kurimma-/kurimpa-

Attested in Hittite prayers to the Sun God (MS and NS).

[Zs.S.]

dat. pl. / gen. pl. / gen. sg.	ku-ri-im-ma-aš	KUB 31.135 obv. 5’	(CTH 374, MS)
	˹ku˺-ri-im-ma-aš	KUB 31.135 obv. 4’	(CTH 374, MS)
	ku-ri-˹im˺-ma-aš	KUB 31.127 + ABoT 1.44 i 35	(CTH 372, NS)
	ku-ri-im-˹ma˺-aš	KUB 31.127 + ABoT 1.44 i 36	(CTH 372, NS)
	ku-ri-˹im˺-[ma-aš]	Bo 4696 + KUB 36.75 i 13’	(CTH 374, MS)
	ku-ri-˹im˺-[ma-aš]	Bo 4696 + KUB 36.75 i 15’	(CTH 374, MS)
	[ku-ri-im]-˹pa˺-aš	KUB 31.134, 11’	(CTH 374, MS)
	[ku-ri-im-pa]-˹aš˺	KUB 31.134, 9’	(CTH 374, MS)

Attestations following HED K:264 (cf. also HEG A-K:646 and Ünal 2007a:369, Ünal 2016a:297), complemented with Rieken et al. 2016a:§4, Rieken et al. 2017-2018a:§10’-11’ (following their restorations) and checked against the photos of the Konkordanz (no photo of this part of ABoT 1.44 was available). The form [ku-ri-im]-˹pa˺-aš in KUB 31.134, 11’ is attested in the manuscript B of CTH 374, which is perfectly parallel to the manuscripts A_1-3 (here with ku-ri-im-ma-aš in KUB 31.135 obv. 5’) and C_1-4 (here with ku-ri-˹im˺-[ma-aš] in Bo 4696 + KUB 36.75 i 15’), and thus there is no doubt that kurimpa- and kurimma- are identical (although the sign pa in KUB 31.134, 11’ is not fully preserved, based on the photo hethiter.net/: PhotArch BoFN04497a of the Konkordanz it is undoubtedly pa and cannot be read as ma). On the doublet kurimma-/kurimpa- see under Origin.

[Zs.S.]

After the early, very cautious suggestions (Friedrich 1952a:117: ‘Krüppel’, with question mark; Laroche 1948-1949a:14, 23 n. 8: ‘estropié’, but “entièrement conjecturale”); a general agreement developed that the word means ‘orphan’ (Goetze 1954b:189; HEG A-K:646, Tischler 2008a:95, Tischler 2016a:178 [but adding the meanings of kurimpa-, cf. under Origin]; Schwemer 2013a:111, Schwemer 2015a:371, 386 [but cf. below]) or ‘orphaned’ (Hoffner 1977b:155 n. 22; HED K:264; Ünal 2007a:369, Ünal 2016a:297; Metcalf 2011a:172, Metcalf 2015a:96; Dardano 2014b:241; Schwemer 2015a:371, 386; Rieken et al. 2016a:§4, Rieken et al. 2017-2018a:§10’-11’; Daues & Rieken 2018a:37, 49, 185, 321, 343; similarly also Haas 2006a:247 [‘vereinsamt’]). This is supported not only by contextual grounds (a prayer to the Sun God, the father of the k. and the oppressed) but also by the Sumerian original of the passage, in which the Sun God is the father of the orphan, mother of the widow, and the avenger of the downtrodden (cf. the detailed discussion in Metcalf 2011a:171–173, Metcalf 2015a:96f.). Although this would allow also a meaning ‘widow’ (as indeed assumed by Hoffner 1977b:155 n. 22 and Ünal 2007a:369, Ünal 2016a:297), the context rather requires a more general term, which is the‘orphan(ed)’. The meaning ‘orphan(ed)’ also fits better than the proposals ‘lonely’ (Singer 2002a:34, 37) and ‘afflitto’ (Dardano 2013a:60 [but cf. above]). Since it is partly in congruence with a noun, this is obviously an adjective that could have been occasionally substantivized.

[Zs.S.]

This word was originally booked as kurimma-/kurimpa- (Hoffner 1977b:155 n. 22) and thus a connection to Hittite kurimpa- ‘dregs, sediment vel sim.’ was entertained (Friedrich 1952a:117; cf. also Tischler 2008a:95 with question mark [but cf. below]). However, Kronasser 1966a:180 suggested that we are dealing with a Luwian participle from kuwar- / kūr- ‘to cut’ (this verb, but without the Luwian connection, was proposed already by Laroche 1948-1949a:23 n. 8), which was followed by some scholars (HEG A-K:646f., Tischler 2016a:178; and cautiously HED K:264 [“perhaps”]; Starke 1981a:149 n. 28 [“dürfte”]). Nevertheless, it was included neither in the Luwian glossaries (Laroche 1959a; CLL; Ünal 2016a:949–977, on Tischler see above) nor in the lists of Luwianisms (Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a) and also EDHIL:486f. omitted it from the derivatives of Cuneiform Luwian kuwar- / kūr-. Although the said Luwian proposal is formally and semantically possible, the form [ku-ri-im]-˹pa˺-aš in KUB 31.134, 11’, which is clearly identical to kurimma- (cf. under Forms), demonstrates that etymologically speaking we are dealing neither with a Hittite nor with a Luwian word, since this consonant alternation is not genuine to these languages (and there is no evidence for a Luwian transmission into Hittite either). It requires a separate investigation whether this word is indeed connected to kurimpa- ‘dregs, sediment vel sim.’, but this is beyond the scope of this dictionary.

[Zs.S.]