iššaralladdar-

Hapax in a NS Hittite inventory text.

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. pl. n.

iš-ša-ra-al-la-ad-da-ra

KUB 42.78 ii 19’

(CTH 504, NS)

Attestation following HW (2nd ed.) IV:99 (cf. also Starke 1990a:470f.; CLL:96; Ünal 2007a:265, Ünal 2016a:226) checked against the photograph of Konkordanz. For the alleged weak stem iššaralatanaš see s.v. iššarattanaš. On the reading see also Siegelová 1986a:465 n. 3 contra Košak 1978a:112.

Only HED K:164 adds a question mark to this definition of the case. This is probably prompted by the apparent discrepancy between the form and the preceding number, 1-NU-TUM. However, this is regular in case of collective nouns (Hoffner; Melchert 2008a:159f., in this case see already Neu 1992a:204), thus the correct translation of the phrase is ‘one set of i.’ (cf. Košak 1978a:113 and Siegelová 1986a:465; contra Neu 1992a:203f.).

[Zs.S.]

This meaning is generally assumed since Košak 1978a:113, Košak 1982a:217 (Starke 1990a:470; Neu 1992a:204; CLL:96 [“or simil.”]; HED K:164; Ünal 2007a:265 [English and Turkish version]; Tischler 2008a:69,Tischler 2016a:129 [slightly more cautiously: “am Arm oder an der Hand getragener Schmuckgegenstand”, also Ünal 2007a:265 adds this in the German and Turkish versions and in Ünal 2016a:226; in HEG A-K:560 only ‘a golden object’]; EDHIL:471), except Siegelová 1986a:465, 595 (who left the word untranslated, but included in the glossary as “Schmuckstück”) and HW (2nd ed.) IV:99 (unknown meaning), which, however, does not quote this literature at all.

The meaning, however, is based exclusively on the assumed etymology of the word from Luwian īš(ša)ra/i- ‘hand’ via *issralla/i- ‘of the arm / hand’ (with CLL:96 and not ‘Handgelenk, Unterarm’ of Starke 1990a:471; it is unclear what Laroche 1965a:46 and HEG A-K:560 meant with analysing this word as a compound noun). Although there is a disagreement whether iššaralladdar- can be derived from this with the abstract suffix -ttar- only through a verb (Starke 1990a:471) or this is “needless” (CLL:96, without arguments), the derivation is basically impeccable, and the proposed meaning fits the overall context that seems to be a list of jewelleries. Note that the alleged weak stem iššarattanaš does not help, since its meaning is unknown, see s.v.

[Zs.S.]

The word is generally assumed to be Luwian since Laroche 1965a:46 (Košak 1978a:114 [implicitly]; Neu 1992a:204; CLL:96; HED K:164 [“Luwoid”]; EDHIL:471; Tischler 2008a:69, Tischler 2016a:129 [cautiously in HEG A-K:560: “vielleicht”]), although not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a. This view, however, is based only on the plausible etymology from Luwian īš(ša)ra/i- ‘hand’ (cf. under Meaning). Nevertheless, the similarly plausible morphological analysis with the exclusively Luwian suffixes -alla/i- and -ttar- (cf. under Meaning) also supports the assumption of a Luwian origin.

[Zs.S.]