ikunta

Quasi-hapax (referring to the same lake or pond twice) attested in the Hittite version of The Song of Ullikummi (NS).

[Zs.S.]

unknown	i-ku-un-ta	KUB 33.96 obv. i 16	(CTH 345, NS)
		KUB 33.98 + KUB 36.8 obv. i 13	(CTH 345, NS)
	i-˹ku˺-[un-ta]	KUB 33.96 obv. i 18	(CTH 345, NS)
	˹i-ku˺-un-ta	KUB 33.98 obv. i 12	(CTH 345, NS)

Attestations based on CLL:86, with additional data from Rieken et al. 2009d (their restoration is followed here), checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

The word appears only in the following passage (KUB 33.96 obv. i 15-18 with duplicate KUB 33.98 obv. i 11-14, composite text following Rieken et al. 2009d, own translation):

“n=aš=kan ^URUUrkišaz URU-za arḫa iyanniš, n=aš ikunta lūli=kan anda āraš, mān=kan ^dKumarb[iš   ], nu=kan ikunta lū[li an]da šalliš ^NA4perun[aš] kittari”

‘He (Kumarbi) set out from the city of Urkiš, he arrived at the ikunta pond. When Kumarbi […], a great rock lies in the ikunta pond.”

The first suggestion for ikunta was a verb of unknown meaning (Otten 1950a:14 with n. 2). However, Starke 1990a:540f. rightly objected the incongruence in number (plural instead of singular) and it is problematic also for Neu 1993a:145 n. 34 on syntactic grounds (Singer 2002b:129 claims that a verb “makes no sense in the present context”, although a verb cannot be a priori excluded on semantic grounds, even if the resulting lack of any sentence introductory particle in the last sentence would be unconventional; also Güterbock 1952a:34 rejected it, but without arguments [“seems unlikely”]).

The second and very widespread proposal is based on the co-occurrence of ikunta with lūli ‘pond, lake’ (in dat.-loc. sg.), which seems to give the name of the place, and its similarity to the Hittite adjective ekuna- ‘cool, cold’: ikunta would be its Luwian(ized) form and the phrase would mean ‘Cool / Cold Pond / Lake’ vel sim. (Laroche 1951b:96 [“pourrait être”, but not translated in Laroche 1959a:51]; Güterbock 1952a:34 [but refraining from translation]; CHD L:80; HED A & E/I:258, L:113; Haas 1982a:149f.; Pecchioli Daddi & Polvani 1990a:151 [“lago ghiacciato”]; Neu 1993a:145 [with question mark]; Hoffner 1998b:57 [“Cold Spring”], Hoffner 2017a:52 [“Cold Lake”]; García Trabazo 2002a:185; Bachvarova 2014a:280 [but only as ‘cool lake’]; Mouton 2016a:501; but see HW (2nd ed.) E:28 [“nicht sicher”, the outburst in HW (2nd ed.) E:33 “Eigentlich ist noch keins von diesen und anderen ἅπ. λεγ. (…) geeignet für die Aufnahme in ein Heth. Wb.!” was not comprehensible to me]).

This view was rightly criticized by Starke 1990a:540, who pointed out that there is no congruence between ikunta and lūli and there is no solution for the different morphology of ikunta and Hittite ekuna-, since the mere assumption of a Luwian word does not solve the problem (his third counter-argument, =kan always starts a new sentence, is not valid anymore, see Dardano 2008a:69 and Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:365, both with refs., regarding this passage see already Neu 1993a:145).

A case ending -a denoting direction is, however, not unknown among the Anatolian languages: there is a Hittite allative in -a and there is a Luwian dative in -a. It is the Hittite allative which was proposed cautiously by Dardano 2008a:69. Although this would formally solve the problem of the lack of congruence, an allative is not possible due to the following two reasons: First, the allative is not used in locative sense (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:76 with refs., contra Dardano: “potrebbe essere un terminativo, usato come locativo”), thus it cannot stand in the last sentence. Second, the allative no longer existed in New Hittite (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:76 with refs.) and since we are dealing with a text from the Hurrian translation literature, no OS manuscripts are expected that could provide the source for an Old Hittite form.

The Luwian dative in -a was proposed by Laroche 1951b:96 (not mentioned by Starke), but this case ending appears with a-stems only (Yakubovich 2015b). This leads us to the problem of the morphological connection of the Hittite word and ikunta, which was, surprisingly enough, not discussed but tacitly assumed in the literature until Dardano 2008a:69. She proposes an u-stem adjective*ik-u- ‘cold’, with two Hittite derivatives, iku-na- and iku-nt-. Although this is in theory possible (cf. EDHIL:235 on e/ikuna-), we have seen that ikunta cannot be an allative and a nom.-acc. pl. n. does not make sense here. The only way to save this proposal is to assume that *ikunt- was borrowed into Luwian and was transferred into the a-stems, which is, however, hardly motivated and thus the entire scenario is not really probable.

The final proposal connected ikunta in the meaning ‘cold, cool’ to Hurrian egi ~ egu (Salvini 1971a:179). Setting aside that the author himself considers ikunta as the Luwian form of Hittite ekuna- and the connection of this putative Hurrian root to Hurrian eg- ‘rein, frisch’ and/or ‘frei’ remains unclear (Richter 2012a:77 s.vv.), no explanation was given how to explain the part °(u)nta and since such a suffix(-chain) is not attested in Hurrian (cf. Giorgieri 2000a:196–213; Wilhelm 2004a:88–92; Wegner 2007a:53–60), this derivation cannot be upheld (Haas 2006a:156 n. 40 rejects this derivation referring to its Luwian origin, but he supports this view only with the gloss marker, which is a false premise, see under Origin; Singer 2002b:129 leaves open whether the pond was cold or pure; Mouton 2016a:501 n. 4 rather prefers ‘cold’, since ‘pure’ is parkui- in Hittite, although this does not necessarily exclude the existence of a (quasi)-synonymous word).

Accordingly, many scholars leave the word without translation (Friedrich 1952a:40; HEG A-K:352; Starke 1990a:540; Haas 2006a:156 n. 40; Zorman 2007a:764; Tischler 2008a:67, Tischler 2016a:122; Rieken et al. 2009d; including CLL:86 who emphasizes that “attempts to relate to Hitt. ekuna- ‘cold’ have failed utterly to explain either phonol. or morphol.”; not included in Ünal 2007a, Ünal 2016a).

The preliminary conclusion is that until now it was not possible to explain this word from Hittite, Luwian, and Hurrian. A verb is improbable (due to the lack of sentence connective in the last sentence), an adjective is also improbable (due to the lack of congruence). Its combination with lūli points to some connection, but this is not necessarily so. There are basically two remaining possibilities. The first one is that of an adverb. However, it is hard to see which adverb could refer to a moving god and to a lying rock at the same time. The second possibility is that this is the proper name of the pond, as it has been suggested (as per above), but not the entire phrase, just ikunta itself. Here it is worth quoting HW (2nd ed.) E:34f.: “Falls es sich bei dem See (luli-), der kalt, tief, blau, grün oder sonst etwas sein könnte, um einen festen ON handelt (…), entfällt eine Deutung aus dem Luw. Südwestanatoliens”. In other words, Ikunta would be a toponym, just like Urkiš in the first sentence. This would explain the lack of congruence (since this is not necessarily expected in such case) and even the gloss marker, either because the scribe was not familiar with the name of the pond (which is quite understandable) or precisely because there was no congruence (note that the Hurrian version is not useful since its preserved part refers to another section, cf. Giorgieri 2001a).

[Zs.S.]

This word is frequently (but sometimes cautiosly) considered to be a Luwian loanword (Friedrich 1952a:40 [cautiously]; Laroche 1959a:51; HED A & E/I:258 [“possible”]; Salvini 1971a:179; Starke 1990a:541; Cotticelli Kurras 2012a:81; Ünal 2016a:959), due to the gloss marker which was supposed to be a sign of Luwianism in earlier scholarship (Güterbock 1952a:34 [cautiously]; Haas 2006a:156 n. 40; van den Hout 2007a:247) and due to the Luwian morphological analysis discussed under Meaning (Laroche 1951b:96 [cautiously]). However, we already know that a gloss marker in itself does not necessarily mean Luwian origin (for this specific case see already Dardano 2008a:69, in general see Melchert 2005a:445f. and already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78) – note, however, that the proposal of Zorman 2007a:764 that the gloss wedge of ikunta would signal a taboo word is entirely unmotivated in case of the name (or a qualifying adjective) of a foreign pond or lake. We have also seen under Meaning that a Luwian loanword is not very probable, although not impossible. Similarly, CLL:86 books this word only in brackets and claims that “a Hurrian word remains likely” (also Tischler 2008a:67, Tischler 2016a:122 rejects the comparison with ekuna- and opts rather for the Hurrian connection; even if the current proposal is not viable morphologically, see under Meaning), and, accordingly does not list it in his collection of Luwianisms (Melchert 2005a). If the above analysis, that we are dealing with a toponym, is correct, Ikunta originates in the languages spoken in the region of Urkiš and thus beyond the scope of this dictionary.

[Zs.S.]