dušdum(i)-

The lexeme occurs in two divergent genres, in a ritual of Hurrian origin and the deposition of Ukkura.

[E.R.]

nom. sg.	du-uš-du-mi-iš	KUB 13.35 i 5	(CTH 293, NS)
nom./acc. coll.	du-uš-du-ma	KUB 7.56 iii 10’	(CTH 782, NS)
gen. adj. nom./acc. pl. n.	du-uš-du-ma-aš-ša	KUB 13.35 i 16	(CTH 293, NS)

Contra Werner 1967a:4f., who suggests an interpretation as a nominative in -aš plus conjunction -a ‘and’, the form dušdumašša represents a genitival adjective governed by ^GIŠle-u₅ (Carruba 1970f:85, followed in Starke 1990a:268f., CLL:237, HEG T:470, HED I:484).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Still untranslated in Güterbock 1939a:31 n. 18, 34 (a kind of document), Bossert 1946a:54, DLL:100, Werner 1967a:4, CHD L-N:26, the stem received several similar semantic interpretations in the later handbooks, i.e. HW:230: ‘Bescheinigung(?), Auweis(?)’, Starke 1990a:268f.: ‘Bekanntmachung, Beurkundung’, CLL:237: ‘manifest, voucher’ (followed in EDHIL:419), HED I:484: ‘evidence, manifest, voucher’, HEG T:470: ‘Beurkundung, Quittung’, Ünal 2007a:742: ‘voucher, evidence, manifest, receipt’. The preceding context is spelled out in CHD L-N:26: “(For) the objects which [the queen] had periodically given to G., the son of U., the commander of ten, (namely) [cha]riot(s), bronze, copper object(s), etc., he (G.) never sealed (a document about) which object he had issued to whom.” nu-uš-ši du-uš-du-mi-iš ú-ul e-eš-ta la-la-mi-eš-ši ú-ul e-eš-ta “And he did not have a dušdum(i)-; he did not have a lalam(i)-” (KUB 13.35 i 5f.). CHD translates lalam(i)- as ‘itemized list’, but ‘receipt’ fits more easily in this context and also with the accepted etymology (see under Lemma), since it is not unlikely that the itemized list (Germ. Aufstellung) is referred to first by dušdum(i)-, and the receipt is mentioned only thereafter. This would follow the iconic order of the administrational activities. Also, the second attestation within the same text concords well with this assumption: ⁽¹⁵⁾anše.kur.ra-wa anše.gír.nun.na ku-⸢in ḫar-ku-un⸣ nu-wa-mu ^GIŠle-u₅ ⁽¹⁶⁾du-uš-du-ma-aš-ša ši-ia-an e-eš-ta “(For) the horses and mule I held (i.e. took charge of), a wooden tablet (in the format of) an itemized list was sealed for me” (KUB 13.35 i 15f.; N.B. dušdumašša follows its syntactic head in the position typical for depictives, hence the insertion of ‘in the format of’).

[E.R.]

Both dušdum(i)- and lalam(i)-, which is collocated with the former and built in parallel fashion, feature a consistent spelling with singleton -m- and common gender. Therefore, the earlier classification as a substantivized participle (Kronasser 1966a:219, Starke 1990a:268f., HEG T:470) must be rejected. Already Kronasser 1966a:219 (by reference to ibid.:221) considered as an alternative analysis a derivative with the suffix -mi- (now -m(i)-) for common gender substantives; see also CLL:236, EDHIL:419. The base is identified as a reduplicated verb *du-šdu- in Carruba 1970f:85 and Carruba 1976a:141f., HED A, E, I:484, Starke 1990a:268f., and CLL:237.

[E.R.]

The Luwian origin of the word emerges from the use of the gloss wedges, the suffix -m(i)- with i-mutation, and the specifically Luwian reduplication type with the root initial sibilant lost in the reduplication syllable, but not word-internally in the root itself (see DLL:100, Kronasser 1966a:219, 221, in Carruba 1970f:85 and Carruba 1976a:141f., Starke 1990a:268f., HED I:484, CLL:237, HEG T:470, HHw:182, Melchert 2005a:452, 242, van den Hout 2006a: EDHIL:419).

[E.R.]