dālaimi-

The lexeme is attested several times in cult inventory texts written in New Script and Late New Script.

[E.R.]

nom. sg.	DUGda-la-i-mi-iš	KBo 2.4 i 3, 8, 9, 14, 15	(CTH 672, NS)
	DUGda-la-i-m[i-iš]	KUB 56.49, rev. 19’	(CTH 672, LNS)
	⸢DUG⸣da-la-i-mi-i[š]	KUB 10.92 ii 7’	(CTH 706, LNS)
	[DUGda-l]a-i-mi-i[š]	KBo 59.73, 2’	(CTH 670, NS)
	DUGta-la-i-mi-iš	KUB 40.108 ii 5’	(CTH 682, NS)
	[DU]Gta-la-⸢i⸣-mi-iš	KBo 11.40 i 6’	(CTH 682, NS)
	DUGda-la-im<-mi>-iš	KUB 32.129 i 19	(CTH 474, NS)
acc. sg.	[D]UGda-la-i-mi-in	KUB 56.48 iii 41’	(CTH 672, NS)
nom. or acc. pl.	DUGda-a-la-i-mi-uš	KUB 44.50 i 15’	(CTH 500, LNS)
	[DUGd]a/ta?-a-la-i-mi-uš	CHDS 4.184, 7’	(CTH 670, LNS)
	DUGda-la-i-mi-uš	KUB 20.5 obv. 9’	(CTH 670, NS)
		KUB 10.91 iii 7’	(CTH 669, LNS)
	[DUGda-l]a-i-mi-uš	Bo 9025, 7’	(CTH 670, LNS)
	[DUGda]-la-i-mi-uš	Bo 7947, obv.? 2’	(CTH 670, N/N)
	DUGta-la-i-mi-uš	KBo 2.13 obv. 20	(CTH 528, NS)
	[DUGt]a-a-la-i-mi-uš	CHDS 4.184, 7’	(CTH 670, LNS)
stem form	DUGda-la-i-mi	KUB 10.92 ii 3’	(CTH 706, LNS)
	DUGda-a-la-i-[mi]	KBo 64.164, 10’	(CTH 678, NS)
	DUGda-a-la-⸢i⸣-[mi]	KBo 46.102 iv 7’	(CTH 615, LNS)
	[DUGt]a-la-i-m[i]	KBo 64.149, 4’	(CTH 670, NS)
	[DUGta-la]-i-mi	KBo 11.40 i 9’	(CTH 682, NS)

The attestation in KUB 32.129 with its correction follows CLL:203; the attestation in KBo 2.13 follows Carter 1962a:195.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. - No photo is available for Bo 9025 and Bo 7947.

The attestation ^DUGda-la-im-iš in KUB 32.129 i 19 stands out since it uses the sign IM, instead of MI like in the other attestations. Melchert (CLL:203) assumes an omission and adds a sign MI after IM, which leads to the form ^DUGdalaimmiš (as if a Luwian participle). Alternatively, it may be a spelling mistake with IM instead of MI, which is attractive since no other attestation shows a geminated -m-. Accepting this interpretation, the evidence with a single -m- in every attestation also has consequences for the analysis of the stem formation.

Note that every attestation of the lexeme shows the determinative DUG used for vessels.

[E.R.]

The determinative DUG shows that dalaimi- denotes a vessel, which is accepted in Götze 1951b:72, HW:206, HEG T:57, HHw:161 and Ünal 2007a:505. Melchert (CLL:203 and DCL:s.v.) suggests that dalaimi- denotes a vessel, thus also Carter 1962a:196.
Carter 1962a:195 argues for its use as a lamp on contextual grounds in KBo 2.13. This more specific interpretation does not fit every context and cannot be proven since the shape or type of the vessel itself is unknown.

[E.R.]

Laroche (DLL:89) analyses ^DUGdalaimi- as a participle of an unattested verb *talā(i)-, which is not accepted in HEG T:57 since every attestation is spelled with a single -m-.See under Graphic features for the special spelling ^DUGda-la-im-iš. Melchert (CLL:203 and DCL:s.v.) sees a Luwian stem formation and argues for a Luwian origin.

[E.R.]

The Luwian origin of ^DUGdalaimi- is claimed in HHw:161, CLL:203 and DCL:s.v., apparently based on its Luwian morpheme -aimma/i-. Since the lexeme is always spelled with single -m-, the equation with the geminated Luwian participial morpheme -aimma/i- seems problematic, but not impossible, because the geminate -mm- often undergoes spelling reduction (Starke 1990a:245). In contrast, Tischler (HEG T:57) does not accept a Luwian origin but argues for an Akkadian loanword based on Akk. talammu ‘container of beer’ (AHw:1309), since in his opinion, ^DUGdalaimi- is used for wine and beer. One should also compare CLuw. talā-.

[E.R.]

*The lemma was written together with Marian Wehrstein.