ḫilammi-

Attested in different Hittite texts, in rituals, in a festival description, in an instruction text, and in an administrative text (for its classification see Corti 2017a:50–53), from MS until NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	LÚḫi-lam-mi-iš	KBo 15.33 iii 24	(CTH 330, MS)
		KBo 17.55, 11’	(CTH 330, MS)
	[LÚ]ḫi-lam-mi-iš	KBo 17.93 obv. 6	(CTH 470, MS)
nom. pl. c.	LÚ.MEŠḫi-lam-mi-e-eš	KUB 13.8 obv. 5	(CTH 252, NS)
		KBo 16.65 iv 3’	(CTH 233, MS?)
		KUB 60.121 obv. 22’	(CTH 500, MS)
		KUB 60.121 rev. 10	(CTH 500, MS)
	LÚ.MEŠḫi-˹lam-mi˺-e-eš	KBo 21.77+KBo 38.233, 12’	(CTH 470, NS)
	[LÚ.MEŠḫi]-˹lam˺-mi-e-eš	KBo 21.77, 7’	(CTH 470, NS)
	[LÚ.]MEŠḫi-lam-mi-e-eš	KBo 20.51 i 16’	(CTH 694, MS)
	LÚ.MEŠḫi-lam-mi-[e-eš]	KBo 21.75, 7’	(CTH 330, MS)
	[LÚ.]MEŠḫi-lam-mi-i-e-eš	KBo 30.81 i 3’	(CTH 330, NS)
	˹LÚ.˺MEŠḫi-lam-mi-i-e-eš	KBo 30.81 i 15’	(CTH 330, NS)

Attestations follow Singer 1975a:77 and Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:212 with additional data from HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:591 (that offers only a selection; cf. also HED H:307) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. Contra Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:212 ^LÚḫilamnaš EN-aš (KUB 42.87 v 13’) does not belong here, since its meaning is different (HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:590). Note that the hapax forms ḫi-lam-ni-in (KUB 41.4 ii 16’) and ḫi-lam-mi-in-ni-iš (KUB 31.147 ii 23’) do not belong here (contra Laroche 1957a:20, Singer 1975a:78, Melchert 1983a:3; Rieken 1999a:371f. [contra her claim, they do not show the determinative LÚ]), since their meanings are completely different (HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:592f.; cf. also Ünal 2007a:212, Ünal 2016a:187; Tischler 2016a:90). “[L]Ú^MEŠ ḫi-lam-ni-e-eš” for KBo 20.51 i 16’ in Trémouille 2002a:357 is a misprint. Friedrich 1952a:69, Ünal 2007a:211f., Ünal 2016a:186f., as well as Uchitel 2005a:57 and Barsacchi 2019a:15f. (who call it “variant spelling”) falsely treat this word as identical to ḫilammatta- (see s.v.), which is morphologically not possible. Restoration in KBo 21.75, 7’ follows Groddek 1999b:304.

[Zs.S.]

Although many scholars cautiously translate it only as ‘cult/temple servant/personnel vel sim.’ if at all (Güterbock 1972-1975a:404f.; Alp 1983a:330; Popko 1991a:242; Glocker 1997a:71, 172; HW 2nd ed.:591; Miller 2013a:209; Tischler 2016a:90; cf. also Archi 1973a:210 n. 7 [‘servo’]; Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:212 and Lombardi 1999a:243 [‘inserviente’, former with question mark]; as well as Corti 2017a:51–53 [“administrators”, in quotation marks]), others prefer more specific meanings, depending on the etymology they believe in, since the texts are not specific enough (its attested derivatives are not helpful, either: ḫilammili ‘in ḫ.-style’ [HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:592] and ḫilammatta-, yet another cult/temple functionary/servant, see the discussion s.v.). Accordingly, one can find either ‘Türhüter’ (Otten 1958a:107; Rieken 1999a:372); ‘Pförtner’ (Friedrich 1952a:69; Bossert 1961b:202; Kronasser 1966a:102, 249; Diakonoff 1967a:319; Ünal 2007a:212 [but cf. below], Ünal 2016a:187; HEG A-K:244; Tischler 2008a:55 [but cf. above], all with question mark, except Diakonoff), ‘Torwächter’ (Klinger 2001a:73, followed by Gilan 2007a:313), ‘doorman’ (Francia 2018a:84), ‘man of the gatehouse’ (Uchitel 2005a:55f.), ‘of the entry-hall’ (Melchert 1983a:3) based on Hittite ḫilammar / ḫilamn- ‘gate building’ or ‘courtier’ (Oettinger apud Singer 1975a:78; HED H:307 [“perhaps”], 312; Ünal 2007a:212; EDHIL:342), ‘man of the courtyard’ (Barsacchi 2019a:15, only as literal meaning) based on Hittite ḫīla- ‘courtyard’. The problem with the etymologizing approach is not only that it cannot be confirmed by the texts and at least one of them must be false (ḫilammar / ḫilamn- ‘gate building’ is definitely not possible, cf. under Origin), but also that it ignores that the name of a profession does not necessarily reflects its etymological origin (type marshal). Thus, as long as the precise meaning of this word cannot be identified by the texts (for the most recent treatment see Torri 2020a, esp. 127–131, 137f.), only a general description is apt.

[Zs.S.]

Although most of the scholars treat it as a Hittite word (Güterbock 1972-1975a:404f.; Oettinger apud Singer 1975a:78; HEG A-K:244; Melchert 1983a:3; Rieken 1999a:371f.; EDHIL:272; HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:591f.), Puhvel (HED H:312) proposed a Luwian (“Luwoid”) loanword, but it was not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2006a. The decision was usually based on the derivational suffix and without refuting alternative explanations: It was derived from Hittite ḫīla- ‘courtyard, halo’ by Oettinger apud Singer 1975a:78 via *-mo- and by EDHIL:272 (without any details). It was derived from ḫilammar / ḫilamn- ‘gate building’ (which is not possible according to Güterbock 1972-1975a:404) by Kronasser 1966a:44, 102 (with question mark) from *ḫilamna-na- “mit dissimilatorischem Silbenschwund” (followed by HEG A-K:244 adding “möglich, aber weniger wahrscheinlich, Hypostasierung des Obl.-Stammes”) as well as by many others without any details (Laroche 1957a:19f.; Otten 1958a:133; Alp 1983a:330, Melchert 1983a:3, Rieken 1999a:371f.; Uchitel 2005a:56 n. 19). Puhvel cautiously proposed -mmi-, “a Luwoid denominative extension of the deverbative -m(m)i- (…), expressing appurtenance or belonging” (followed by Torri 2020a:127).

Güterbock 1972-1975a:404 rightly pointed out that a derivation from ḫilammar / ḫilamn- is not possible, since there is no derivational suffix. The proposal of the ad hoc “dissimilatory syllable loss” of Kronasser is not only petitio principii, but also falsely leads to an a-stem, although we are dealing with an i-stem (Tischler’s alternative proposal, the lexicalization of the oblique stem does not explain the meaning and does not lead to the i-stem, either).

A derivation from Hittite ḫīla- ‘courtyard, halo’ is formally possible, but two circumstances should be kept in mind. First, since the meaning of ḫilammi- cannot be defined precisely, a connection with Hittite ḫīla- ‘courtyard, halo’ is not necessarily more than coincidence. Second, the existence of a Hieroglyphic Luwian derivative, hilan(a)- ‘gate, palace’ (see s.v.), points to the existence of the same word in Luwian, too (either as inherited word or loan from Hittite, see the discussion s.v.). In other words, the base of the derivation can be both Hittite and Luwian. But there is no need to assume a prehistoric derivation (contra Oettinger), since -mmi- is attested as a productive suffix: this is the Luwian suffix -mma/i- (proposed already by Puhvel), which forms possessive adjectives from nouns. Thus, ḫilammi- can be identified as a Luwian loanword in Hittite, which is further supported by its Luwian derivative, ḫilammatta- (see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]