ḫullur(i)-

The sole attestation of the word is found in a MS ritual fragment from the Tauriša tradition.

[E.R.]

dat./loc. sg.

ḫu-ul-lu-ri

KUB 35.109 iii 12’

(CTH 765, MS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

DLL:47 does not offer a translation. The only information drawn from the context is that the ḫullur(i)- were a part of the threshing floor, probably interpreting a-wa-ti-ia-an-tar kislaḫ-aš ḫu-ul-lu-ri ki.min (KUB 35.109 iii 12’) as “and him/it for himself on the ḫullur(i)- of the threshing floor” (CLL:72, HHw:54). Nevertheless, Melchert (CLL:292) points out correctly that a gen. sg. kislaḫ-aš is without parallel in Cuneiform Luwian (but cf. CLuw. ḫappašḫā- and now DCL:s.v.). The only way to avoid a genitive would be to interpret kislaḫ-aš as the nom. sg. c. of an a-stem and thus the subject of the clause: “and the threshing floor him/it for himself on the ḫullur(i)- likewise.” However, the meaning of such a sentence eludes us entirely. Non liquet.

[E.R.]

The dat./loc. sg. in -i conforms with the default assumption that the word belongs to the productive class of mutated stems, although a neuter noun cannot be entirely excluded.

[E.R.]