waškui(t)-

The lexeme is attested only once, in an instruction and oath imposition of Šuppiluliuma II.

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.

wa-aš-ku-u-i-š[a]

ABoT 56 iv 6’

(CTH 256, NS)

Güterbock’s (Güterbock 1956a:133, followed in DLL:109, Miller 2013a:312f.) analysis as a nom. sg. c. form with the contrastive particle -a proved to be erroneous, since -a should have been suffixed to the preceding Hittite genitival attribute ammel (see already Starke 1990a:180).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The remains of final -ša are questionable, but their presence is more likely than not also for graphical reasons.

[E.R.]

The fragmentary context does not permit a semantic interpretation: ^(5’)[ ... k]iš-an le-e me-ma-[a]-i ^(6’)[ ... am]-⸢me⸣-el wa-aš-ku-u-i-š[a] ^(7’)[ ...-ḫ]i “He shall not speak thus: I^? [ ... ] my offens[e]” (ABoT 56 iv 5’-7’, modifying Starke 1990a:180, HEG L-N:400, Miller 2013a:312f.). However, the relationship with the Hittite borrowings waškui- and wašku-, both ‘offense’, suggests the same meaning for the gloss-wedge word waškui(t)- (see HW:334, Starke 1990a:180, CLL:265, Giorgieri 1995a:302, HEG U-Z:400, but more concrete HHw:s.v.: ‘Angriff’).

[E.R.]

The nom./acc. sg. form waškuwiša renders Starke’s (Starke 1990a:180f.) classification as a stem in -i(t)- most likely (highly improbable: waškuwi(ya)šša/i-). Following Starke, it finds supportive evidence in the Hittite borrowing waškui- c. As for the derivational base, Melchert (in CLL:265, followed in Rieken 2006a:293) claims that the reconstructed thematic stem *waškuwa- is the best option.

[E.R.]

The combination of the gloss-wedges and the specifically Luwian base waškuw- leave no doubt about the Luwian origin of the word (see DLL:109, Starke 1990a:180f., CLL:265, Rieken 1999a:461f., Melchert 2005a:451, van den Hout 2006a:242, Rieken 2006a:293, HEG U-Z:400).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. wašt(a)-.