šargašamma/i-

Attested in one or two Hittite oracle texts (LNS and perhaps NS, too).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	šar-ga-ša-am-mi-iš	KUB 16.31 iv 6’	(CTH 577, LNS)
	ša-ar-ga-ša-mi-iš	KUB 5.24 ii 43	(CTH 577, LNS)
	ša-ar-ga-ša-mi-iš	KUB 5.24 ii 44	(CTH 577, LNS)

The attestations follow Melchert 1993g:190 and CHD Š:266 (cf. also Friedrich 1952a:333; HEG L-S:904; Ünal 2007a:613, Ünal 2016a:464; HED Sa:173), the relevant parts in the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv are either too blunt or missing (KUB 16.31 iv 6’). Nevertheless, it is clear that ša-ar-ša-ša-mi-iš of the hand copy KUB 5.24 ii 43 is a copying mistake, as pointed out in CHD Š:266. šar-ga^?-x-[…] in the fragmentary context of KUB 6.6 iv 3 may also belong here (HEG L-S:904, CHD Š:266, and Ünal 2007a:613 included it; Friedrich 1952a:333 and Melchert 1993g:190 are cautious).

[Zs.S.]

Many scholars left this word without translation (Friedrich 1952a:333; Laroche 1958b:195, Laroche 1959a:86; Berman 1972a:181; Weitenberg 1984a:136; Melchert 1993g:190, Melchert 2005a:452; van den Hout 1995a:259; Mouton 2007a:201; Zorman 2016a:591), but some of them translated it more or less similarly as ‘verärgert, verstimmt, ungnädig’ (HEG L-S:904, Tischler 2008a:163, Tischler 2016a:308), ‘seeking redress, offended, angry, mad at somebody’ (Ünal 2007a:613, Ünal 2016a:464) ‘ungnädig’ (Sakuma 2009b:58f.), ‘vengeful (?), seeking redress (?)’ (CHD Š:266; followed by García Ramón 2019a:135, 138f.), and ‘aroused’ (HED Sa:173).

The term is used in both texts as the description of a divinity, but we learn nothing more about this situation in KUB 5.24 ii 42-45. However, in the context of KUB 16.31 iv 6’ this term is contrasted with the claim “and you will now turn in favour to me” (van den Hout 1995a:264f.), which implies that the divinity had had a negative behaviour (which need not be “an outraged god in full anger”, contra García Ramón 2019a:136), but no further details can be extracted.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general assumption that we are dealing with a Luwian loanword (Laroche 1958b:195, Laroche 1959a:86 [here with question mark]; Weitenberg 1984a:136 Melchert 1993g:190, Melchert 2005a:452; van den Hout 2006a:249; Tischler 2008a:163, Tischler 2016a:308; CHD Š:266; HED Sa:173; García Ramón 2019a:136), but the arguments are rarely disclosed. Contra van den Hout 2006a:249, the presence of Glossenkeile is not enough to prove a Luwian origin (Melchert 2005a:445, cf. already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78; the explanation of Zorman 2016a:591 as a taboo word is unlikely on contextual grounds, since precise questions are needed in an oracle). According to CHD Š:266, it is an adjective in “-ammi-” to an s-stem noun *šargaš-, which is acceptable with slight modifications, i.e. with the -ama/i- appurtenance suffix. Laroche 1958b:195, HED Sa:173, and García Ramón 2019a:138 suggested, however, a participle, which is equally if not better possible (García Ramón derives this verb from the s-stem noun *šargaš-; HED assumes an underlying “iterative” verbal form). In both cases we are dealing with a Luwian loanword in Hittite (the Hittite derivation by Berman 1972a:181 is morphologically erroneous and there is no productive Hittite suffix that would fit), but a decision between the two possibilities can be made only on etymological grounds, which is currently obscure (see the discussion under Reconstruction).

[Zs.S.]