*kés-/ks-´^(mi)

Attested in Luwian rituals and in the Luwian version of a mythical text (in NS and MS, resp.).

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following CLL:104 (cf. already Laroche 1959a:55) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. The restoration ki-i-ša-am-˹mi˺-[iš] in KUB 35.108 iv 20’ follows Laroche 1959a:55 (also accepted by Starke 1985b:240 and CLL:104) supported by the context (the word is preceded by a noun in nom. sg. c.).

I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) reads ki-i-ša-am-ma-˹an˺ of KUB 35.88 ii 14 as ki-i-ša-am-ma-‹an› (note that the word is preceded by an accusative in […]lin and [based on parallel passages] followed by the 3rd sg. imp. of a transitive verb). If this is correct, it needs a separate investigation if the n-less spelling represents a real form. Nevertheless, the photo of the Konkordanz shows that the tablet is immediately broken after ‹ma›, in other words, a sign ‹an› could have been present there. The beginning of a horizontal wedge (that may belong to an ‹an›) is indeed visible on the photo. For the assumption of kīšamman- ‘Haar, Mähne’ based on this form by Starke 1990a:263–265 see under Meaning.

Beckman 1983a:229 implicitly identifies ki-ša-am-ma-an in KUB 35.88 rev. iii 15’ as ptc. nom. sg. c. assuming that it refers to the child of the birth ritual (“let him (the child) be combed”). This is, however, not possible morphologically. Since ki-ša-am-ma-an is followed by āšdu ‘(s)he/it shall be’, ki-ša-am-ma-an must be nominative and thus it can be neuter only due to its ending (this is also supported by the preceding word, mi-el-ta-an-za, a nom.-acc. sg. n.). All other scholars translate it appropriately, i.e. in congruence with the preceding word (Haas 1994a:439 = 901, Haas 2003a:731; Carruba 1998f:76f.; van den Hout 2001a:185 n. 90; Hutter 2003a:231; Goedegebuure 2010a:308).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement regarding the meaning (Laroche 1954a:124, Laroche 1959a:55 [adding also ‘to card’, for which see the discussion under the Glossenkeilwort]; HEG A-K:587, Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166; Beckman 1983a:229; CLL:104; Haas 1994a:439 = 901, Haas 2003a:731; HED K:159; Carruba 1998f:76f.; van den Hout 2001a:185 n. 90; Hutter 2003a:231; EDHIL:481; Goedegebuure 2010a:308), which is practically proven by the ritual activity of “combing away” in KUB 35.88 ii 14 as well as by the formal closeness to the Hittite verb kiš-^zi ‘to comb’.

The only exception is Starke 1990a:263–265, who proposes to understand “ki-i-ša-am-ma” in KUB 35.88 ii 14 as a nom.-acc. pl. n. from (an otherwise unattested) kīšamman- ‘Haar, Mähne’. His suggestion is based on the (alleged) incongruence in gender and number with the preceding word ([…]lin), which thus he separates as the adjective belonging to the preceding but missing word, presumably ‘lion’, according to the Hittite versions (implicitly translating the sentence as ‘he shall see the mane [of the … lion]’). Although this is formally and semantically (in terms of the semantic change) possible, one has to note that the Hittite versions provide only general parallelisms and these parallelisms do not support his suggestion: while one of them is definitely different (KUB 44.4 + KBo 13.241 rev. 32: “he shall see the raging lion”), the other one is fragmentary and the restoration and meaning proposed by Starke (“UR.MAḪ ki-ša-a-a[n-da-an a-uš-du]”, “er soll den gekämmten Löwen sehen”, KUB 35.145 iii 14’-15’, Starke 1985b:231f. and Starke 1990a:264) does not make much sense, especially if we consider that these are curses upon that one who bewitched the patient (although accepted by Dardano 2014b:250 and Bachvarova 2013a:149f., latter one even claims [152] that “kīšamma” corresponds to this Hittite participle) – note also the cautious alternative proposal of Reichardt 1998a:57 with n. 23 following an idea of M. Weiss (“mutilated(?)”). Yakubovich’s above quoted reading, however, leads to a grammatically adequate solution, not to mention that the “missing” ‹an› might have been there and it probably has even traces there, as per above.

[Zs.S.]

Possible derivative:

1. kišami-

Rejected loanword:

1. ϰιξάλ(λ)ης

Amply attested in MS and NS Hittite rituals as well as festival fragments.

[Zs.S.]

Participle:

Imperfective:

Attestations following EDHIL:481 (cf. also Oettinger 1979a:201 [his example from KBo 40.36 obv. 3’ belongs, however, to the verb wāk-/wakk- ‘to bite’, cf. Hoffner 1997a:107]; HED K:157f.) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz (except Bo 7568 lacking any photo).

The following two forms are not included, contra HED K:157 and EDHIL:481:

1) arḫa kišanzi in KUB 39.14 i 12: this verb is traditionally translated as ‘zerschlagen’ (Otten 1958a:79; Friedrich 1966b:19 [both with question mark]; Laroche 1968d:88 [cautiously]; HEG A-K:586; Oettinger 1979a:202 [both with question mark]; Christmann-Franck 1971a:101 [cautiously]; Haas 1994a:225; Rieken 1999a:20; Tischler 2008a:89) or ‘dismantle’ (Puhvel 1981b:354 [also ‘dishevel, disarray’], HED K:157 [also ‘disarray’]) as well as both (Tischler 2016a:166; Ünal 2007a:348f., Ünal 2016a:283). The text tells about a plough that was just used, which is then the object of arḫa kišanzi and which will be thereafter burnt. Thus the missing action between the usage and the burning is rather the dismantling (or ‘unharnessing’ as suggested by Kapełuś 2011a:§3’, with question mark; the translation of Kassian & Korolëv & Sidel’tsev 2002a:452 [“They scrape the plough”] does not make sense here) and not the breaking into pieces. The question whether this verb is identical with the verb ‘to comb’ was answered positively by Christmann-Franck 1971a:101; Puhvel 1981b:354, HED K:157 and EDHIL:481 (cf. also Laroche 1968d:88 with question mark and Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166 [cautiously]). Puhvel 1981b:354: argued that the shift in meaning is antonymic as in arḫa aniya- “‘undo’” or Greek ἀποκοσμέω “‘clear (a table); tear down (a building)’”. Set aside that arḫa aniya- means ‘wegbehandeln, beseitigen, reinigen’ (e.g. HW (2nd ed.) A:82), the meaning of these verbs is transparent (arḫa aniya- means literally “weg-schaffen”; ἀποκοσμέω, which in fact means ‘clear away; dismantle’ [LSJ:203] is based on ‘away’ + ‘arrange’), which is not the case with arḫa kišanzi: “*to comb away” is not ‘to dismantle’ or ‘to break into pieces’. For an analogy HEG A-K:587 refers to the imperfective form allegedly meaning ‘schlecht, böse handeln’, which meaning, however, does not exist, see under Origin. Instead, Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166 refers to katta kisai- allegedly meaning again ‘schlecht, böse handeln’, but it means only ‘to comb down’ (HED K:157f. with refs.). All in all, the inclusion of this verb is not supported semantically.

2) “ke-eš-ke-nu-un” in KBo 18.53, 8’: contra Pecchioli Daddi 1978-1979a:205, 208, who reads ]x ke-eš-ki-nu-un and translates “trattai male” (implicitly also in Oettinger 1979a:201), the phrase is to be read as [du-u]š-ki-eš-ki-nu-un ‘I rejoiced’ (Hagenbuchner 1989a:55f.; CHD L-N:248; Marizza 2009a:180), required by the context.

[Zs.S.]

Based on the context (combing sheep, acting with a comb) there is a general agreement regarding the meaning of the word (Goetze apud B. Meissner 1931a:55 n. 1; Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:88f.; Sommer 1947a:41; Friedrich 1952a:111; HEG A-K:587, Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166; Melchert 1988b:211; Archi 1993a:407; Haas 1994a:441, 901, Haas 2003a:460; HED K:157; Cornil 1999a:10f.; Hutter 2003a:231; Ünal 2007a:349, Ünal 2016a:283; EDHIL:481; Goedegebuure 2010a:307; Watkins 2010b:358; Mouton 2013a:227 n. 35, Mouton 2014a; Melzer 2015a). Only HED K:157 and EDHIL:481 adduce ‘to card’ as a further meaning, which is, however, not supported by any context. Furthermore, Puhvel 1981b:353f., HED K:159 rightly points out that the imperfective form is not attested in figurative sense as ‘schlecht, böse behandeln’ since all the examples are based on misreadings (contra Neumann 1961a:63f.; HEG A-K:587), add also the case of KBo 18.53, 8 under Form.

[Zs.S.]

Different proposals exist regarding the Luwian connection (note, however, that this verb was not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a). Oettinger 1979a:201, 385 sees a Luwian-based remodelling in it and Starke 1990a:263 n. 901 claims that the stem kišae- is a loan from Luwian. This is, however, not necessary: as EDHIL:482 pointed out, the ḫatrae-class is very productive in younger Hittite and thus kišae- represents a secondary, inner-Hittite formation (contra Melchert 1987a:189, this is not excluded by the geminated -šš- in ki-iš-ši-er, cf. the non-geminated participle ki-ša-a-an; note that EDHIL:482 treats ki-iš-ši-er as a secondary stem kiššiye/a-).

CLL:104 characterizes, however, the Cuneiform Luwian verb kīša- ‘to comb’ itself as the cognate or source of this Hittite verb. In order to evaluate this possibility, one has to recall the general agreement since the early research that this verb is a cognate of OCS česati ‘to comb’ and perhaps Lith. kàsti ‘dig, rake’ etc. (and of numerous nominal derivations within the semantic sphere of ‘hair’, cf. under PIE reconstruction) from the PIE root *kes- ‘to comb’ (Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:89; Duchesne-Guillemin 1946a:75; Sommer 1947a:41; Friedrich 1952a:111; Kronasser 1956a:64; Kuryłowicz 1958a:242; Fronzaroli 1958a:141; Čop 1964a:39, Čop 1970a:93, Čop 1971a:1; Gusmani 1968a:74; Bernabé Pajares 1973a:429; HEG A-K:587; Oettinger 1979a:202; HED K:159 [with refs. to obsolete suggestions]; EIEC:570; LIV²:357; Mallory and Adams 2006:233; EDHIL:481f.; on the exact meaning of the PIE root see under the PIE reconstruction). The question is thus whether it is possible to explain this verb with Hittite sound laws and if not, whether the Luwian sound laws can solve the problem. As EDHIL:482 rightly pointed out, *kes- should lead to †keš- and Melchert’s solution (*kēs-éh₂-ye/o-, Melchert 1994a:152) is based on the secondary stem kišae- (the solutions based on the alleged e-vocalism of the stem [Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:89; Čop 1964a:39; cf. also Sommer 1947a:41] are refuted by the -i- in ki-i-ša-a-id-du of KBo 21.8 iii 14’, EDHIL:482). Thus he convincingly suggests that the source of this form was the zero-grade (*ks-énti), which would have led to kiš- based on the case of kišt- ‘to perish, be extinguished’ <*g̑^h/g^hsd-. If this explanation is correct, then there is no argument to see a Luwian loanword in kiš-.

[Zs.S.]

This form is attested only as a Glossenkeilwort in a Hittite (LNS) mušen ḫurri oracle. Both the notion of a Luwian background for this particular text and the hypothesis that the mušen ḫurri oracles in general have been imported to Hattuša from Kizzuwatna (cf. Mouton & Rutherford 2013a:333) are supported by a reference to the city of Arušna (s. e.g. Miller 2012a:100) in line 8’ of obv. ii.

[A.B.]

3pl. pret. ind. act.

ki-ša-an-da

KBo 40.53+KUB 18.24  rev. iii 42’

(CTH 579, LNS)

The attestation follows Laroche 1959a:55, Starke 1990a:265, n. 905, CLL:104, HEG A–K:587 and HED K:157–159 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:192, Güterbock 1956a:121, van den Hout 2007a:249, Zorman 2016a:579). The transliteration has been checked against the photos in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[A.B.]

The meaning ‘to comb’ is generally accepted (s. CLL:104, Melchert 2005a:452, Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166, HEG A–K:587). Additionally, Laroche 1959a:55 assumed a specialized meaning ‘to card (wool)’ (cf. HED K:157–159).

KBo 40.53+KUB 18.24 rev. iii 42’ provides the following context (according to the Konkordanz the join was proposed by Sakuma 29.08.2003; the transliteration is based on the photos in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copies as well as the transliteration and translation of Tognon 2005a:87–97 have been taken into account):

(42’)nu lúMEŠ é dingir-lì nam-ma pu-nu-uš-šu-u-en nu me-mi-ir udu-wa-kán ki-ša-an-da (43’)[…]x-az-ma-wa ú-ul ḫal-ze-er (44’)[... p]é-eš-ker ki-nu-un-ma-wa ul sum-er (45’)[… n]u-wa-kán udu mmi-ra-mu-u-⸢wa⸣-aš [...] (46’)sum-er a-na dingir-lì-ia wa-[...] (47’)[...-]zi a-na dingir-lì-ma-wa [...  s]um-an-z[i ...] (48’)[...]ma-an-ni-ni-i[n ...] (49’)[...]⸢ar-ḫa⸣ [... ]-iš[- ...]

(42’)We asked the temple personnel again and they answered: “they have combed the sheep (43’)[...] however, they did not call (44’)[...] they used to give, but now they did not give (45’)[...] the sheep of Miramuwa [...] (46’)[...] and they gave to the deity [...] (47’)[...] but for the deity [th]ey giv[e ...] (48’)[...] a neckla[ce? …”] (49’)[...] away [...]

The passage is part of an oracle inquiry performed with the mušen ḫurri-technique. Lines 42’–49’ contain a report on the provision of sheep for a deity. The interrogated temple personnel say that they have combed (kišanda) the sheep (plural because of the number 8 or 9 in line 16’ of the same column). This procedure in which wool is combed from the sheep´s fleece is also described in a Hittite ritual with Luwianisms, where Kamrušepa and the Sun god comb sheep CTH 441.1 KUB 12.26 obv. ii 1–17 (see originally Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:88–89, and summarizing the research on this text Watkins 2010b:358–361 with further literature). Starke 1990a:265 and n. 905 refers to this text passage explaining the meaning as “‘(Wolle) krempeln’ wie bei Schafen”. But it is not clear whether he or the other authors, who assumed the meaning ‘to card’, distinguish the technique of carding wool, performed after the wool has been extracted from the fleece of the sheep, from the process of combing out wool from the sheep (as in Starke 1990a:265, n. 905 “sie kämmten die Schafe aus”).

Hence, while a general meaning of kiša- as ‘to comb’ is plausible and supported by the other Luwian attestations of this lexeme, in this particular context with regard to sheep a specialized meaning ‘to comb out / extract wool from sheep’ is at hand. But since the object is the sheep and not the wool, there is no evidence for a meaning ‘to card’.

[A.B.]

The form kišanda shows Luwian verbal inflection and is accordingly to be analyzed as a foreign word from Luwian, which is generally accepted (cf. Laroche 1959a:55, Güterbock 1956a, Starke 1990a:265, n. 905, CLL:104, Melchert 2005a:452, van den Hout 2007a:249, HEG A–K:587, HED K:158, Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166 and EDHIL:481). This is furthermore supported by the presumably Luwian background of the text (cf. under Transmission) and especially by the Luwian verb kīša- ‘to comb’ in Cuneiform Luwian (more precisely, Kizzuwatna rituals). The difference in the use of kīša- in Luwian rituals is its form as a participle, whereas in the present oracle we are dealing with the only attested finite form of this verb, a 3.pret.pl.ind.act. Another difference that requires further research is the significance of the plene spelling of the i-vowel that appears in Kizzuwatna-rituals, but is missing in the Hittite oracle report.

[A.B.]