*sóru-

This lexeme is a hapax legomenon found in an inscription published in Taş & Weeden 2011a.

[D.S.]

nom./acc. sg.

/saru=sa/(?)

(“CAPERE”)sa-ru-sa

ISTANBUL 2, C 1’ (Tabal)

The instance in ISTANBUL 2, C 1’ can be either accusative and the object of the medio-passive verb tu-wa/i-si (from /tuwa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to put’) or be nominative and its subject; cf. Taş & Weeden 2011a:58. Further evidence is needed.

[D.S.]

The suggested meaning is ‘plunder, loot’ (Taş & Weeden 2011a:58). The logogram CAPERE brings supports to the semantic interpretation of the word. Moreover, the semantics of ‘looting’ are contextually supported. Although the inscription is fragmentary, some words refer to warlike activities. For example, the occurrence of the verb ARHA x-ma-ni-ta possibly denoting a negative action (Taş & Weeden 2011a:57) and the occurrence of the logogram CAPUT.CULTER.LINGUA, which might refer to the mutilation of people vel sim. (Taş & Weeden 2011a:58). From the etymological perspective, the comparison with Hittite šāru- (n.) ‘plunder, booty’ (Taş & Weeden 2011a:58), which is a perfect match, brings further evidence. Based on both philological and etymological evidence, the assignment of the semantics ‘loot, plunder’ for HLuw. saru- is here taken over. Furthermore, the Cuneiform Luwian cognate šarušša also occurs in a military context, which brings further evidence to the semantic assignment based on the etymological perspective (Busse & Simon 2016a:116f.).

[D.S.]

The stem of HLuw. sa-ru-sa is not assured. It could be a neuter u-stem, a d-extension as in tarud- ‘wood, statue’ (Taş & Weeden 2011a:58) or an s-extension (Busse & Simon 2016a:116f.) is also possible. A further possibility is a substantivized possessive adjective derived from the original u-stem, i.e. /sarussa-/ (pl. tantum). For the substantivization of possessive adjectives cf. CLL:6).

[D.S.]

This word is only once attested in Hittite transmission with a gloss marker in a NS fragment of a bird oracle (CTH 557).

[A.B.]

nom./acc. sg. n.

ša-ru-uš-ša

KUB 18.1 rev. iv? 12’

(CTH 557, NS)

The attestation follows Laroche 1959a:87 (without analysis),Archi 1975a:126, Starke 1990a:118, CLL:192, CHD Š:300 and van den Hout 2007a:248, the column indication follows Sakuma 2009a:456. The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

There are different opinions regarding the analysis of this form. Starke 1990a:118 and Tischler 2008a:165 (cf. Tischler 2016a:311) interpreted it as nom./acc.pl.n., whereas CLL:192, CHD Š:300 andÜnal 2016a:469 suggest a singular. A plural would require an interpretation as šarušša (probably a derivative but further research is necessary), but Starke 1990a:118 assumes an -uš-stem with “Sekundärendung”, followed by CLL:192 (tentatively) and CHD Š:300. In this case, the form has to be analyzed as šaruš=ša with zero-ending and the particle -ša/-za, which appears frequently with nom./acc. neuters but only in singular (cf. Melchert 2003b:186f. with references and in detail Jasanoff 2010a), which makes a singular form more probable.

[A.B.]

KUB 18.1 rev iv^? 11’f. provides the following context (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition the hand copy as well as the transliterations of Archi 1975a:126, Sakuma 2009a:456f. and CHD Š:300, and the restorations and translation of Sakuma 2009a:136, 248f. and 456f. have been taken into account):

(11’)[karaš?-i]a? sig5-⸢in⸣ LÚkúr-za tar-uḫ-zi ^(12’)[... -z]i ša-ru-uš-ša-ia

(11’)[an]d^? [the army^?] is fine, the enemy prevails, (12’)[…] and the booty?

According to Starke 1990a:118, ša-ru-uš-ša-ia marks the beginning of a new sentence, and therefore -ya has to be a Hittite enclitic particle (followed by Tischler 2008a:165). This could be supported by the preceding fragmentary sign, ZI, which may represent the ending of a verb, since Hittite verbs are normally in sentence-final position. Starke connects the Glossenkeilwort with Hitt. šāru- n. ‘booty’ based on the formal similarity of both words and the context at KUB 18.1 (cf. CLL:192 and CHD Š:300). Given that the context mentions the terms karaš ‘army’ (in line 6’), LÚkúr ‘enemy’ and tarḫu- ‘to defeat’, the background of the oracle seems to be a military campaign (cf. Sakuma 2009a:456). Hence, it is indeed plausible that ša-ru-uš-ša means ‘booty’ in this text (cf. CHD Š:300). This receives further support form the corresponding Hieroglyphic Luwian form “CAPERE”(-)sa-ru-sa that appears in a similar context and probably with the same meaning, cf. the respective lemma.

[A.B.]

Already Laroche 1959a:87 listed ša-ru-uš-ša-ia as a Luwian form (but without further discussion). Starke 1990a:118 established the Luwian status of this word on morphological grounds (followed by CLL:192 and CHD Š:300, cf. Ünal 2016a:469, Tischler 2008a:165 and Tischler 2016a:311, see under Forms). It is furthermore listed as a Luwianism by van den Hout 2007a:248 but not included in the similar list by Melchert 2005a. If the analysis as šaruš⸗ša⸗ya is correct, it shows a Luwian case ending accompanied by a characteristic Luwian enclitic -ša/-za (cf. e.g. van den Hout 1984a) attaching to an š-stem (see under Forms), which is very rare in Hittite (cf. Starke 1990a:113). By contrast, the similar Hittite form šāru- ‘booty’ shows an u-stem and consistent plene spelling of a (cf. HEG L–S:936, CHD Š:296 and EDHIL:738). Hence, ša-ru-uš-ša as a foreign word in a Hittite text is very likely of Luwian origin.

[A.B.]

See HEG S:936-937 with further literature, CHD Š.2:296, Kloekhorst 2008c:738f., Weitenberg 1984a:172f.

[D.S.]