zuzḫitašša-

Hapax in a Hittite ritual fragment (NS).

[Zs.S.]

acc. sg. c.

URUDUzu-uz-ḫi-ta-aš-ša-an

KBo 64.53 i 10’

(CTH 670, NS)

Attestation following CLL:285 (cf. also Otten 1971b:16; Ünal 2007a:829, Ünal 2016a:614; not included in Laroche 1959a, since the fragment had not yet been excavated then) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. The stem is booked in two different versions, zuzḫitašša- (Otten 1971b:16; Tischler 2008a:236, Tischler 2016a:462, HEG U-Z:795; Ünal 2007a:829, Ünal 2016a:614 [as a Hittite word]) and zuzḫit- (CLL:285; Ünal 2016a:977 [as a Luwian word]): although the context is fragmentary, we are probably dealing with a substantivized adjective (and not a genitival adjective, contra CLL:285), and, accordingly, the stem is zuzḫitašša- and the case of the attested form is acc. sg. c. (neither dat.-loc. sg. nor nom.-acc. sg. n., contra Starke 1990a:39 and CLL:285).

[Zs.S.]

Some scholars assume a meaning ‘pitcher, jug’ (Starke 1990a:39 n. 53 [implicitly]; CLL:285; Tischler 2008a:236, Tischler 2016a:462 [from copper, but see below]), others are more cautious and assume a copper equipment (Otten 1971b:16; Ünal 2007a:820, Ünal 2016a:614 [as a Hittite word, but no translation for the Luwian form in Ünal 2016a:977]; HEG U-Z:795). The meaning ‘pitcher, jug’ is based on its assumed Hurrian source zuzuḫe of the same meaning (Laroche 1980a:310; Nozadze 2007a:443; Richter 2012a:423). Although this would fit the determinative (referring to objects made of / with copper), the derivation is not fully impeccable phonologically (see under Origin). Since the words preceding and following this word are broken off, the context is not helpful.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that this is a Hurrian loanword via Luwian due to its Hurrian stem and the Luwian suffixes -it- and -ašša/i- (Starke 1990a:39 n. 53 and CLL:285; for the Hurrian comparison see also Otten 1971b:16; Tischler 2008a:236, Tischler 2016a:462, HEG U-Z:795 [“anklingend”; with a non-existing “-ḫit” suffix]; Ünal 2016a:977), accordingly included in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a:250, but missing from the similar list of Melchert 2005a. Nevertheless, it is not clear, why and how the second <u> disappeared from the Hurrian word and thus the ultimate Hurrian etymology is not fully impeccable.

[Zs.S.]