še(ḫ)uwāl-

The attestations of the lexeme come from two parallel texts of a birth ritual heavily interspersed with Luwianisms, and two duplicates of a ritual (all NS).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.	[še-ḫu-wa]-⸢a⸣-al	KUB 35.145 rev. 18’	(CTH 767, NS)
	ši-wa-al	KBo 13.241 rev. 14’’	(CTH 767, NS)
	ši-wa-an	KBo 22.142 iv 11’	(CTH 413, NS)
	[ši-wa-a]n	KBo 22.142 iv 11’	(CTH 413, NS)
	URUDUši-wa-al	HFAC 13, 3’	(CTH 413, NS)
	[š]i-wa-al	KBo 46.15, 10’	(CTH 413, NS)
erg. nom. sg. or abl./instr.	še-ḫu-wa-a-l[a-za	KUB 35.145 rev. 19’	(CTH 767, NS)
	ši-wa-la-za	KUB 44.4 rev. 28’	(CTH 767, NS)

The morphological analysis as an ergative form at KUB 35.145 rev. 19’ and KUB 44.4 rev. 28’ follows CHD Š:487 (differently Starke 1981a:154). It is based on the syntactically parallel subject šamaluwanza at KUB 35.145 rev. 18’ and the singular agreement of the predicate verbs kuerdu and tašuwaḫdu. However, it also implies an emendation of the corresponding plural verbs at KUB 44.4 + KBo 13.241 to singular forms, i.e. tašwaḫḫandu to tašwaḫdu and dandu to dau.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The restoration at KUB 35.145 rev. 19’ follows CHD Š:486.

[E.R.]

The cautious and very general semantic assignment ‘(a sharp and/or pointed tool)’ follows CHD Š:486 (see also Soysal 1989a:184-186; more concrete Beckman 1983a:196 ‘dagger (?)’, likewise Bachvarova 2013a:140, CLL:194 ‘stiletto’ vel sim., likewise HEG Š:1090, Giorgieri 2004a:410, Ünal 2007a:626 ‘a cutting tool, awl(?), punch(?)’, HED ŠE, ŠI, ŠU:107f. “leatherworking metal tool, ‘awl’ (vel sim.)”; considered here outdated is the etymology-based interpretation in Starke 1981a:152-154 as ‘Lampe’, still followed by Oettinger 1986a:17 and Rieken 1999a:449-452; undecided HHw:148). The proposals are drawn from (1) the passage in the birth ritual, where the šiwal is employed to blind the eyes of the ritual opponent, and (2) the list of paraphernalia, including a bronze knife, bronze axes, a ḫalzašši- of a leather worker, a thick šiwal (with determinative for copper items), a thin šiwal, and a šartal (for detailed excerpts, see CHD Š:486). A final decision between the different possible solutions does not seem possible without further evidence.

[E.R.]

Although the precise meaning of še(ḫ)uwal- ‘(a sharp and/or pointed tool)’ eludes us, nothing precludes the likely derivational relationship with šēwa- endorsed in CLL:194, Rieken 1999a:449-452, HEG Š:1091, and HED ŠE, ŠI, ŠU:108. Contra Starke 1981a:152-157, Starke 1990a:343, and Rieken 1999a:451f., an instrument noun in -āl- n. represents the most obvious solution.

[E.R.]

A Luwian borrowing is explicitly assumed in Starke 1981a:152-157, Oettinger 1986a:17, Starke 1990a:342f., CLL:194, Melchert 1994a:264, Rieken 1999a:451f., HED ŠE, ŠI, ŠU:108. Definite proof comes from the typically Luwian loss of -ḫ- before the labiovelar glide.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. šēwa/i-.