šinapši(t)-

Hapax in a Luwian fragment (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.?

Éši-nap-ši-x(-)x[

KBo 29.57, 3’

(CTH 770, NS)

Attestation following CLL:194 (not included in Laroche 1959a, since the text had not yet been excavated at that time). He transcribes ^Éši-nap-ši but signals that this is a fragmentary form and Starke 1985b:391 indeed transcribes ] ^Éši-nap-ši-x[, fully supported by the hand copy and the photograph of the Konkordanz. Melchert defines the form ^Éši-nap-ši as nom.-acc. sg. n., but this is not without problems, since nouns borrowed from Hurrian (as this word, see under Origin) are -it-stems in Luwian and the nom.-acc. sg. n. of the -it-stems normally shows the =ša particle with the single exception of mallit- ‘honey’ (Jasanoff 2010a:170f.). Unfortunately, the following sign, which could decide the issue, is hardly identifiable despite some traces. One would expect ŠA (or ZA in case of a preserved dental) or TA / TI / DA / DI / IT/D based on the paradigm, but none of them are really fitting to the traces. The traces stand most closely to the sign ḪA, which would be the Luwian clitic =ḫa ‘and’, see s.v. (and which would be the first unambiguous evidence that this fragment is in Luwian at all). It would also mean that we are indeed dealing with a nom.-acc. sg. n. (which, however, does not automatically mean yet another exception to Jasanoff’s rule, since there is an attested case of “Gruppenflexion”, which cannot be excluded here due to the fragmentary context and there seems to be even one case, where =ša is replaced exactly by =ḫa, see Jasanoff 2010a:172 n. 21).

[Zs.S.]

The Luwian fragment is not helpful in determining the meaning, except that we are dealing with a building (see the determinative É), but the form borrowed into Hittite shows that the word denotes a part of the temple complex (cf. Ünal 2007a:636, Ünal 2016a:480; Tischler 2008a:171, Tischler 2016a:324), for a detailed discussion of the controversial details see CHD Š:375–378 and HEG L-S:1048–1051 (the meaning ‘sanctuary’ vel sim. given in CLL:194 is simplifying.).

[Zs. S.]

The word is clearly a borrowing from Hurrian shown by its Hurrian source (cf. Laroche 1980a:234; Nozadze 2007a:326f.; Richter 2012a:383f.) borrowed also into Hittite (CLL:194), cf. under Meaning (but not included in Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a, and Ünal 2016a as a Luwian word).

[Zs.S.]