ḫūpp(a)-

If these attestations belong to a single word (see the discussion under Forms), then it appears in Luwian ritual fragments and incantations in MS and NS as well as in the so-called Ištanuwan songs (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	˹ḫu˺-u-up-pa-an-za	KBo 29.56, 8’	(CTH 766, MS)
dat.-loc. sg.	ḫu-u-up-pí	KUB 25.39 iv 14	(CTH 773, NS)

Genitival adjective (?):

nom.-acc. sg. n. or dat.-loc. sg. or (if not a genitival adjective) acc. sg. c.	ḫu-u-up-pa-aš-˹ša˺-[an]	KUB 35.89, 6’	(CTH 766, MS)
	[ḫu-u-up-pa]-˹aš˺-ša-an	KUB 35.88 iii 3’	(CTH 766, NS)

Attestations following CLL:73 checked against the photos of the Konkordanz. The restoration of [ḫu-u-up-pa]-˹aš˺-ša-an in KUB 35.88 iii 3’ is based on the duplicate text KUB 35.89, 6’ (Starke 1985b:227, Starke 1990a:466). Starke 1990a:466 n. 1698 claims that the genitival adjective is attested also in KBo 29.173, 5 = 29.172, 9 (and 10), but this is not probable, see the discussion under Meaning. CLL:73 remarks that perhaps ḫu-u-˹up˺[- in KUB 35.133 iv 13’ also belongs here. This is theoretically possible, but since the following text is broken off, it cannot be proven.

CLL:73 rightly underlines that the grammatical analysis given by him (nom.-acc. sg. n., dat.-loc. sg., and nom.-acc. sg. n., resp.) and the combination into one paradigm are “by no means certain”. As for the other treatments, Laroche 1959a:48 also combined these words (KBo 29 was not yet published at that time), as well as Tischler 2008a:60, 61 (not included any more in Tischler 2016a), but HW (2nd ed.) III:728 is cautious and finally Ünal 2016a:958f. lists them separately. Although all forms can indeed be united into a single paradigm, this cannot be proven, since the meaning of the forms is entirely unclear (see under Meaning).

Moreover, as mentioned and shown above, alternative grammatical analyses are also possible (ḫūppaššan as dat.-loc. sg. was already suggested by Starke 1990a:466 n. 1698 too) and due to the fragmentary context (see under Meaning) no decision can be made at the moment.

[Zs.S.]

No meaning is given in most of the cases (Laroche 1959a:48; Starke 1990a:466 n. 1698, 567; CLL:73; Ünal 2016a:958f.). However, Tischler 2008a:60, while claiming that its meaning is unknown, suggests ‘Haufen, Vermengtes, Mischung’ (this word was omitted from Tischler 2016a). Tischler’s proposal is obviously based on the Hittite word ḫūppa-, which is supposed to mean ‘heap, pile’ by many scholars (see the refs. in HW (2nd ed.) III:728). HW (2nd ed.), which, however, treats all attestations of this Hittite word as referring to a type of vessel (although thus the determinative DUG is frequently lacking), also identifies the Luwian and Hittite words (HW (2nd ed.) III:728). Moreover, since ḫūppaššan is followed by the verb šūwatta ‘(s)he filled’ in KUB 35.88 iii 3’, HW (2nd ed.) takes for granted that ḫūppaššan means here a type of vessel, which is a possible inference, but not necessarily the only one (note also the lack of the determinative DUG).

Starke 1990a:466 n. 1698 claims that the genitival adjective is attested also in KBo 29.173, 5 = 29.172, 9 (and 10), which would be helpful since the word appearing there, ḫūppašši-, is a type of bread or pastry (see e.g. HW (2nd ed.) III:740, for a detailed discussion and refs. see here s.v.). However, ḫūppašši- is always preceded by the determinative NINDA (HW (2nd ed.) III:740), while this is missing in KUB 35.89, 6’. Although this does not necessarily exclude their identity, prudence dictates to separate these words. The above mentioned verb šūwatta ‘(s)he filled’ in KUB 35.88 iii 3’ may also argue against the identification with ḫūppašši-.

The context in KBo 29.56, 8’ is entirely broken off ([…]˹ḫu˺-u-up-pa-an-za [), and although ḫu-u-up-pí in KUB 25.39 iv 14 is part either of the beginning or of the refrain of an Ištanuwan song, this is not helpful either, since only the sentence initial clitic chain and a single sign after this word has been preserved from this sentence (Starke 1985b:330). In other words, although both the suggestion of Tischler (‘Haufen, Vermengtes, Mischung’), and that of HW (2nd ed.) (‘a type of vessel’), are entirely possible (and the verb šūwatta ‘(s)he filled’ supports or at least allows both), they are currently unprovable.

[Zs.S.]