atupalašša(/i)-

Attested in a single oracle text in NS.

[Zs.S], [E.R.]

dat.-loc. sg.	a-tu-pa-la-aš-ša-an	KUB 22.70 obv. 18	(CTH 566, NS)
		KUB 22.70 obv. 21	(CTH 566, NS)

Attestations follow CLL:40 (cf. Güterbock 1956a:129; Friedrich 1957a:330; Laroche 1959a:35; HW 2nd ed. A:570f.; HED A:229) checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[Zs.S], [E.R.]

Although some scholars do not assign any meaning to this word (Kammenhuber 1976a:151; Beal 2002a:15; Mouton 2007a:175; Zorman 2007a:758; Goedegebuure 2014a:198; CLL:40 books it as ‘one of the *atupla-’ that “surely refers to person”, but he does not hold this view anymore (pers. comm.)), most of them propose a more or less concrete meaning: the most general meaning, ‘a container, chest, case, box’, is given in Ünal 2007a:78 (Ünal 2016a:96, cf. already but more cautiously Ünal 1978a:59, 61, 111, 133); other researchers specify the objects for the container: ‘Behälter für Kleidungs- bzw. Schmuckstücke’ (Tischler 2008a:32, Tischler 2016a:43); ‘a container for precious objects, possibly a chest for expensive garments’ (HED A:229); and “am ehesten ein Behälter, in dem (…) Schmuckstücke aufgehoben oder versteckt worden waren” (HW 2nd ed. A:570; Güterbock’s suggestion, ‘ornament or the like’ (Güterbock 1956a:129) is not possible due to the context, see immediately). This twofold description originates on the one hand in the passages that describe some kind of ornaments and precious stones lying in the atupalašša(/i)- and on the other hand in the etymology that connects it with atuplit-, a type of garment (see under lemma). However, the fact that it is a kind of container in which not garments but stones and similar things are laid means that it is no longer exclusively associated with the atuplit-garment (contra Beckman ibid.) and has received a general meaning (thus with Ünal ibid. contra Tischler ibid., Puhvel ibid. and Kammenhuber ibid.), which is also supported by the fact that we are dealing here with a substantivized adjective.

[Zs.S], [E.R.]

The word is generally assumed to be Luwian (Carruba 1970a:51, CLL:40) based on its Luwian genitival adjective suffix (Güterbock 1956a:129; Laroche 1958d:187, Laroche 1959a:35 (or Hittite); HED A:229; HEG A-K:94, Tischler 2008a:32, Tischler 2016a:43; Melchert 2005a:451) or on the presence of the Glossenkeil (van den Hout 2006a:248; although, as it is well-known, its presence does not imply Luwian origin (Melchert 2005a:445, cf. already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78)). This is undoubtedly correct, since the word shows not only a Luwian suffix, but also a Luwian ending (the claim of HW 2nd ed. A:570 that “Nach dem Textzusammenhang (…) trotz Glossenkeil luw. Wort nicht wahrscheinlich” is obviously false, since the context has nothing to do with the etymological origin; the idea of Zorman 2007a:758 as a taboo word does not make much sense in case of a container).

Laroche 1958d:187 (Laroche 1959a:35) suggested that the underlying word is aduplit-, a kind of garment (Ünal 1978a:111 was unsure about it and HW 2nd ed. A:571 rejected it, but without a single argument). However, this is not possible morphologically and thus CLL:40 correctly claims that it is derived directly from the base of aduplit-. At first glance this seems to be contradicted by its etymology: aduplit- is supposed to originate in Akkadian “aduplu” (see the discussion under lemma; although atupalašša(/i)- is not included in the Akkadian loanword lists of Schwemer 2005-2006b and Dardano 2011a:51f., Dardano 2018b) and the -id-suffix implies Hurrian transmission. Since Hurrian substantives are normally adopted as id-stems in Luwian (but cf. nišḫi-, šinapši(t)-, and šūntinna-), the lack of this suffix in atupalašša(/i)- is unexpected. There are, however, at least two possible solutions for this problem. First, we are dealing here with a (substantivized) adjective from the base noun, not the substantive itself, which implies that the borrowing process required a suffix for the adoption into the Luwian declension patterns and in case of adjectives this was a regular Luwian appurtenance and genitival adjective suffix. Second, the Akkadian origin of these words is not assured, and they could have a much more complicated history, see the discussion s.v. aduplit-.

[Zs.S], [E.R.]