/usa-⁽ⁱ⁾/

This verb is attested seven times in the HLuw. corpus. It occurs in texts covering a large geographical area from Aleppo in the south to Tabal in the north and Cilicia and Karkamiš in the centre and east. The relevant texts date to a similarly wide range with the earliest attestation attributed to the 11^th century BCE and the latest to the early 7^th century BCE, i.e. the entire Iron Age Luwian era.

[AH.B.]

1sg. pres. act.	/usawi/	(PES)u-sa-wa/i	ANDAVAL, §3 (Tabal)
3pl. pres. act.	/usanti/	u-sa-ti	KULULU lead strip 2, §19 (Tabal)
1sg. pret. act.	/usahha/	(“PES”)u-sa-há-a	KARATEPE 1 Ho., §29 (Cilicia)
		(“PES”)u-sá-ha	KARATEPE 1 Hu., §29 (Cilicia)
3sg. pret. act.	/usatta/	(PES)u-sa-tá	ALEPPO 7, §7 (Aleppo)
		(“PES”)˹u˺-sa-t[a]	KARKAMIŠ A24a2+3, §9 (Karkamiš)
		˹u˺-sá-[ta?]-a	KARATEPE 3, §2 (Cilicia)

The form attested in ALEPPO 7, §7, 〈(PES)u-sa-tá〉, may be a 3pl. pret. act. instead of a 3sg.; the context is too fragmented to permit any certainty, see Hawkins 2011b:50.

[AH.B.]

The first semantic interpretation of this verb was facilitated by the fact that it is attested in the KARATEPE bilingual inscription, where it translates Phoenician yrdm ‘to bring down, deport’, see Bossert 1950a:34. The etymological links of the verb are less clear, however. Bossert connected it to Hittite uda- ‘to bring’, noting the use of the logogram PES for a determinative, denoting motion. Yakubovich 2016a:85f. advocates the same connection, but see the discussion of the stem below.

In the HLuw. corpus, the verb is used as a simple transitive with various types of objects, among them animals (e.g. ALEPPO 7, §7, and by proxy in ANDAVAL, §4). It is also frequently combined with the preverb /ahha/ ‘back, away’ or the preverb /zanta/ ‘down’, with especially the latter combination having a possible figurative meaning besides a literal one in KARATEPE Hu. and Ho., §29, viz. ‘to lead down’ and possibly metaphorically ‘to subjugate, make obedient’.

[AH.B.]

It does not become quite clear from the attestations which conjugation /usa-/ belongs to, and Sasseville 2021a:365f. tentatively categorises the verb as ḫi-conjugation, though mentioning that a factitive formation in /-a-^(ti)/ is possible as well.There has been some uncertainty about some further forms found in ASSUR letter c, §§6-7, which look similar to the verb under discussion and may or may not belong to the same paradigm. Meriggi (HHG:140) initially regarded the attested forms to be representing two different verbs, /usa-/ and /usi-/, but other scholars discussed uniting the forms into one paradigm; cf. e.g. Hawkins 1975a:140 and Morpurgo Davies 1980b:107 n. 26. From today´s vantage point, however, the forms found in the ASSUR letter in all probability belong to a different verb, because the stem shapes visible in the attested forms cannot be accommodated within a single paradigm without considerable difficulties; cf. HLuw. /us(a)i-/ ‘to supply’.

Yakubovich 2016a:85f. regards the formation as composed of the prefix /u-/ ‘around’ and the zero grade of the same root found in Hittite uda-/ud-^(ḫi) ‘to lead (here)’; cf. also HEG U:128 and HEG W-Z:535f. However, the CLuw. cognate of the present verb attests to a singleton /s/ rather than a geminate as would be expected if the link with Hittite uda-/ud-^(ḫi) ‘to lead (here)’ were valid, and it is therefore likely that it belongs to a different root, viz. /sa-/ ‘to release’, combined with the prefix /u-/ ‘hither’; see the etymology below.

[AH.B.]

The word is restricted to a single attestation in a letter fragment.

[E.R.]

1sg. pres. ind. act.

u-ša-ú-i

KBo 8.17, 7’

(CTH 769, NS)

For the interpretation and assignment of ú-ša-an-da as ‘they brought’ at KBo 13.260 iii 6’, see now under CLuw. uša-^(ti)? ‘to prosper’.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photograph in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

No semantic interpretation is offered in DLL:102f. While tablet KBo 8.17 is too fragmentary to be of any use here, the assumption of a correspondence with HLuw. (PES)usa- ‘bring’ is certainly appropriate. Following Sasseville 2021a:365f., this is further confirmed by the participial forms uša- in Hittite transmission (see below).

[E.R.]

Melchert (CLL:245, followed by HEG U-Z:107) conflates uša- and ušāi- into a single paradigm. However, this is not supported by the respective contexts (see ušāi-). The forms of uša- in both a Cuneiform Luwian text and Hittite transmission (see under Lemma) are compatible with a factitive verb in -a-^(ti) and a vocalic ḫi-conjugation root verb in -a-⁽ⁱ⁾, i.e. the class of ša-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to release’. It is the etymological relationship suggested here between uša- ‘bring (here)’ and ša-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to release’ with the preverb u- that points to the latter solution.

[E.R.]

The word is attested four times, but exclusively in the mythological part of a single OH ritual.

[E.R.]

part. nom. sg. c.	u-ša-am-mi-iš	KBo 20.82 ii 30	(CTH 434, NS)
	[u]-˹ša-am˺-mi-iš	KBo 20.82 ii 35	(CTH 434, NS)
part. acc. sg. c.	[u-ša-a]m-mi-in	KBo 20.82 i 23’	(CTH 434, NS)
unknown	u-ša-[am-…	KBo 20.82 ii 37	(CTH 434, NS)

Restoration at KBo 20.82 i 23’ follows Fuscagni 2015b. – CHD Š:118f. (based on Carruba 1966a:29) reads the nominative forms as ša-am-mi-iš and, therefore, considers the possibility to adduce also ša-am-mi at KBo 20.59, 7’. However, the reasons given for interpreting the single wedge as a gloss wedge are not conclusive. While the problem to connect ušamma/i- with ušš(i)- ‘year’ because of the triple spelling with singleton -š- and a prerequisite denominal -amma/i- suffix excludes this etymology, it is not true that “uša(i)-” (thus the conflated lemma in CHD) is spelled consistently with ú-; cf. u-ša-ú-i at KBo 8.17, 7’ (see under CLuw. uša- above). Therefore, the assignment of ušamma/i- as participle to the verb uša- is equally possible, if supported by its meaning, and accordingly semantic considerations should be decisive for this question.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The word is used as an epithet of the GUL-ša-, the Fate-goddess. The context of KBo 20.82, in which it occurs, is the antithesis of the “good GUL-ša-” that asks for the life of the royal family to bring it to them and an “old GUL-ša-”, that is brought back to the speaker by the gods: nam-ma-wa-[mu a-ap]-pa dingir^{MEŠ (ii 29)}ka-ru-ú-i-li-in ^dgul-ša-an [ … ú-w]a-te-er ^{(ii 30)}nam-ma-wa-mu a-ap-pa u-ša-am-mi-iš ^dg[ul-š]a-aš ú-et nu-wa-mu a-na zi-ia a-ri-im-pa-an [ … ] da-a-iš “The gods brought back [ … ] to me the old Fate-goddess. The Fate-goddess (that is) x-ed came back to me and put [ … ] a burden on my soul.”

Carruba 1966a:28f. gives consideration to two interpretations. First, he suggests that karuili- ‘old’ and ušamma/i-, which he correctly interprets as a Luwian participle, are synonyms and ušamma/i- means ‘verjährt’ (cognate of ušš(i)- ‘year’). This is improbable because of the difference of spelling of the sibilant (see under Forms). Secondly, he mentions the possibility of reading šammiš and deriving the participle from an unattested cognate of Hitt. šā(i)-^(mi) ‘to be angry, to be sullen’, which is problematic in itself. Nevertheless, CHD Š:118f., Fuscagni 2015b and Melchert (e-mail on April 4, 2020) tend to accept the latter proposal, because the Fate-goddess’s negative action of burdening the speaker (^DKurwašu) and the action of pleasing her (in ii 36) seem to imply not only a negative epithet, but, more specifically, one that describes her sullenness.

Alternatively, Sasseville 2021a:365f. offers yet another solution by semantically equating uwate/a-^(mi) ‘to bring’ in the previous sentence with ušamma/i-, which accordingly can be translated as ‘brought (here)’. His proposal is confirmed not only by the HLuw. cognate /usa-/ ‘to bring (here)’, but also by CLuw. uša- interpreted as ‘to bring (here)’ (see under Lemma). Finally, additional evidence comes from the last attestation (ibid. ii 35), where the queen is asked to conduct the ušamma/i- fate deity in the reverse direction (pēḫute/a-^(mi) with preverb pē- ‘forth’). This underscores the relevance of the deity’s transfer back and forth during the ritual and motivates the explicitness in this regard. The burden on ^DKurwašu’s soul, then, is provoked by the Fate-goddess’s request to release the life of the royal family (ii 24) so that it be transferred to them.

No final decision is made here, but the lemma is assigned technically to the word family of ša- ‘to send’ for the time being.

[E.R.]

The participle in -amma/i- alone does not allow to specify the stem exactly, but the assignment to CLuw. uša- and the analysis as u-ša- ‘to release here’, i.e. ‘to bring here’ proposed under that lemma speaks for a stem uša-⁽ⁱ⁾.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. šā-⁽ⁱ⁾.