arramma/i-

This lexeme is found in a list of fields.

[D.S.]

nom. sg. c.(!)

ar-ra-am-mi-iš

KUB 8.75 iv 27

(CTH 239, NS)

The noun is part of a genitival construction introduced by the Akkadogram ŠA. Therefore, the noun shows inflection as a nominative singular despite its genitival use.

[D.S.]

The context in which arrammiš occurs is a formula repeated throughout the tablet. The word arrammiš occurs immediately after the personal name ^mlupakki, which designates the owner of the field. In comparison to the other instances of the same formula, the personal name is often not followed by any epithet except in some cases, e.g. ŠA ^mpí‑ik‑ku‑uk‑ka₄ ^LÚNU ^GIŠKIRI₆ (i 59’, 60’, iii 16) ‘belongs to Pikkukka, the gardener’, ŠA ^mtu‑ut‑tu pí‑it‑ta‑ú‑ri‑ia‑aš (i 57’, iv 17) ‘belongs to Tuttu, the pittauriyaš’ (cf. pittaur(i)-), ŠA ^m.DGE₆.LÚ pí‑it‑ta‑a‑aš (iii 6) ‘belongs to Armaziti^(?), the pittaš’ and on another fragment ŠA ^mup‑pa‑ak‑ki‑li ḫa‑ta‑an‑ti‑aš (KUB 42.1 iii^? 3’-4’, 7’, 10’-11’) (pace HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:496 with further literature “dry land”; it should be a title). Therefore, ŠA ^mlu‑pa‑ak‑ki ar‑ra‑am‑mi‑iš should mean ‘belongs to Lupakki, the arrammiš’. The word arrammiš is left untranslated by Laroche 1959a:23, but translated as ‘irrigated’ by Laroche 1959a:30 (followed by HED A:115 and HEG A:51, but doubted in CLL:28), who however takes it as an epithet of the field, which is not supported by the syntax of the formula.

From an etymological perspective, it represents a Luwian participle in -amma/i- built on a root verb arr(a)-, which could match Hitt. and Pal. arr-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to wash’ (thus already Laroche 1959a:30). Therefore, the title would represent something done to fields in relation to “washing” or better “watering”, perhaps ‘the irrigating one’.

[D.S.]

For the stem formation, see under Meaning.

[D.S.]

For an etymological approach, see under Meaning.

[D.S.]