mumuwāi-

The lexeme occurs in various genres, viz. in a prayer, a myth and a ritual (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.	mu-mu-wa-a-i	KUB 36.96 obv. 13’	(CTH 389, NS)
	mu-mu-wa-i	KBo 11.14 i 12	(CTH 395, NS)
	⸢mu-mu⸣-wa-i	KUB 57.79 iv 4	(CTH 395, NS)
	mu-mu-w[a-i]	KBo 13.145 rev. 7’	(CTH 395, NS)
	mu-um-mu-wa-a-⸢i⸣	KUB 33.68 ii 3	(CTH 332, MS)

CHDL-N:329 lists the last example under a separate lemma. – The morphological analysis of all forms is disputed. Most scholars prefer a verbal interpretation based on the formal features (reduplication, apparent 3sg. pres. act. ending -i) and the similarity with the verbs Hitt. mau(š)-/muwa-^(ḫi) ‘to fall’ or CLuw. muwa-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to conquer, overpower’ (Rosenkranz 1952a:23, DLL:72, van Brock 1964a:121, Laroche 1964-1965a:22, Kronasser 1966a:572, CLL:150, Ünal 1996a:27, 48, HEGL-N:231, HHw:108, Ünal 2007a:458, Frotscher 2012a:168, Chrzanowska 2015a, Mouton 2016a:149; undecided CHDL-N:329, s.v. (:)mumuwai- B, and EDHIL:586f.). However, following HW:332, Lebrun 1980a:396f., HEDM:188, and Collins 2014b:188f., a substantival analysis is preferred here, because it comes at a lesser cost for the semantics and the syntactic context of the word, see under Meaning.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The reading mu-um-mu-wa-a-⸢i⸣ with final -i instead of -iš (HEDM:188) or -an (CHDL-N:329) relies on the recognition of three horizontal wedges on the edge of the tablet. The whole sign is slightly bent towards the upper edge of the tablet with the upper two wedges less deeply imprinted, a feature also observable in the IA sign at ii 1.

[E.R.]

The evidence for the substantival interpretation of mum(m)uwai- comes from the duplicate texts KUB 57.79 iv 2-4 and KBo 13.145 rev. 5’-8’: ⁽²⁾... [(ku-it k)]u-it an-da ki-⸢it-ta⸣ kù.bab[bar] guškin ^NA4za.gín ⁽³⁾⸢^NA4⸣gug ^NA4ti ^NA4du₈.šú.a si al-pu-i-mar ⁽⁴⁾ [dim₄ ba]ppir ⸢mu-mu⸣-wa-i dingir^MEŠ-aš pár^!-ḫu-⸢e⸣-n[a-a]n ú-da-i “[(whate)]ver is lying inside, (i.e.) silv[er], gold, lapis, carnelian, life-stone, quartz, the small point of horn, [malt, be]er-bread, mumuwai-, and parḫuena-cereal of the gods, (that) he brings” (modified from Collins 2014a:188f. and Chrzanowska 2015a). In this context, an analysis of mumuwai as a verb (for references, see under Forms) would leave the following sentence dingir^MEŠ-aš parḫuenan udai without a connector, while a substantive integrates easily into the list. Also at KBo 11.14 i 12 ^Dutu-aš pár-ḫu-u-e-na-aš mu-mu-wa-i a translation as a verb “he crushes^? (vel sim.) the parḫuena-grain of the Sun-god” would ignore the ending -aš of the alleged object.

Therefore, mumuwai is more likely a substantive. Puhvel’s (HEDM:188) semantic interpretation as ‘invitation, inducement, attraction (?)’ (consequently used in predicative function in all passages) builds first and foremost on KUB 33.68 ii 3-4: nu-ut-ta ki-i mu-ga-a-u-wa-aš ud-da-a-ar mu-um-mu-wa-a-a[n] e-eš-tu “and let these words of the mugauwar be an invitation to you” (modified from Puhvel, loc. cit.) While this or a similar meaning cannot be excluded at this point, his attempt to support the claim deriving “Luwoid” mumuwai- from *(mu)mugai- with loss of the voiced velar must be rejected, since Luwian does not possess a derivational pattern parallel to Hitt. kur-kur-ai-. Because Puhvel’s interpretation faces too many uncertainties (thus also EDHIL:586f.), caution demands not to translate the word until further evidence surfaces.

[E.R.]

Following Puhvel (HEDM:188), the stem represents a reduplicated formation with the diphthongal suffix -āi-, well-known from Hittite, cf. the Hittite parallel kurkurāi-.

[E.R.]

In spite of the use of the gloss wedges, the stem formation is incompatible with a Luwian origin of mumuwāi- (contra Rosenkranz 1952a, DLL:72, Laroche 1964-1965a:22, CLL:150, van den Hout 2006a:243, HEDM:188). Also, a secondary adaptation by means of the unproductive -āi- suffix does not seem likely.

[E.R.]