†kuranna/i-

KUB 32.9 Ro. 6 (CTH 761, MS) shows ku-ra-˹x˺-ni, which was read as ku-ra-a[n]-ni by Laroche 1959a:57, who compared it with Hitt. kuranna- ‘section vel sim.’, and later as ku-ra-[a]n-ni by Starke 1985b:87, who interpreted it as a dat.-loc. sg. of kurann(i)-, an otherwise unattested noun derived from the verb ‘to cut’ with a meaning ‘Schneidegerät’ (Starke 1990a:117). Starke’s proposal was widely accepted the only difference being the definition of the stem (CLL:111; EDHIL:487; Tischler 2008a:94, Tischler 2016a:178; but without meaning in Haas 2003a:112 n. 511, 386, 389; Ünal 2016a:962). Setting aside the morphological problem (known -anna/i- suffixes [a diminutive and a possessive adjective suffix, Melchert 2003b:196] do not fit), based on the photo of the Konkordanz the only preserved trace of the fragmentary sign is a final vertical wedge, which allows multiple interpretations, not only an, but also, for instance at/d (among many others). Moreover, this passage has a parallel in the same ritual, where this word is not fragmentary and spelled as ku-ra-at-ni (KBo 22.143 i 6), i.e. a dat.-loc. sg. from *kurattar / kuratn-, an abstract noun from the verb ‘to cut’ (see s.v.). Thus it can be concluded that also this attestation should be read as ku-ra-˹at˺-ni (also I. Yakubovich, pers. comm.) and kuranna/i- does not exist.

[Zs.S.]