*h₂ons-o-

With 28 occurrences, this lexeme is one of the more well-attested in the HLuw. corpus. The attestations cover a large temporal scope with the earliest relevant inscriptions dating to around 1200 BCE and the youngest dating to the 8^th century BCE, stretching across nearly the entire HLuw. era. Their geographical distribution is less broad in comparison, but still considerable, and locations range from Malatya in the north-east to Hama in the far south.

[AH.B.]

In BOYBEYPINARI 1, §11, the signs on the block suggest that the reading could also be 〈DOMUS-ni-NEPOS.MI-i-ni-sá〉, cf. Hawkins 2000a:336, 338.

The reading of 〈INFANS.NEPOS-si^?-sa^?〉 in KARKAMIŠ A27u, l. 2 is uncertain, because the two syllabic signs are barely visible on the stone; Hawkins 2000a:165 transliterates only 〈INFANS.NEPOS〉.

In ÇINEKÖY, §1, the reading should be 〈INFANS.NEPOS-si-sá〉 instead of 〈-sà〉, a typographical error published in the editio princeps; the sign 〈-sá〉 is clearly visible on both the photo and the copy, see Tekoğlu & Lemaire 2000a:969, 983.

[AH.B.]

The meaning assigned to this word is certain and already listed by Laroche (DLL:39) with reference to Laroche 1958b:188f., who compares it to Hittite ḫanzašša- ‘grandson, great-grandson’. Semantically most instructive is the long introductory clause at the beginning of MARAŞ 1, §1a-i, which uses a number of kinship terms in linear order, and the present lexeme occurs in the slot between /nimuwizza-/ ‘son’ and /hamsukkalla-/ ‘great-grandson’, followed by further descendants such as /nawa-/ ‘great-great-grandson’ etc. More recently, this interpretation has received partial confirmation from another language in ÇINEKÖY, §1, where /hams(i)-/ corresponds to Phoenician ʾšpḥ ‘clan, descendants’ (Tekoğlu & Lemaire 2000a:975f.).

[AH.B.]

As is evident from the different forms attested, the word is a common gender noun and undergoes i-mutation. The communis opinio on the stem is divided, however. Some scholars see the word in some way connected to the HLuw. verb /hassa-/ ‘to give birth’, which has a cognate in Hittite, cf. e.g. Starke 1990a:483 n. 1768, Puhvel in HED H:68f., and Blažek 2003-2004a:5. Other scholars disagree on both semantic and phonological grounds, see e.g. Tischler in HEG A-H:141f., Melchert 1988b:212f. and Hajnal 1995a:235 n. 307, who connect it to Lyc. xahba- ‘descendant’. Carruba 1991a:163f. refuses either of the suggested connections and instead proposes a possible link with /hanta/ ‘before, in front of’, which seems far-fetched.

[AH.B.]

1. DOMUS-ni-NEPOS.MI-i-sá /parni-hamsis/ (BOYBEYPINARI 1, §11)

1. /hamsiyad(i)-/

2. /hamsukkalla-/

All attestations of ḫamš(i)- known so far come from rituals from the Kuwattalla tradition (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The lexeme always occurs together with ḫamšukkalla- (on paired kinship terms, see Martínez Rodríguez 2019b). It is found in lists of blessings for the ritual patron (thus in wishes for progeny), and in lists of relatives of the ritual patron who are intended as co-beneficiaries and also to participate in the blessings of their ancestor, e.g.: ^(28’)... ma-al-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši-iš [en-aš] ^(29’)dumu^MEŠ-ti dumu^!.munus^MEŠ-ti ḫa-am-ša-ti ḫa-am[-šu-uk-kal-la-a-ti] “[the lord] of the ritual with (his) sons, daughters, grandchildren, and great-gra[ndchildren]” (KBo 29.6 Vs. 28’f., modified from Martínez Rodríguez 2019b:184). Laroche’s (Laroche 1958b:188f.) semantic elucidation is based on the contextual analysis of those lists and the comparison with the HLuw. cognates /hams(i)-/ and /hamsukkalla-/. On the assumed match with Hitt. ḫāšša- c. (paired with ḫanzašša-), which also played a role in the recovery of the meaning, see under Reconstruction. The suggested semantic interpretation found general acceptance (DLL:39, HW:424, Oettinger 1979a:439, HEG A-K:196, CLL:50, Melchert 1994a:164f., HED H:68f. and 227, HHw:37, EDHIL:319f., Martínez Rodríguez 2019b:184; for earlier misinterpretations based on a false understanding of Laroche’s suggestion ‘petit-fils’ as ‘small child’, see HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:120).

[E.R.]

Although only an oblique case form is preserved in Cuneiform Luwian, the Hieroglyphic Luwian evidence (see under Lemma) attests to the presence of i-mutation (CLL:50).

[E.R.]

The sole attestation of the word is found in a list of women belonging to the palatial administration.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The word qualifies a palace to which a group of female workers is assigned (ša é.gal ḫa-am-ma-ša-aš). In view of the é(.gal) ḫuḫḫaš, which he translates as ‘house/palace of the ancestors’ (lit. ‘of the grandfather(s)’), and the existence of ḫamš(i)- ‘grandchild’ in Luwian, Laroche 1962a:29 interprets é.gal ḫammašaš as the ‘palace of the grandchildren’ (accepted in HW:424 with a misunderstanding of French ‘petit-fils’, Berman 1972a:38, HEG A-K:196, HED H:68f., Ünal 2007a:156). Differently, del Monte & Tischler 1978a:183 see in ḫammašaš a personal name, hence ‘palace of Ḫammaša’ (followed in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:120; undecided Weitenberg 1984a:437 n. 384; no translation in HHw:39 ). However, the expected determinative indicating the name is missing, and there is no reason not to take the syntagm at face value.

[E.R.]

The use of the Hittite gen. sg. in -aš is fully compatible with the assumption that the word is a borrowing of the Luwian i-mutated stem ḫamš(i)- (see under Origin).

[E.R.]

Those scholars who accept Laroche’s semantic interpretation as ‘grandchild’ follow him also regarding the Luwian origin on account of the cluster -mš- (for references, see under Meaning).

[E.R.]

Melchert 1973a “offspring of the first generation, child”; cf. HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:397-409 “grandchild” with further literature.