šarkatt-

Attested twice in the same liver oracle (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	šar-ka4-za	KUB 52.34 obv. 9	(CTH 570, NS)
	šar-ka4-za	KUB 52.34 obv. 5	(CTH 570, NS)

The attestations follow CHD Š:267 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:613, Ünal 2016a:464; van den Hout 2006a:249; HED Sa:173, not published yet at the time of Laroche 1959a; not included in Melchert 1993g), checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[Zs.S.]

Although not included in Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a and Zorman 2016a:591 assigns no meaning to it, HED Sa:173 books it with ‘arousal, anger’, Ünal 2007a:613, Ünal 2016a:464, CHD Š:267, and García Ramón 2019a:135, 136 [adding ‘punition’ as a possibility], 139, 143 propose a meaning ‘retribution^?, redress^?’ (García Ramón 2019a:136 adds ‘punition’ as a possibility). CHD rightly points out that this word must refer to something negative since a previous unfavourable answer caused to ask about the “š. of the gods” and an unfavourable outcome was asked for. However, contra Ünal, CHD, and García Ramón a more precise definition is not possible (there are too many possibilities semantically, e.g.Puhvel’s ‘anger’ would also perfectly fit [contra García Ramón 2019a:139]; contra García Ramón 2019a:136, 143 it is not clear if we are dealing with “outraged” and “vengeful” deities), except that due to its probable suffix -att- we are dealing with an action/result noun from a verbal or adjectival base (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:57).

[Zs.S.]

Although not included in HEG and in EDHIL (latter thus implies a loanword), it is considered to be Luwian by van den Hout 2006a:249 (although not included in Melchert 2005a), CHD Š:267 (implicitly), and García Ramón 2019a:136. Contra van den Hout, 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). Based on its alleged meaning and its -att- suffix CHD connects it with šargašammi- ‘vengeful^?, seeking redress^?’ held Luwian by CHD Š:266. On the same grounds García Ramón 2019a:135f., 139, 147 derives it from a verb *šark- ‘to make good’ also attested in šarkiwali- ‘vengeful^?, seeking retribution^?’ (see s.v.). Also HED Sa:173 assumes the same stem (but without meaning) and suffix, but without identifying the word as Luwian.

Although it cannot be excluded that šarkatt- is not a derivative in -att- (type šiwatt-), the presence of this suffix is still the most probable solution. However, this is a Hittite suffix and thus a Luwian origin is possible only if the stem šark(a)- is a Luwian loanword (alternatively, Melchert [pers. comm.] suggests that the Luwian word was *šargatta- which was transferred to -att-stems, which is, however, petitio principii). This stem may underlie šargašammi-, which is a Luwian loanword, but since its precise morphology and meaning (beyond ‘a negative attitude’) are unknown (see the discusssion s.v.), currently no connection between these words can be proven. Accordingly, due to its probable derivational suffix, this word can currently be identified only as a Hittite word.

[Zs.S.]