zinakki-

Attested in Hittite ritual texts (MS & NS) as well as in a lexical list (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	zi-na-ak-ki-iš	KUB 12.58 i 23’	(CTH 409, NS)
	zi-na-ak-ki-iš	Or. 95/3 rev.? ii 4’	(CTH 302, MS)
coll. pl.	zi-na-ak-ki	KUB 35.146 ii 11’	(CTH 767, MS)
	[zi-na-ak]-˹ki?˺	KUB 35.146 ii 7’	(CTH 767, MS)

Attestations following Ünal 2007a:822, Ünal 2016a:609 and HEG W-Z:739f. (cf. also Süel & Soysal 2003a:364; contra CLL:283, who did not include KUB 12.58 i 23’ [the Ortaköy text had not been excavated yet at the time] and EDHIL:1036, who did not include KUB 35.146 ii 7’, 11’ [the Ortaköy text had not been published yet at the time]) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz as well as the photo of Süel & Soysal 2003a:351 Fig. 2. in case of the Ortaköy text.

[zi-na-ak]-˹ki˺ in KUB 35.146 ii 7’ was restored by Starke 1985b:268 and is generally accepted (CLL:283; Haas 2003a:359, 522; Ünal 2007a:822, Ünal 2016a:609; Rizza 2012a:232; Pisaniello 2015a:32; HEG W-Z:739), since it is based on the thematic parallelism of the next paragraph (for the text see most recently Pisaniello 2015a:32f., 34f.). Note, however, that the photo of the Konkordanz shows only the lower part of a vertical wedge (and the autograph shows only a vertical wedge with the end of a horizontal one attached to that lower part) and thus the identification of the sign and the attestation itself is questionable, although for the above mentioned structural reasons this word is expected in the lacuna, which is, however, longer than this word (cf. the discussion on the problem of the length of the lacuna in Pisaniello 2015a:32 n. 38).

CLL:283 analyses zinakki of KUB 35.146 ii 7’, 11’ as nom.-acc. sg. n. from a stem zinakkit- (accepted by Tischler 2008a:234, HEG W-Z:739; and implicitly Rizza 2012a:233 n. 7, who defines it as a neuter noun), but duly notes that this is not assured due to the unclear Luwian status of the word and that a Hittite neuter i-stem is also possible (cf. Haas 2003a:359 and Tischler 2008a:234 with zinakki- c./n.). However, zinakkiš of KUB 12.58 i 23’ and the Ortaköy text shows that we are dealing with an animate noun, which requires the analysis of zinakki as a collective plural (note that this is attested in a MS text, i.e. before the disappearance of collective plurals in NH, cf. Hoffner; Melchert 2008a:68f. with refs.). This coll. pl. fits the passage without problems as it provides a list of provisions to be placed in a basket.

[Zs.S.]

While the meaning of zinakki- was traditionally held to be unknown (Goetze 1938a:9; CLL:283; Bawanypeck 1998a:79; Cornil 1999a:9; Rizza 2012a:232; Kronasser 1966a:211 [“Kultmaterie”] was hardly more specific), Tischler 2008a:234, Tischler 2016a:458 (both with question mark) and Ünal 2007a:822, Ünal 2016a:609 suggested “an edible commodity”. EDHIL:1036 went one step further assuming “a plant(-product)” (although pointing out that its meaning is unclear), just like Haas 2003a:129, 359, who proposed a fruit (with question mark, cf. Pisaniello 2015a:34 n. 43: “perhaps”).

The lexical list is not helpful, since the context is very fragmentary and obscure, although it points to a plant (Süel & Soysal 2003a:354f., 365). In KUB 35.146 ii 7’ and 11’ it appears on the first place in a list of foods, more precisely, before bread types, followed by fruits and by meat types. Nevertheless, the lack of the determinative NINDA and the lexical list rather argue against the interpretation of a bread type. The third text, KUB 12.58 i 23’ is the least helpful, since the ritual ingredients are not all edible (they include an eagle’s wing as well as a bone) and zinakki- appears after the unidentified iššarāšila-plant (see s.v.) and figs and before internal organs, which may suggest a plant in view of the lexical list.

All in all, we are dealing with an edible plant, but a more precise definition is currently not possible.

[Zs.S.]

While some scholars separated the attestations into two different words, a Hittite zinakki- and a Luwian zinakkit- (Tischler 2008a:234, Tischler 2016a:458; cf. also EDHIL:1036 [only the “Hittite” attestation] and CLL:283 [only the “Luwian” attestations]), other scholars assumed only a single Hittite word for all attestations (Kronasser 1966a:211; Haas 2003a:259; Ünal 2007a:822, Ünal 2016a:609). CLL:283 also noted that the Luwian status of the word is not assured (and it was not included in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a). Although one may assume that a Luwian zinakkit- n. was reinterpreted as Hittite zinakki- c. on the basis of nom.-acc. sg. n. zinakki providing an alternative explanation for all attestations, we have seen above that this is not necessary and all forms can be regularly explained within a single Hittite paradigm, which is to be preferred not only because of Occam’s razor, but also because we are dealing with texts in Hittite (and not in Cuneiform Luwian, contra Rizza 2012a:232 on KUB 35.146) and there is no hint whatsoever for a Luwian origin. The suffixoid element -kki- points to a non-Hittite origin (Kronasser 1966a:211; Süel & Soysal 2003a:364; HEG W-Z:740) and although for instance the Luwian adaptation of Hurrian lexemes happens by the suffix -it-, which might support the above scenario with zinakkit-, a Luwian transmission of Hurrian lexemes into Hittite is of course not necessary (see e.g. the list of Hittite animate i-stems of Hurrian origin without Luwian transmission in Hoffner; Melchert 2008a:86).

All in all, we are dealing with a Hittite, and not with a Luwian word.

[Zs.S.]