†ašandutezzi[(-)

Ünal 2007a:67 (cf. Ünal 2016a:89) lists a Glossenkeilwort “ašandutezzi[…” (3sg. pres. ind. act.) as attested in KUB 50.58++ 9”, a NS KIN-oracle (CTH 572, NS).

The photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (cf. the hand copy), indeed shows a form a-ša-an-du-te^!-ez-z[i. This would, however, be the only attestation of this word. But there is a similar Hitt. word ašandulā(i)-^(mi) ‘to occupy; to garrison’ (or sim.), for this word cf. HW 2nd ed. A:371f., HEG A–K:78, HED E:299 and EDHIL:253 (cf. Ünal 2007a:67, cf. Ünal 2016a:89).

The context of KUB 50.58++ 9’ (transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore the hand copy as well as the transliterations and translations of Beal 1992a:236 n. 899; Lebrun 2014a:60; Marcuson 2016a:496 and Warbinek 2020a:273–274 have been taken account of) shows: ^(9’’)(…) ki-nu-un-pát a-ša-an-du-te^!-iz-z[i] pa-ra-a-ma la-aḫ-ḫi-ia-zi

“^(9’’)(…) now he ašandute/lai-e[s] but will go out to war”.

Due to the military context, it is more probable that the marked form rather belongs to Hitt. ašandulā(i)-^(mi) ‘to occupy; to garrison’ (or sim.), as assumed by Beal 1992a:236 n. 899, Marcuson 2016a:496 and Warbinek 2020a:273–274.

Accordingly, the sign TE can be emended to LA and the form would be interpreted as a-ša-an-du-te^!(LA)-iz-z[i]. As both signs are similar, they can be confused and are prone to errors of sign similarity (cf. Worthington 2012a:92–96 for this type of error, for examples in Hittite cuneiform texts cf. Rüster 1988a:300 and Cotticelli-Kurras 2007a:186).

The gloss marker never appears with ašandulā(i)-^(mi) and is otherwise mostly used with forms of Luwian origin (although its use does not constitute proof of a word’s Luwian origincf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and [Melchert 2005a:445, the vast majority of words provided with this marker are in fact of Luwian origin). In this case this does not apply, since ašandulā(i)-^(mi) is a genuine Hittite word. It is more probable that the gloss marker here signals the unusual word (or sign?) form. It seems to be another instance, were the scribe, who wrote (or copied?) the text marked a suspicious form with a gloss marker (for a similar instance cf. the lemma †ḫankilatar-). Accordingly, the existence of a word †ašandutezz[i  is rather unlikely, and thus it is treated here as a ghost word.

[A.B.]