ušašša

This word is only attested in two NS manuscripts of the same ritual.

[A.B.]

nom./acc. sg./pl. n./nom.sg.c	ú-ša-aš-ša/ú-ša-aš-š=a	KUB 17.20++ obv. ii 12	(CTH 492, NS)
	ú-ša-aš-š[a/ú-ša-aš-š[=a	KBo 71.12++ 4’	(CTH 492, NS)

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:130, CLL:246, HEG U–Z:113f. (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:197, Starke 1990a:107, Ünal 2007a:766 and Ünal 2016a:569). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

There are several proposals regarding the analysis of the attested forms and the interpretation of the stem: based on an assumed connection to Luwian ušša/i- ‘year’ (cf. under the respective lemma), Laroche 1959a:130 considers either ušašš(a) with the Hitt. enclitic -a/-ya ‘and’ or a genitive adjective *ušašši-. A connection to Luwian ušša/i- ‘year’ has been rejected by Starke 1990a:107 (also noting context-based problems for this connection, cf. under Meaning) because of the non-geminated -š- in the first part of the form ušašša. He assumes that a form with the enclitic -a/-ya (hence a nom.sg.c. of an -a-stem uša-) would also be unlikely since it is not used in the preceeding listings of this context. Starke 1990a instead suggests a neuter -š-stem ušaš-. In this case, the form would be nom.-acc.sg.n. with the Luwian suffix -ša/-za. In contrast, CLL:246 considers an adjective in -ašša- (with a form in nom.-acc.pl.n.) to be more likely than an š-stem, but concedes that a nom.sg.c. of an -a-stem uša- (also assumed by Ünal 2007a:767 and Ünal 2016a:569) with the Hitt. doubling enclitic -a/-ya ‘and’ would be equally possible. HEG U–Z:113f. (cf. Tischler 2008a:188, Tischler 2016a:403) remains undecided with regard to the stem, assuming either uša- or ušaš- as the base of an attested adjective ušašša/i- (the latter is also assumed by van den Hout 2006a:248).

All three suggested stems are possible, although a singular form (hence a stem uša- or ušaš-) may be more likely since the other subjects listed in this context are all abstract or deified terms in the singular. But it cannot be excluded that it is a plural (or collective) form of an abstract term ušašša/i-.

Ünal 2007a:767 (cf. Ünal 2016a:569) also lists a verb ušašai- for the attestation in KUB 17.20++ obv. ii 12, which seems to be based on a reading mistake (cf. under the lemma †ušašai-).

The form †ušešša in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:170 is a misprint (as pointed out by HEG U–Z:114, cf. Tischler 2008a:211 and Tischler 2016a:403).

[A.B.]

Differently from the indication in Rosenkranz 1950a:197, the word appears with a double gloss marker, not a single one.

[A.B.]

There are two different meanings that have been suggested for this word (cf. the summary in HEG U–Z:113): either a connection to the Luwian ušša/i- ‘year’ (cf. under the respective lemma), or some kind of positive attribute (cf. HEG U–Z:113 “eine vergöttlicht gedachte positive Eigenschaft”, cf. Tischler 2008a:211, Tischler 2016a:403), not connected to the word for ‘year’ (no meaning is given in CLL:246, Ünal 2007a:766 and Ünal 2016a:569).

KUB 17.20 obv. ii 11–12 and its duplicate KBo 71.12++ 4’ show the following (the transliterations are based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, additionally the hand copies as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Bossert 1956a:202f., Haas & Wilhelm 1974a:58, Melzer 2017a, HEG U–Z:114 and HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:170 have been taken into account):

(11)egir-šu-ma ka-ri-ia-aš-ḫa lu-u-ḫa-aš mu^KAM sig5 a-a-an-ni-iš (12)a-pa-aš-du-uš ḫa-at-tu^!-la-tar ú-ša-aš-ša a-ša-an-zi

Cf. the duplicate KBo 71.12++

(4’)[… -aš-ḫ]a-aš lu-u-ḫa-aš mu^KAM ⸢sig5 a⸣[- … ta]r ú-ša-aš-š[a …]

(11–12)But understanding, kariyašḫa, lūḫa, the good year, ayanni, apašdu, health, and ušašša sit behind (them).

Bossert 1956a:208 considers a derivative of Luw. ušša/i- ‘year’: “das zum Jahr gehörige”, cf. similarly Laroche 1959a:130, who assumes either a substantive ušašš(a)- with the enclitic -a/ya ‘and’ with the meaning ‘and the year’ or (like Bossert 1956a) a genitive adjective *ušsašši. This connection to the Luwian word for ‘year’ has rightly been doubted by Starke 1990a:107 because of the non-geminated -š- in this word, and on contextual grounds because the Sumerogramm for ‘year’ muKAM appears immediately in the preceding part of the context and an additional term for ‘year’ would hence be redundant.

Since the substantive ušaš- or uša- or (substantivized adjective) ušašša/i- appears among other terms of well-being, it likely has a similar meaning, which cannot be further determined at the moment.

[A.B.]

The word is mostly assumed to be Luwian, it appears in the Luwian dictionaries by Laroche 1959a:130 and CLL:246 as well as in the list of Luwianisms by van den Hout 2006a:248 (but not in that by Melchert 2005a), Starke 1990a:107 also considers it to be Luwian, cf. below.

Despite the unlikely connection to Luwian ušša/i ‘year’ (considered by [Bossert 1956a:208 and Laroche 1959a:130), Bossert 1956a:208 and Starke 1990a:107 assume a Luwian origin because of the gloss marker. However, the use of this marker does not necessarily point towards a Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445).

A Luwian origin of this word depends first of all on the analysis of the attested form. If it is a neuter -š-stem ušaš- with Luwian suffix -ša/-za (as suggested by Starke 1990a:107, cf. under Forms), it represents a Luwian form in Hittite context, i.e. a Luwian foreign word. If it is a (substantivized) possessive adjective ušašša/i- (as assumed by CLL:246), it could show the Luwian suffix -ašša/i- (cf. Melchert 2003b:196), but note that this suffix also exists in Hittite (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:56). If the stem is uša-, it could be either a Hittite or Luwian noun (with Hittite being more likely since it is a Hittite context). Hence, a Luwian origin of this word is possible, but remains uncertain.

[A.B.]