zammurā(i)-(mi)
‘to slander, profane’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 4103
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian in Hittite transmission
zammurā(i)-(mi)
‘to slander, profane’1.1.1Transmission
The verb zammurā(i)- is well attested in Hittite from MH onwards, primarily in treaties and instructions, as well as in two prayers and two letters.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| 1sg. imp. act. | za-⸢am⸣-mu-ra-al-lu | KUB 36.85 Rs. 7 | (CTH 389, MS?) |
| 1sg. pret. ind. act. | [z]a-[a]m-mu-ra-nu-un | KBo 12.58 Vs. 2 | (CTH 385, NS) |
| za-mu-ra-nu-un | KUB 19.23 Vs. 10 | (CTH 192, NS) | |
 za-⸢mu⸣-ra-nu-un |
KUB 19.23 Vs. 3 | (CTH 192, NS) | |
| [za-a]m-mu-ra-a-nu-un | KUB 23.45 9′ | (CTH 209, NS) | |
| za-am-mu-ra-a-nu-un | KUB 23.45 14′ | (CTH 209, NS) | |
| 1sg. pres. ind. act. | za-am-mu-ra-a-u-e-ni | Or. 93/20 Vs. 15 | (CTH 188, MS) |
| 1pl. pret. ind. act. | za-am-mu-ra-a-u-e-en | KUB 13.4 Rs. IV 52 | (CTH 264, NS) |
| ⸢za⸣-am-mu-ra-u-e-en | KUB 13.17 Rs. IV 14′ | (CTH 264, NS) | |
| 3sg. pres. ind. act. | za-⸢am⸣-m[u-ra-iz-zi] | KBo 5.4 Vs. 5′ | (CTH 67, NS) |
| [za-a]m-mu-ra-e-ez-zi | KBo 8.35 Vs. I 25′ | (CTH 139, MS) | |
| za-am-mu-[ra-a-iz-zi] | KUB 31.44 Vs. II 3 | (CTH 260, NS) | |
| za-am-mu-ra-⸢iz⸣-[zi] | KBo 16.25 Rs. IV 27 | (CTH 251, MS) | |
| za-am-mu-ra-a-iz-zi | KBo 4.3 Vs. II 8′ | (CTH 68, NS) | |
| KUB 13.20 Vs. I 27 | (CTH 259, NS) | ||
| KUB 26.24 Vs. II 3′ | (CTH 260, NS) | ||
| KUB 31.42 Vs. II 5 | (CTH 260, NS) | ||
| za-am-mu-ra-i[z-zi] | KBo 16.46 Vs.? 16′ | (CTH 212, NS) | |
| za-am-mu-ra-iz-zi | KUB 23.77 (u. Rd.) 47 | (CTH 138, MS) | |
| ⸢za-am⸣-mu-ra-a-iz-zi | KBo 14.1 Vs. 38 | (CTH 147, NS) | |
| za-mu-ur-ra-iz-z[i] (sic) | KUB 40.49 Rs. 20′ | (CTH 212, NS) | |
| ⸢za⸣-am-⸢mu⸣-ra-iz-zi | KBo 57.12 + KUB 23.19 Vs.? (II) 5′/1′ | (CTH 275, NS) | |
| ⸢za⸣-am-mu-ra-iz-zi | KUB 21.41 Rs. IV 5′ | (CTH 253, MS) | |
| 3pl. pres. ind. act. | za-am-mu-⸢ra⸣-a-an-zi | KUB 23.72 Rs. 26 | (CTH 146, MS) |
| 3sg. pres. ind. act. impf. | za-am-mu-ri-iš-ke-ez-z[i] | KUB 43.76 Vs. 9′ | (CTH 297, NS) |
| inf. | za-am-mu-ra-u-wa-an-zi | KUB 13.4 Rs. III 27 | (CTH 264, NS) |
| KUB 26.31 Rs. IV 10′ | (CTH 264, NS) | ||
| part. (?) or 1sg. pres. ind. act. (?) | za-am-mu-ra-m[i?(-)] |
KBo 47.239 obv. ii 12′ | (CTH 584, NS) |
| unknown | za-am-[mu-ra- | KBo 16.25 Rs. IV 49′ | (CTH 251, MS) |
Oettinger 1979a:386 states that Luwian finite forms of this verb are also attested in NS texts. However, the relevant forms have since been identified as nouns (zamurai-, zammuratt(i)-). – Melchert (DCL:299f.) proposes that the broken sign in KBo 47.239 obv. ii 12′ be read as mi to form a Luwian participle zammuramma/i-. However, the genre of this text (a dream account of the queen) and the fragmentary context easily accommodates a 1sg. pres. ind. act. of the Hittite verb, which is a more trivial reading for zammurami.
[E.R.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The translation ‘to insult’ was first proposed by Friedrich 1926a:72 and is followed by HEG IV:650 ‘beleidigen, kränken, demütigen’ and EDHIL:1030 ‘to insult, to slander’. zammurāizzi (KBo 4.3 II 8′) alternates with ḫatganuzi ‘besets, pesters’ in a parallel text (KBo 5.13 III 12) and appears alongside idālun memian, kūruraš memian memai ‘speaks evil words / words of hostility’ (KUB 14.1 Vs. 37-38). As noted by Carruba 1967b:95 n. 21, the objects of zammurā(i)- are persons and locations of great reverence, namely the royal family, the gods and the city of Ḫattuša. Therefore, this verb apparently does not denote any kind of insult, but an act that has grave consequences.
Ünal 2007a:814 includes more violent notions in the translation of zammurā(i)- such as ‘to injure, harm’, implying a notion of physical assault in addition to verbal insult. Similarly, Boley 2000a:359 translates the verb as ‘to attack’ in the following passage (KUB 14.1 obv. 37-38):
(37)idālunn=a=wa=tta memian [ku]iš peran mema[i] naššu=wa=tta kū[rur]aš memian kuiški peran memai našma=wa=kan LUGALMEŠ DUMUMEŠ LUGAL (38)kuiški zammurāizzi z[ikk=a]=war=an lē [šan]natti
“(If) someone speaks an evil word to you or speaks a word of war before you or (if) someone attacks the king or the princes, also you should not hide him.”
Another passage from an instruction for the army (KBo 13.20 I 26-29) describes an individual who has bypassed the guards and begun to zammurā(i)- the city of Ḫattuša in the temple.
mān INIM LÚKÚR kuiški (27)URUḪattušan=za=kan zammurauwanzi kuiški tiškezzi (28)n=an araḫzenaš BÀD-aš UL uwanzi nu apūš LÚMEŠ É DINGIR-LIM (29)andurza uwanzi LÚḫaliyattallaš=ši paiddu=pat
“If there is any hostile matter (and) someone begins to zammurā(i)- Ḫattuša and the (guards) of the outer wall do not see him but those temple servants inside see him, let, by all means, a ḫaliyattalla- guard go to him.”
As noted by Taggar-Cohen 2006a:103, this passage does not describe a military assault on the city, since it is perpetrated by an individual and addressed by a single guard. Rather, zammurā(i)- seems here to denote a defilement of the temple, which is consistent with its meaning of dishonoring an object of reverence. It follows that the essential meaning of this verb is the sense of dishonor and it is not limited to verbal insult. While an act of physical violence may in some cases constitute dishonor, it is not implied by the use of zammurā(i)-, nor could any and all attacks be described by this verb. A translation such as ‘wronged’ (Miller 2013a:263 for zammurāwēn) also fails to convey this meaning.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
Nikolaev 2019a:188 assumes that Hittite zammurā(i)- can be traced to a Luwian factitive verb zammurā-(ti) without further explanation. Since Luwian verbs of several stem classes were adapted to the ā(i)-stem class when borrowed into Hittite (Oettinger 1979a:275), this is not a trivial assumption. As noted by Melchert (DCL:299f.), a Luwian stem in - ā(i)-(di) is equally plausible. Laroche 1968d:89 reads the word zammuratti (KBo 12.30 Vs. II 14) as a finite 3sg. act. ind. with Luwian inflection, which would unambiguously belong to the stem class -ā-(ti). However, this form has since been identified as the dat./loc. sg. of an action noun. As such, it does not help to disambiguate between the two stems, since they take the same shape when suffixed with -tt(i)-:
Dḫala-dd-aššiš ← ḫalā(i)- (DCL:46f.)
Dḫalda-tt-aššin ← ḫaltā- (DCL:48, Sasseville 2021a:38)
Instead, Oettinger 1979a:386 assumes a Luwian stem in -ā(i)-(i) wrongly interpreting zam(m)urai (KUB 40.33 Vs. 13′) as a finite 3sg. pres. ind. act. with Luwian inflection. This word has also been identified as a different action noun. Finally, if Melchert’s reading of zammuram(m)i as a Luwian participle were correct, this form would unambiguously belong to an ā-stem, but this is also far from conclusive.
Regardless of its original stem class, zammurā(i)- is clearly a denominative verb. Kronasser 1966a:482 assumes an a-stem noun *zammura- as the derivational base. This is followed by HEG IV:652 and EDHIL:1030. Kloekhorst states that this stem is indirectly attested in the nouns zamurai- and zammuratt(i)-. He considers the verb zammurā(i)- to be a Hittite derivative of this nominal stem *zammura-.
However, Nikolaev 2019a:188 points out that the attested verbal nouns do not serve as evidence for an unmutated noun *zammura-, since they could just as well be derived from the verb in question. In fact, the existence of zammuratt(i)- seems to require a Luwian verb rather than a noun, since there are barely any examples for the denominal use of -tt(i)- implied by Kloekhorst (perhaps ḫartuwatt(i)- ← *ḫartuwa-). In most cases, this suffix forms action nouns to verbal stems.
Instead of a nominal base *zammura-, Nikolaev assumes an athematic *zammu(wa)r-, pointing to the related verb zammurinu-(mi). Following Nikolaev, this verb must be a causative to an intransitive verb *zammuri-(ti) contrasting with a factitive verb of an adjective *zammuri-, since the suffix -nu- regularly deletes stem final i when applied to nominal stems (Hoffner & Melchert 2024a:237). Thus it is likely that both transitive *zammurā-(ti) (or -ā(i)-(mi)) and intransitive *zammuri-(ti) are derived from a common source *zammu(wa)r- (cf. the derivation of Hitt. kururiye/a- and kururā(i)- from kurur ‘hostility’). Nikolaev concedes, however, that this argument is inconclusive, since the existence of an unattested noun *zammuri- insult’ (distinct from NINDAzammuri-, see below), which could alternatively serve as the derivational base for *zammuri-(ti), cannot be excluded; see zammurinu-.
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.1.6.1Rejected Derivatives
- The noun NINDAzammuri- found in Hittite is certainly unrelated and most likely of Hurrian origin instead (Nikolaev 2019a:189).
- Kühne 1972a:255 cites a Hittite adjective zammuri- of unknown but negative meaning and connects it to zammurā(i)-(mi) (similarlyTischler 2001a:205, Neumann 2007a:433). As noted by Nikolaev 2019b:188, this is a ghost-word. It may have originated as a misinterpretation of zam(m)urai (KUB 40.33 Vs. 13′) as dat./loc. of an i-stem.
[E.R.]
1.1.7Origin
zammurā(i)-(mi) and related words are universally assumed to be of Luwian origin (van den Hout 2006a:241f., Melchert 2005a:451, EDHIL:1030, HEG IV:652, Nikolaev 2019a). Words of this family are marked with gloss wedges at least 5 times (an additional instance of zam(m)urai is uncertain).
As for the Hittite verb zammurā(i)-(mi) itself, the existence of the Luwian action noun zammuratt(i)- seems to guarantee a matching verbal stem in Luwian, though its stem class cannot be determined with certainty. Thus, zammurā(i)-(mi) is probably the direct Hittite adaptation of this Luwian verb, rather than a Hittite verb formation from a Luwian nominal stem.
[E.R.]
*This lemma was written in collaboration with the trainee Ben Korb.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Nikolaev 2019a:191f. connects the apparent Luwian root zamm- to PGmc. skamō ‘shame’, which did not yet have an established etymology (Kroonen 2013a:439f.), and proposes a root PIE *(s)k̑em ‘to be disgraced, to feel shame’ (followed by Melchert in DCL:299f.); see below.
Luwian zamm- has yet to be conclusively linked within the Anatolian languages, though connections to some Lycian words have been attempted. Neumann 1969c:396 proposed a connection between Lycian zum̃me- ‘damage, slander (?)´ and Luwian zamm-. This is not tenable on phonological grounds as Lycian u never corresponds to Luwian a (Nikolaev 2019a:189f.). Neumann 2007a:433 further connects the Lycian place name zẽmuri (referring to the city Limyra and perhaps the eponymous river) to zammurā(i)-. He speculates that the river’s name may derive from its destructive force, but this seems difficult on semantic grounds. As demonstrated under Meaning, the concept of shame is fundamental to the semantics of zammurā(i)-, not the concept of destruction or injury. Finally, Shevoroshkin 2011a:32 attempts to connect Lycian zm̃pde ‘he bound (?)’ to zammurā(i)-. He proposes a new translation ‘he discredited’ for zm̃pde, which is speculative.
It must also be noted that all proposals that equate Lycian z with Luwian z must be rejected if Luwian zamm- is correctly reconstructed as *k̑em, since *k̑ yields s in Lycian.
[E.R.]
*This lemma was written in collaboration with the trainee Ben Korb.
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The secure evidence for the root *(s)k̑em- is limited to two branches, Anatolian and Germanic. On this basis, the meaning can be reconstructed as ‘to be disgraced, to feel shame’ (Nikolaev 2019a:192). Vedic śamala- n. ‘impurity, sin, blemish, fault, harm’, if related, would also fit this meaning. The etymological connection of the latter with Old High German hamal ‘mutilated’ (thus IEW:929 s.v. *(s)k̑em- “verstümmelt”) is less attractive.
[S.H.]
4. Transmission
Luwian (in Hittite transmission) zammurā(i)-(mi) ‘to slander, profane’, Luwian (in Hittite transmission) zammurinu- ‘to cause to lose face, humiliate’, Luwian (in Hittite transmission) zammuratt(i)- ‘slander, profanation’, Luwian (in Hittite transmission) zamurai- n. ‘slander, profanation, blasphemy’.Cf. Nikolaev 2019a.
(?) Vedic śamala- n. ‘impurity, sin, blemish, fault, harm’ (AV+).Cf., e.g., EWAia II:610 s.v. śamala- (“Nicht überzeugend erklärt.”).
Proto-Germanic *skamō f. ‘shame’ (Old English sċeamu, Old High German scama), *skandō < *skamdō f. ‘shame, disgrace’ (Gothic skanda, Old English sċeand, German Schande, (?) Old Norse skǫmm If skǫmm is from *skamō, the geminate is unexplained; Heidermanns 1993a:483 and Casaretto 2004a:459 take it from *skamþō.), *skamdaz ‘ashamed, insulted, full of shame’ (Old High German skant ‘id.’; Old English sċand m. ‘disgraceful person’).Cf., e.g., Heidermanns 1993a:483 s.v. skamda-, Casaretto 2004a:459.