āmmašš-^(ti)

In Cuneiform Luwian, the verb is found in ritual fragments.

[E.R.]

3sg. pret. act.	am-ma-ša-t[a]	KBo 29.34, 3’	(CTH 770, NS)
unknown	a-am-ma-aš[(-)	KBo 29.6 iv 8’	(CTH 762, NS)

The assignment of a-am-ma-aš[ at KBo 29.6 iv 8’ (DCL:s.v.) must remain tentative, since the analysis as a sentence initial particle chain a=mmaš(=) cannot be excluded.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The fragmentary Cuneiform Luwian context does not contribute to the semantic interpretation of the verb, but see /āmmašš- ‘to wipe’.

[E.R.]

See /āmmašš- ‘to wipe’.

[E.R.]

The attestations of the verbal stem in Hittite context are found in the ritual for the reconciliation of a child with its mother and another ritual fragment (both NS).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Goetze’s (Goetze 1938a:88) reading -ba- in am-ba-aš-ša-an-da was not prompted by the sign form, and could safely be rejected in view the other attestations of the verbal root.

[E.R.]

The recognition of the verbal semantics goes back to Melchert 1988b:211f., who equates the sequence of the two actions ārr-/arr-^(ḫi) ‘to wash’ and /āmmašš- performed on a substitute with the frequent co-occurrence of ārr-/arr-^(ḫi) ‘to wash’ and ānš- ‘to wipe’. He concluded that  āmmašš- also means ‘to wipe’ and represents the genetic match of Hitt. ānš-; cf. ⁽⁷⁾... nu-wa-ra-an-kán ar-re-er nu-wa-ra-an ⁽⁸⁾am-ma-aš-ša-an-da “they washed him, and they wiped him (dry)” (see also CHD P:315, Melzer 2015a, and Watkins 2010b:358-360 with a treatment of the wider context and its stylistics). Melchert’s plausible interpretation was adopted in CLL:11, Archi 1993a:406, HHw:15, EDHIL:182, Watkins 2010b:358-360, Melzer 2015a, Sasseville 2021a:261.Still without translation Sommer 1932a:108, Goetze 1938a:88, HW:330, DLL:26, Haas & Wilhelm 1974a:26, HW 2nd ed. A:66, HED A, E, I:50f. (with an erroneous revival of Goetze’s reading am-ba-aš-ša-an-da and connection to ambašši- ‘burnt offering’), and Ünal 2007a:23.

[E.R.]

Following Sasseville 2021a:261, the combined evidence of am-ma-aš-ša-an-da and CLuw. am-ma-ša-t[a] (see under Lemma above) points to a root stem. One should also compare CLuw. ammašši(ya)-^(di).

[E.R.]

The use of the gloss wedges, the ending -anda and the phonological shape with the preservation of the cluster /-mmss-/ demonstrate the Luwian borrowing (see Melchert 1988b:211f., but also Sommer 1932a:108, Friedrich 1947b:5, DLL:26, CLL:11, Archi 1993a:406, HW 2nd ed. A:66, HED A, E, I:50f., EDHIL:182, Sasseville 2021a:261).

[E.R.]

HW 2nd ed. A:95-97, EDHIL:182f.

For a discussion of the reconstruction, see Pal. āmša-⁽ⁱ⁾.