ḫamrit-

Hapax in a Luwian ritual fragment (NS).

[Zs.S.]

gen. adj.

nom. pl. c.

˹ḫa˺-am-ri-ta-aš-ši-en-zi

KUB 35.83 ii 6’

(CTH 759, NS)

Attestation following CLL:50 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:129) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. Although there is indeed a slightly bigger space between RI and TA than between the other signs of the word, the general assumption (see esp. Starke 1985b:399 n. 50) that these signs still represent one word seems convincing and accordingly adopted here. It is definitely not enough to reject the given morphological analysis (only for the sake of comprehensiveness shall be mentioned that the existence of ḫamrit- based on this form was rejected by HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:133 without arguments).

[Zs.S.]

Starke 1985b:399 reads the word as ḫ]a-am-ri-ta-aš-ši-in-zi, but the penultimate sign is clearly EN based on the photos of the Konkordanz (hethiter.net/: PhotArch BoFN09597a and hethiter.net/: PhotArch BoFN09596b), correctly drawn already in the hand copy.

[Zs.S.]

There is no doubt regarding meaning (CLL:50; there is no evidence for the proposal of Laroche 1959a:129 that this would have been a specifically “Kizzuwatnaean” shrine, nor for that of Tischler 2008a:42, Tischler 2016a:64 that this was a shrine “for Hurrian gods”) as it is supported by the Hurrian evidence (Richter 2012a:123f., cf. also Laroche 1980a:91f.; Nozadze 2007a:137) and its form borrowed in Hittite (HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:132 with refs.). The diminutive form ‘Tempelchen, Kulthäuschen’ suggested by Starke 1990a:212 (and Ünal 2016a:906, who separately books ḫamritašša- without meaning) is based on a misunderstanding: Although the text he relies upon indeed refers to the models of ḫamri-buildings, this is only a contextual inference, since it is not expressed grammatically or lexically (“[2] ḫamrita”, KBo 10.2 obv. ii 29, cf. Haas 1981a:11f. with n. 52f.).

[Zs.S.]

Rejected derivative:

1. ḫamrawann(i)-

Starke 1990a:212 (followed by CLL:50) rightly explains this word as a borrowing of Hurrian ḫamri with the usual Luwian suffix -it- (cf. already Laroche 1980a:91).

[Zs.S.]

Attested in the annals of Ḫattušili I (NS), in the cult of Išḫara (MS) and in a further Hittite ritual fragment (NS).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.	˹ḫa˺-am-ma-ri-ta-aš	KBo 47.53, 3’+KBo 35.240, 4’	(CTH 664, NS)
nom.-acc. pl.	ḫa-am-ri-ta	KBo 10.2 obv. ii 29	(CTH 4, NS)
unknown	ḫa-˹am-ri˺-x	KBo 47.27 rev. 29’	(CTH 470, MS)

Attestations following Starke 1990a:212 checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz, for ˹ḫa˺-am-ma-ri-ta-aš instead of earlier [ḫa-am]-˹ri˺-ta-aš see Groddek 2011a:46. Starke reads a nom.-acc. sg. ḫa-am-rị-šạ in KBo 47.27 rev. 29’, but neither the photo nor the hand copy can confirm this, since the sign is fully unintelligible (so correctly Groddek 2011a:23). HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:133 calls this paradigm “fabelhaft”, but does not explain these cases, except ḫa-am-ri-ta in KBo 10.2 obv. ii 29, which is described as “(Hethiter-)hurr. Mehrzahl” (HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:132), but this form is not a Hurrian plural (for further outdated grammatical analyses see the references in de Martino 2003a:57 n. 180). There is no explanation yet for the form ˹ḫa˺-am-ma-ri-ta-aš, but note that KBo 10.1 obv. 39, the Akkadian version of KBo 10.2, shows ḫa-am-ma-[ri] as the equivalent of ḫa-am-ri-ta (which may be a “(korrupte?) Spielform” according to Schwemer 2001a:253, see also his detailed discussion in 255 n. 1776 and cf. Devecchi 2005a:74 with ref. [“una forma anomala”]).

Starke 1990a:212 also added ḫa-am-ri in KUB 40.2 rev. 7 as nom.-acc. sg. (HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:132 books it as “Sonderfall” and Chrzanowska 2011b:§4’ falsely reads it as ḫa-pí-ri), but it is not possible to decide if we are dealing with an Akkadographic spelling of a Hittite form or with a Luwian form (without the Luwian particle =ša/za, which is not required in a Hittite text).

[Zs.S.]

See above s.v. Cuneiform Luwian ḫamrit-.

[Zs.S.]

Undoubtedly a Hurrian loanword but via Luwian due to its Luwian ending in KBo 10.2 obv. ii 29 and its -it-suffix (Starke 1990a:212; Schwemer 2001a:253; Melchert 2005a:448, but not included in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a).

[Zs.S.]