kalmiya-

The word is found only in a single passage attested in two NS duplicate texts from the ritual for the sick child (Tauriša tradition).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. pl. or coll.	kal-⸢mi⸣-ia〈〈-ni〉〉	KBo 13.260 ii 11	(CTH 766, NS)
	kal-⸢mi-ia⸣	KBo 13.260 ii 10	(CTH 766, NS)
	kal-mi-ia	KBo 29.27 i 5’	(CTH 766, NS)

Starke 1985b:261 and Melchert (CLL:98) make three emendations to kal-⸢mi⸣-ia-ni-〈in〉 and kal-mi-ia-〈ni-in〉 based on the parallel constructions with direct objects preceding and following ii 10f. While the syntax clearly needs accusative objects in the relevant slot, the economy principle demands a different approach, i.e. to mark as spurious the once-used additional -ni-. This was probably inserted inadvertently by the scribe, who missed the line and took -ni- over from kaldunin (ibid. ii 12f.).

[E.R.]

The meaning ‘little stick’ tentatively assigned in Yakubovich 2019a:554 builds on

            1) the mention of items in the repetitive formula “who made him an X for himself, shall take X”, in which tools and/or weapons are listed: pur(i)- ‘tray (?)’, kalmiya-, kaldunn(i)- ‘thigh-bone’, warpann(i)- ‘(a weapon or tool)’, ḫattara- ‘hoe’ and ^GIŠtur(i)- ‘spear’ or ‘(a garden tool)’,

            2) the assumed connection with the word family of *kalma- (e.g. Hitt. ^GIŠkalmi- ‘log’, oblique kalmanna- (a type of oven), ^GIŠkalmuš- ‘staff, lituus’), and

            3) the interpretation of the alleged formant -ann(i)- (see under Forms, skeptical also DCL:s.v.) as a diminutive suffix.

With the exception of the last assumption, Yakubovich 2019a’s solution is followed here, since the other two arguments lead to a coherent conclusion (likewise DCL:s.v.).

[E.R.]

Given the accepted connection with Hitt. *kalma- and its derivatives, the analysis of kalmiya- is straightforward, viz. *kalma- plus relational suffix -i(ya)-. It remains unclear, however, whether kalmiya- is a neuter noun or the collective of an a-stem noun (cf. also Hitt. ^GIŠkal-mi-ia, see HW 2nd ed. K:38).

[E.R.]