†limma(n)-

The alleged gloss wedge word li-im-ma (nom./acc. pl. n.) occurs in KBo 4.14 iii 8, a New Hittite treaty (CTH 123). The attestation of the sequence LI IM MA should be separated from Hitt. lim(m)a- (a cultic beverage), for which cf. HW:129, CHD L-N:62, HEG  L-M:60, HED L:99f., Ünal 2007a:403, HHw:104. The passage has led to several alternative suggestions, cf. e.g. Friedrich 1953b:210f., Starke 1990a:282, CHD L-N:62. Scrutiny of the more than 40 instances of the gloss wedge mark in KBo 4.14 shows an untypical shape of the gloss wedge in iii 8, consisting of a single wedge, imprinted in a different angle and with a large space before the next sign LI. The alleged gloss wedge must – on account of its special shape – instead be interpreted as the sign 10 (see already Prechel 1996a:241), which in combination with LI-IM ‘(one) thousand’ denotes ‘ten thousand’ (instead of normal SIG₇). A tentative and admittedly incomplete interpretation of the passage could be the following: [šum]aš=ma=kan kāš memiyaš gulšan 10 LI-IM=ma [UL^?] ANA ^dUTU-ŠI=za aggannaš TI-annaš UKÙ-aš ēš zik “But this word is (an) engraved (thing) for you (with a substantivized nom./acc. sg. n. gulšan), but ten thousand [(are) not^? (available.)]. It is you who shall be a person of death (and a person of) live for the majesty!” Note that the third clause must begin with ANA ^dUTU-ŠI=za , which contains the Wackernagel clitic =za (reflexive particle in a noun clause in the 2sg.).

On account of the proposed reading, the Luwian origin assigned to alleged †limma(n)- has become obsolete, and that of the beverage term limma(n)- (cf. Starke 1990a282f., CLL:128, HED L:99f., Melchert 2005a:8, van den Hout 2006a:240, Ünal 2007a:403, HHw:104, and DCL:136:“Luvian status debatable”) must be treated with due caution.

[E.R.]

*This Lemma was written together with Gwendolyn Trott and Alexandra Daues.