ḫaggazuwašša/i-

Hapax in the Protocol for the Royal Body Guard (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.

LÚḫa-ag-ga-zu-wa-aš-ši-ìš

IBoT 1.36 iv 37

(CTH 262, MS)

Attestation following HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:15 (cf. also Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:110; Ünal 2007a:144, Ünal 2016a:139) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

Due to the context and its hapax nature many scholars cautiously book it as ‘a functionary’ (Friedrich 1952a:46; HEG A-K:125 [but cf. below], Tischler 2008a:39, Tischler 2016a:58; Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:110; Ünal 2007a:144, Ünal 2016a:139 [but cf. below]), cf. also “ḫaggazuwašši-servant” in Miller 2013a:121. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted since Alp 1950-1951a:132 n. 101 that this word is connected to Hattian ḫaggazuēl (cf. under Origin), which means ‘Becher-Mann, Tränker, Wasserbesorger^?’ based on its Hittite gloss ^LÚakuttara- ‘Tränker’ and its morphological analysis being a derivation from Hattian kazue ‘cup^?’ (Soysal 2004b:277, 430 with refs.). Thus many scholars tried to provide a more precise meaning, mainly ‘Tränker’ (Jakob-Rost 1965a:201 [in quotation marks], 224; Kronasser 1966a:235; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:15 [implicitly]; HEG A-K:125; Ünal 2007a:144 [with question mark], a waterer of animals according to Ünal 2007a:144, Ünal 2016a:139, with question mark), but also ‘water supplier’ (Kronasser 1966a:235; Ünal 2007a:144, both with question mark), ‘Trinker’ (Kronasser 1966a:235, with question mark), ‘waiter’ (Güterbock & van den Hout 1991a:39, 69 [here with question mark]) and even ‘steward’ (Güterbock & van den Hout 1991a:58) or ‘footman’ (McMahon 2003a:230).

Güterbock & van den Hout 1991a:58 rightly point out that ^LÚḫaggazuwašši- brings both meat and milk in this passage (IBoT 1.36 iv 37-39). This obviously does not fit the translations connected either to water (not to mention watering of animals) or to drinking only, despite its possible Hattian etymology and the Hittite gloss. Thus it must be assumed that this Luwian form (on this see under Origin) has a more general meaning referring to a type of servant, and since ‘waiter’ and ‘steward’ do not seem to appropriate due to their connotations, McMahon’s ‘footman’ is followed here.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that this word ultimately goes back to Hattian ḫaggazuēl since Alp 1950-1951a:132 n. 101 identified these words. There is a disagreement, however, regarding the exact way of borrowing: most scholars assume a Luwian transmission due to the suffix -ašša/i- (Kronasser 1966a:235; Laroche 1966b:249; HEG A-K:125 [with question mark]; Weitenberg 1984a:461 n. 636; Güterbock & van den Hout 1991a:58; Goedegebuure 2008a:146 n. 23). However, Kammenhuber claimed that this word was immediately borrowed from Hattian in a Hittitized form (Kammenhuber 1969a:435; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:15 [contra her claim and Klinger 1996a:673 Neu 1977a:274 does not reject the Luwian theory, he only provides neutrally a bibliographic improvement], 54; cf. also Ünal 2007a:144, Ünal 2016a:139). The word was not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a and HED H:266 did not take a stance.

The rejection of the Luwian explanation by HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:15 was based on the assumption that Luwian was not at all in contact with Hattian. As Goedegebuure 2008a:146 n. 23 rightly pointed out, this is an aprioristic and thus methodologically wrong assumption. The question is the status of the suffix -ašša/i-. Although Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:56, 62 book an identical Hittite suffix too (quoting, however, only divine names and toponyms), cases showing i-mutation – just like this word – should probably be classified as Luwian, especially here, since the word is attested in a MS tablet and although the i-mutation of genuine Hittite words appears already in the transitional period between Old and New Hittite (“Middle Hittite”), it is typically a New Hittite phenomenon (Rieken 1994a:46, Rieken 2006b:273; cf. also Yakubovich 2010d:334–337, who argues that i-mutation was not a part of the New Hittite grammar, but reflects the usage of Luwian native speaker scribes).

As to the derivation, Goedegebuure 2008a:146 n. 23 suggested that the Luwian suffix -ašša/i- replaced the Hattian appurtenance suffix -el (ḫaggazuēl being ‘he of the cup’). While this is possible, it is equally possible that a Hattian word *ḫaggazu ‘cup vel sim.’ was borrowed and suffixed in Luwian (*ḫaggazu would be a regularly prefixed form of “kazue” [cf. Soysal 2004b:217], on whose form see below). This question depends on the unclear details of the Hattian internal derivation and thus needs more research. From a formal point of view, ḫaggazuwašši- requires a stem *ḫaggazu and thus the Hattian word for ‘cup’ would be kazu and not kazue (contra Laroche 1966b:248f. and Soysal 2004b:288), which analysis is supported by its possible etymologies (Akkadian kāsu ‘cup’ [Soysal 1999a:164f., Soysal 2004b:288] or, alternatively, a circumfixal deverbal derivation by ḫa-…-u from a root *kaz [cf. Kammenhuber 1959d:77, Kammenhuber 1969a:469; see Soysal 1999a:164f. on the possibility that the attested kazzue is a verb meaning ‘to drink, to water’], for this type of derivation see Soysal 2004b:217) and fits the appurtenance suffix -el as well.

All in all, we are probably dealing with a Luwian word in Hittite, originally borrowed from Hattian.

[Zs.S.]