kišami-

Amply attested in different NS Hittite inventory texts (e.g. garments, tributes, containers).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	ki-ša-me/mì	NBC 3842 obv. 14	(CTH 244, NS)
	ki-ša-˹me/mì˺	NBC 3842 rev. 17	(CTH 244, NS)
coll. pl.	ki-ša-ma	KUB 42.106 obv. 9’	(CTH 243, NS)
nom. pl. c.	(TÚG)ki-ša-me-eš	KBo 18.179 ii 6	(CTH 241, NS)
	]˹ki˺-ša-me-iš	KUB 42.31 obv. 11’	(CTH 244, NS)
	ki-ša-me-[iš]	KUB 42.57, 6’	(CTH 250, NS)
	(TÚG)ki-˹ša˺[-	KBo 18.175 ii 18	(CTH 241, NS)
	(TÚG)ki-ša[-	KUB 42.56 obv. 5	(CTH 243, NS)
nom.-acc. pl. n.	ki-ša-ma	KUB 42.53 obv. 6’	(CTH 243, NS)
nom.-acc. pl. n. / coll. pl.	]˹ki˺-ša-ma	KUB 42.106 obv. 5’	(CTH 243, NS)
	ki]-ša-ma	KUB 42.106 obv. 18’	(CTH 243, NS)

Attestations following HED K:158f. (cf. also Košak 1982a:222; Siegelová 1986a:601) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz and in case of NBC 3842 against the photographs in van den Hout 2015a:107f. The parentheses around the determinative signal the uncertainty whether these sumerograms were used here as determinatives or head nouns. On the reading ki-ša-me/mì see below.

Set aside the form kišameš, which is rightly considered to be nom. pl. c. without any doubt as it is preceded by the numbers 2 (KBo 18.179 ii 6; KUB 42.56 obv. 5), 8 (KBo 18.175 ii 18) and 19 (KUB 42.57, 6’; it is broken off in KUB 42.31 obv. 11’; Košak 1982a:222; Siegelová 1986a:601; Ünal 2007a:349, Ünal 2016a:283; EDHIL:481), the grammatical definition of the remaining forms is varying. In order to evaluate the different proposals one has to recall that kišame is preceded by the number 1 in both cases (NBC 3842 obv. 14 and rev. 17’), while kišama appears both with 1 (KUB 42.106 obv. 9’) and 2 (KUB 42.53 obv. 6’; the remaining cases are broken off):

	1 kišame	1 kišama	1 kišama
Košak 1982a:222	nom. sg. c.		nom. pl. c.
Siegelová 1986a:601	nom.-acc. sg. n. (?)	nom.-acc. pl. n. (?)
HED K:158f.	nom.-acc. sg. n.	nom.-acc. sg./pl. n.
Ünal 2007a:349, Ünal 2016a:283	nom.-acc. sg. n.		nom. pl. n.
EDHIL:481	nom.-acc. sg.

The two kišama obviously cannot be a collective plural and it cannot be a plural tantum either: considering that two kišameš are mentioned in KBo 18.179 ii 6, we are dealing with an adjective, whose nom. pl. c. is kišameš a and whose nom.-acc. pl. n. is kišama (with Siegelová 1986a:601 and Ünal 2007a:349, Ünal 2016a:283 contra Košak 1982a:222 and EDHIL:481). This is confirmed by the fact that they refer to two different objects: the two kišama are shirts (TÚG.GÚ), but the two kišameš are garments (TÚG). Accordingly, one kišama must be formally either nom.-acc. sg. n. (with Ünal 2007a:349, Ünal 2016a:283 and EDHIL:481 contra Košak 1982a:222 and Siegelová 1986a:601) or a coll. pl. What remains is the case of kišame. Since it must be nominative singular based on the context and there are no e-stem adjectives and nouns in Hittite and in Luwian (the only resembling one is the irregular utnē (gen. utniyaš) ‘land’, which is thus not an e-stem, contra Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:104f.), in this form it can represent neither a case ending nor an Akkadographic spelling. However, considering that me can theoretically be read as mì too (Rüster & Neu 1989a:271), with kišami as nom.-acc. sg. n. we arrive at an i-stem adjective kišami- (for this stem see already Košak 1982a:222 and Ünal 2007a:349, Ünal 2016a:283 [cf. also Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166: “kišami- (kišame-)”] contra Siegelová 1986a:601 [kišame-] and EDHIL:481 [kišama/i-]), from that all forms can be regularly explained. Nevertheless, since there is a poorly understood change i > e in New Hittite (for the most recent critical discussion see Yakubovich 2010d:309–315 with refs.), one may take the reading kišame at face value and attribute the vocalism to this change (for further word-final i/e vacillations with earlier /i/ see Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:28f.; in theory kišame could also reflect a non-Hittite-Luwian [non-Anatolian] foreign word [from Hurrian?]). “1 kišama” is a collective form in all of these cases.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of this word is generally explained either as an adjective that could have been substantivized or as a substantive: a garment made of carded yarn or combed wool, based on the adjective ‘carded’ in the first case (HED K:158 and EDHIL:481: ‘(garment of) carded (yarn)’ contra Košak 1982a:222 [‘(garment of) combed wool’; but ‘of combed wool’ in Košak 1982a:129 and untranslated in Košak 1982a:13] and Siegelová 1986a:601 [‘Kammgarntuch/-Kleid’; but only ‘Kammgarn’ in Siegelová 1986a:201, 203 and ‘Kammgarnqualität’ with question mark in Siegelová 1986a:513] followed by Ünal 2007a:349 [with question mark in the English translation], Ünal 2016a:283 [booking it as n./c.]; more cautiously Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166 [‘Kleidungsstück’, ‘Kleid aus Kammgarntuch?’, booking it as n./c.]; not included yet in Friedrich 1952a [and in its supplements]; Finkelstein 1956a:104 left it without translation).

The contexts tell only that it represents a type of shirt (KUB 42.53 obv. 6’) as well as a type of garment (NBC 3842 obv. 14). Accordingly, the original adjective might have had a substantivized meaning as well. The proper meaning can thus be approached only on etymological grounds: the prevailing view, a connection with the Luwian verb kīša- ‘to comb’ is morphologically possible (cf. under Origin), even if thus the meaning cannot be treated as assured or precisely definable.

[Zs.S.]

HED K:159 suggests that this word reflects the Luwian participle kišamma/i- from kīša- ‘to comb’, while other authors maintain that this is a Hittite word (EDHIL:481 [although describing it as kišama/i-]; Tischler 2008a:89, Tischler 2016a:166) – it was not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a either (also for the early scholar Finkelstein 1956a:104 the source language was not apparent).

Puhvel’s identification with the Luwian participle is excluded by the consistent non-geminated spelling of the nasal. Since the attestations require an adjective (see under Forms), the only possibility to maintain the semantically appealing proposed connection with the Luwian verb is a Luwian suffix -ama/i- forming appurtenance adjectives to nouns (Melchert 2003b:195), with transfer to the i-stems based on the misanalysis of the i-mutation. This leads to a noun *kiš(a)-. *kiša- as an action noun ‘combing, carding’ with a suffix -a- can indeed be derived from the verb kīša- ‘to comb’ (for this derivational type see Melchert 2003b:195) and thus the derivation of kišami- from kīša- ‘to comb’ is possible (it is unclear, however, whether the difference in the length of the stem vowel has any relevance). It would mean that we are indeed dealing with a Luwian loanword in Hittite. Nevertheless, prudence dictates to mention that garment terms are frequently borrowed and thus one may entertain the possibility that we are dealing only with a coincidence and not a Luwian derivative (note also the reading problem discussed above that might hint at a non-Anatolian origin).

[Zs.S.]