iššarattanaš

Hapax in a NS Hittite inventory text.

[Zs.S.]

unknown

iš-ša-ra-˹at˺?-ta-na-aš

KBo 18.153 obv. 7’

(CTH 242, NS)

Attestation following HW (2nd ed.) IV:99 (cf. also Starke 1990a:470f.; CLL:96; Ünal 2007a:265, Ünal 2016a:227) checked against the photograph of Konkordanz. For its alleged strong stem see s.v. iššaralladdar- and below.

There is no agreement regarding the case of this form: Siegelová 1986a:595 suggests an acc. pl. (with question mark), Starke 1990a:471 proposes a gen. sg. or a dat. pl. (the latter solution is followed by CLL:96 and HED K:164 [with question mark]), while HW (2nd ed.) IV:99 assumes gen. sg. (with question mark), without any reference to the proposed alternatives. Formally speaking most of these solutions are possible (except acc. pl., since it requires an i-stem, Hoffner; Melchert 2008a:70f.) as well as the nom. sg. and gen. pl. The text is not helpful, since it is fragmentary, the parallel passages of the same text allow both a genitivus materiae and any type of side remark, which, in turn would allow practically any other case.

[Zs.S.]

Košak 1982a:71, 217 (here with question mark, a reference to iššaralladdar- and also as iš-ša-ra-la^?-ta-na-aš); Siegelová 1986a:100, 595 and Ünal 1990a:360 read the word as iš-ša-ra-at-ta-na-aš (followed by Tischler 2008a:70), but Starke 1990a:471, CLL:76 and HED K:164 read iš-ša-ra-la-ta-na-aš (similarly HW (2nd ed.) IV:99, but with a question mark). Based on the photograph of the Konkordanz and considering the formal variations of the signs AD and LA, both readings are possible in theory. Comparing the other LA signs of the same fragment (lines 4’ or 12’), the lower of the two long horizontal wedges in the damaged sign under discussion is slightly reduced and stepped, which rather points to AD (cf. Rüster & Neu 1989a: No. 105) than to the LA used by this scribe (cf. HZL No. 95).

The reading iš-ša-ra-la-ta-na-aš is obviously prompted by the wish to connect it with the word iššaralladdar- ‘bracelet, armband’. Set aside that this connection cannot be verified semantically, since the meaning of iš-ša-ra-la-ta-na-aš is obscure (cf. under Meaning), the connection is contradicted by the non-geminated spelling of -ra-la-ta- contrary to -al-la-ad-da- in iš-ša-ra-al-la-ad-da-ra. Thus, until further evidence, the reading iš-ša-ra-at^?-ta-na-aš seems slightly more probable considering the following <ta>.

[A.B.], [Zs.S.]

Those scholars who believe in its identity with iššaralladdar- assume a meaning ‘bracelet, armband’ (Starke 1990a:471; CLL:96; HED K:164), except HW (2nd ed.) IV:99 (unknown meaning), which is, however, cautious regarding the identity of these words (“vielleicht”) and does not quote the literature on the meaning of iššaralladdar-. Those who separate the two words either do not give any meaning (Košak 1982a:75, 217; Ünal 1990a:360 [but cf. below]) or just a very general one (Siegelová 1986a:595 [“ein Ornament, Schmuck”]); Tischler 2008a:70, Tischler 2016a:129 [“ein Schmuckgegenstand”]; Ünal 2007a:265, Ünal 2016a:227 [“an ornament”]). We saw, however, that these words are probably independent from each other (cf. Graphic Features) and the fragmentary context does not allow any definition of the meaning (cf. Forms).

[Zs.S.]

Those scholars who believe in its identity with iššaralladdar- either assume a Luwian origin (Starke 1990a:471; HED K:164) or not (HW (2nd ed.) IV:99, since it does not quote the literature regarding iššaralladdar-, and CLL:96, who, without arguments, assumes that this is a Hittite form). Since these words have probably nothing to do with each other (see under Graphic Features) and its meaning (and thus its etymology) is completely obscure, there is currently nothing that would require a Luwian origin (although a derivation from Luwian īš(ša)ra/i- ‘hand’ with the suffix -ttar/-ttn- is in theory possible [cf. Luwian tarma/i- ‘nail, peg’ → tarmattar ‘nailing, fastening’], this idea cannot be proven).

[Zs.S.]