š^?- …] ^(24’)na-at-kán ⸢a⸣-na ^GIŠmá ša-ra-a da-a-i[š …]

^{(22’–23’)}and (Gilgameš) cropped poles of (measuring) 50 gipeššar; he scraped them (off), pa[š^?- …] ^(24’)he too[k] them onto the boat […]

Already Friedrich 1929a:55 pointed out the contextual equivalence between Akk. parisi ‘poles’ (cf. CAD P:190 under the lemma Akk. parrisu ‘punting pole, oar’) and winal- in the present text and translated it with “Stangen”.

Friedrich 1929a:55f. raises the question if the assonance with Hitt. “wi(n)- ‘Wein’” caused the word to be connected with certain poles used to grow vines in viticulture. The stem of the Hittite word for ‘wine’ is wiyana- and a Sumerographic reading of the form as ⸢geštin⸣-na-la^! would rather point to a derivative *wiyanala- (which is morphologically possible but this word is not otherwise attested). The use of the gloss marker with Sumerograms is rare and would probably point to an underlying Luwian word (cf. Weeden 2011b:1f.) and one could also think of a different word for vine or vinyard from Luwian. But such a word referring to viticulture would not help in the present context, anyway, since poles used to grow vines do not seem to be practical for punting.

In the Akkadian version (cf. George 2003a:688f.), the corresponding passage states that Gilgameš is sent into the forest to [cut twice sixty] poles each five times twelve cubits long (the size of 50 gipeššar – approx. 25m – may seem strange, but the Gilgameš epic is known for its exaggerations concerning numbers; cf. Foster 2001a:xixf.). As they come to the waters of death, Uršanabi tells Gilgameš to stand back and take the first pole, while his hands must not touch the waters of death. Gilgameš uses up all twice sixty poles one after the other (cf. Foster 2001a:79). In this context, the meaning ‘pole’ is plausible, with ‘punting pole’ a more precise translation.

The formal similarity with Hittite uenal- attested in a prayer and its assumed figurative meaning ‘support’ (cf. under the respective lemma) point to a connection between these words, but its nature remains unclear (cf. under Origin).

We are clearly dealing with an instrumental noun, but since the base verb is unknown (cf. under Origin for a discussion of proposals), this does not further clarify its meaning.

[A.B.]

The origin of winal- is unclear. It is included in the Luwian dictionaries by Laroche 1959a:11 and CLL:269 as well as in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a:452, van den Hout 2006a:247, and Ünal 2016a:976 (it is likewise considered to be of Luwian origin by Starke 1990a:314–316 and Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:54). A Luwian origin for this word could be indicated by the gloss marker. Although its use does not constitute proof of a word’s Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445), the vast majority of words provided with this marker are in fact of Luwian origin. However, Laroche 1959a:111 considers its Luwian character suspect, and now Melchert (pers. comm.) points out that a Hittite origin of this word cannot be excluded.

With regard to its stem formation, winal- shows the suffix -al- forming neuter instrumental nouns from verbal bases. This suffix is attested both in Luwian (cf. Melchert 2003b:197) and in Hittite, cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:54 (although they list winal- among a group of words with this suffix that “are certainly loanwords from Luwian”). Hence, the origin of winal- cannot be determined from its stem formation.

As for the underlying verb, there are different proposals. Starke 1990a:314–316 suggests a Luwian denominative verb “*winayi-” (deriving it from a “dehnstufiges Nomen”, accepted by CLL:269 but without lengthened grade), by which he probably means a derivative with the Luwian suffix -a(i)- forming verbs from nouns (cf. Melchert 2003b:199, Sasseville 2021a:78–82); the assumed verb would hence be *wina(i)-. Starke considers this verb to be the Luwian equivalent of Hitt. kuen-/kun- ‘to strike, to kill’ (cf. also CLL:269), going back to a root *g^when- that could have yielded the assumed Luwian verb (on the deocclusion of voiced labiovelars in Luwian including the example of “wi/enal-”, cf. Melchert 2012a:212f.). In this case, winal- would literally mean something like ‘striking instrument’ as assumed by Melchert 2012a:213, and if Hitt. uenal- belongs to the same word, it would be a Luwian loan word in Hittite.

However, the assumed identity of the Glossenkeilwort with Hitt. uenal- (cf. CLL:269, HEG U–Z:493f., Tischler 2008a:226, Tischler 2016a:437, Ünal 2007a:800f., Ünal 2016a:592) also raises the question of a Hittite origin for this word (cf. under Graphic Features). In that case, the base could be the Hittite verb wen-^zi ‘to copulate, to force, to enslave’ (or sim., cf. HEG U–Z:491, EDHIL:999f.), cf. Tischler 2016a:437, Melchert 1984a:10 n. 4, Josephson 1972a:113 (but both assuming that wen- means ‘to strike’). A meaning ‘to force’ or ‘to push’ would fit better in the context with the punting poles (cf. under Meaning) than a meaning ‘to strike’. But it would also mean that the Glossenkeilwort is a genuine Hittite word, which is statistically rare.

Finally, it is also possible that the word existed in both languages and that the assumed Luwian verb *win- is a cognate of Hittite wen-^zi. Considering the vowel differences and the use of the gloss marker (which is only rarely used with genuinely Hittite words), this seems to be a possible scenario.

[A.B.]

For the lemma head, see CLuw. *win-.