zardumi[n(-)

Hapax in a Hittite ritual fragment (NS).

[Zs.S.]

unknown

za-ar-du-mi-˹in˺[(-)

KUB 35.130, 1

(CTH 770, NS)

Attestation following CLL:281 (cf. already Laroche 1959a:114) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. Its form is generally held to be unknown (Laroche 1959a:114; CLL:281; Tischler 2008a:232, Tischler 2016a:453). If this is the full form, it can be identified as an acc. sg. c. If this is the full form and if this is a Luwian word (but see under Origin), an acc. sg. c. of a participle is formally possible, but it cannot be proven (the same applies for the possibility to restore a Luwian nom. pl. c. za-ar-du-mi-˹in˺[-zi]).

[Zs.S.]

Its meaning is generally held to be unknown (Laroche 1959a:114; CLL:281; Tischler 2008a:232, Tischler 2016a:453; not included in Ünal 2016a), but CLL:281 boldly claims that it is “surely connected” to the Luwian word zārt- ‘heart’ (implicitly cf. already Laroche 1959a:114), “but just how is unclear”. However, we are probably dealing with a Hittite text (see under Origin), and although a Luwianism is not impossible (and could be even supported if it is a participle, as per above), the morphological relationship of this putative participle and the Luwian word for ‘heart’ (or, in other words, the origin of the segment °u°) is entirely unclear: one can entertain the possibility of a verb whose base would be an adjective from zārt- ‘heart’ suffixed by any of the -wa- suffixes (for the possibilities see Rieken & Sasseville 2014a, the suffix complex would regularly be contracted into -u-), but it is not immediately obvious what this verb would mean and the unintelligible text does not help at all. Thus the connection to the word ‘heart’ is only a problematic and unprovable possibility and one has to consider seriously the possibility of a noun zardumi(ya)-.

[Zs.S.]

Starke 1985b:414 books KUB 35.130 as a Luwian fragment (followed by the Konkordanz too, version 1.96). However, nothing supports this idea, since those words of the fragment that are understood can be equally analysed as Hittite, moreover, the presence of two Glossenkeilwörter of clearly Luwian origin rather argues for a Hittite text (cf. Starke 1985b:414):

(1) ku-iš-an za-ar-du-mi-˹in˺[(-)
(2)       wa-ar-pa-aš-ša-at-˹ta˺[(-)
(3)       ap-pa-ra-an-ti-˹in˺ [
(4) [     ]x-x-˹ur˺ tu-u-ur-˹ru˺[(-)
(5) [                   ] x x x [

Independently from this, zardumin[ could of course be a Luwianism in the Hittite text and this could even be supported if it is indeed a participle (due to its Luwian suffix), but its unknown meaning, unknown origin and the unintelligible text do not allow to prove this suggestion. Thus its Luwian status is currently only an unprovable possibility and a Hittite origin is equally, if not more possible.

[Zs.S.]