kappilazza-⁽ⁱ⁾

The word occurs in the New Hittite plague prayers of Muršili II.

[E.R.]

3sg. pret. act.	⸢kap-pí⸣-la-az-za-at-ta	KUB 14.8 i 23´	(CTH 378, NS)
	kap-pí-la-az-za-at-t[a]	KUB 14.10 obv. ii 20´	(CTH 378, NS)
	kap-pí-la-az-za-at-ta	KUB 14.11 obv. ii 17	(CTH 378, NS)
unknown	⸢kap⸣-pí-la-⸢a⸣/z[a-[	KUB 40.84 i 18´	(CTH 295, NS?)

There is an alleged fragmentary attestation of the word found in a Hittite court record from Ḫattuša (KUB 40.84 i 18´), which is listed here tentatively. The signs are read as kap^?-pí-la-x[ by Tischler (HEG A-K:492) and Werner 1967b:38-39, and as ⸢kap⸣-pí-la[- by HW 2nd ed. K:109.Werner 1967b:38-39 suggests the reading ḫub as an alternative to syllabic kap-, possibly motivated by the alleged connection to ḫub.bí ʻearringʼ. However, a reading ḫúb.bí (but not ḫub, as read by Werner) instead of kap-pí- does not enhance our understanding of the fragmentary passage. In the context of this court case, which presumably deals with the theft of a golden seal (and/or other golden objects) from the Hittite king, a word like ḫúb.bí could be imaginable, but the word is preceded by a Glossenkeil, which suggests a phonetic spelling. Furthermore, the Sumerogram for ‘earring’ is not attested with phonetic complements in Hittite sources, which advocates against any connection to the following signs -la-⸢a⸣/z[a- to its underlying Hittite word. However, a renewed reading makes the spelling ⸢kap⸣-pí-la-⸢a/za⸣-[ highly likely. Due to a break across the last sign, the reading of both ⟨a⟩ or ⟨za⟩ is possible. While the reading z[a would offer a linkage to the Luwian verb kappilazza-, a decision for ⸢a⸣ would exacerbate it. In view of the fragmentary context, no identification of the attested word in KUB 40.84 i 18´can be offered here, although the Glossenkeil points to a derivative of Luwian *kappila(/i)-.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The word is known from a single passage in the plague prayers of Muršili II (with two duplicates), in which the king reports the murder of his youngest brother at the hand of the Egyptians. The relevant lines read as follows: nu-uš-ma-aš ma-aḫ-ḫa-an a-bu-ia a-pé-⸢e-el⸣ [dumu-š]ú pé-e-eš-ta na-an ma-aḫ-ḫa-an pé-e-ḫu-te-er na-an-kán ku-e-en-né-er a-bu-ia-⸢ma⸣ ⸢kap-pí⸣-la-az-za-at-ta na-aš i-na ^KURmi-iz-ri pa-it nu kur ^URUmi-iz-ri wa-al^!-⸢aḫ^!-ta⸣ “And when my father gave them his son, as they led him away, they killed him. But my father became furious, and he went to Egypt, and he attacked the land Egypt.” (KUB 14.8 i 22´-24´, cf. Götze 1930a:210-211, HW 2nd ed. K:109, HED K:64). The word’s meaning in this specific context was fairly clear to scholars from the outset. Already Götze 1930a:225-226 connects the verb to the otherwise known adjective kappilalla/i- ʻhated, hostile; enemyʼ and translates it as ʻto fly into a rageʼ. In Götze 1933a:262-263, he additionally links it to the transitive Hittite verb kappilā(i)-^(mi) ʻto fomentʼ and kappilaḫḫ-^(ḫi) ʻto rageʼ and adjusts his translation to ʻto give oneself up to his anger, to fly into a rageʼ. Accordingly, it seems clear that the meaning of the word belongs to the realm of rage and hostile attitude. In the literature, a multitude of nuances in meaning is suggested by other scholars. Thus, following Götze, the translation ʻto fly into a rageʼ is accepted by Tischler 1982c:34, HHw:72 and Tischler 2008a:79, whereas HW:99 offers a milder meaning ʻto become angry(?), foment(?)ʼ, which is also adopted by Melchert 1987a:198 and Melchert 1994a:271. Melchert 2003b:205 labels the meaning of kappilazza- as “inceptive” and compares it to the Hittite phrase dative + kartimmiyaz kišat ʻhe became a reason for sb.’s angerʼ, for which he cites KBo 14.12 iv 5 and KUB 14.8 I 37. HW 2nd ed. K:108-109 translates ʻto be incensed, enragedʼ, while Ünal 2007a:311-312 opts for ʻto boil over in rage?, get/grow angry?, lose one’s temper?ʼ. On the military side of meanings, a translation ʻto become hostileʼ is suggested by CLL:101, Melchert 2005a:450, EDHIL:439-440, Sasseville 2021a:444 and DCL:107, while Starke 1990a:102 n. 261 differs only in detail, settling for ʻto behave hostileʼ. Puhvel (HED K:64) offers a meaning ʻto initiate conflictʼ, which is amplified by Eichner’s (Eichner 1979a:61) suggestion ʻto fill oneself with hatred, become inflamed with thirst for revengeʼ. Yakubovich 2010d:409 assigns a specific meaning ʻto wax wrath, to become angry to the point of being hostileʼ. The latter two are contextually appropriate, but perhaps overly detailed. In the light of the context and the cognates of the word, the translation ʻto be(come) hostile, furiousʼ is chosen here.

[E.R.]

It is noteworthy that the verb features a Luwian ending in the Hittite royal text (see Melchert 2005a:457-458 and Yakubovich 2010d:398-399 for a discussion of the sociolinguistic implications this usage has). Morphologically speaking, it is clear that we are dealing with a verb formed by means of the Luwian suffix /-zza-⁽ⁱ⁾/.The exact function of the suffix deriving verbs with a specific Aktionsart from verbal bases has been variously identified as inchoative, fientive, or iterative (see Tischler 1982c:34, HHw:72, Tischler 2008a:79, HED K:64, Melchert 1987a:199, Melchert 1994a:271, CLL:10, DCL:107, Melchert 2003b: 205, 205 n. 32, HW 2nd ed. K:108, 109 and Sasseville 2021a:439-440, 451). A denominal character is advocated by Eichner 1979a:61, Starke 1990a n. 26, Kronasser 1966a:403, all outdated by now. Since kappilazza-⁽ⁱ⁾ has several verbal and nominal cognates in both Luwian and Hittite formed with denominal suffixes (cf. Hitt. kappilā(i)-^(mi) ʻto fomentʼ, Luwian kappilalla/i- ʻhated, hostile; enemyʼ, Hitt. kappilaḫḫ-^(ḫi) ʻto rageʼ), it is reasonable to assume an underlying nominal base *kappila(/i)- ʻwrath, enmityʼ (see under Reconstruction).

[E.R.]

Based on its attestation with Glossenkeil,  the identification of the verb as a borrowing is already found in Götze 1930a:225-226. Kronasser 1966a:590 was the first to suggest a Luwian verbal form, which was later accepted by HEG A-K:492, HED K:64, Oettinger 1979a:386, CLL:101, DCL:107, Melchert 2005a:450, 457, EDHIL:439-440 and Sasseville 2021a:444. In the end, the Glossenkeil, the Luwian verbal suffix -zza-⁽ⁱ⁾, and the 3sg. pret. act. ending -tta irrefutably mark a Luwian lexeme in Hittite transmission. In addition to that, the cognates CLuw. kappilalla/i- ʻhated, hostile; enemyʼ and HLuw. /kappilall(i)-/ ʻenemyʼ confirm the conclusion.

[E.R.]

*This lemma was written together with Melvin Pötzsch.

For the lemma head see CLuw. *kappila(/i)-.