kuršawar / kuršawan-

Hapax in a Luwian myth (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. pl. c.

kur-ša-ú-na-an-ti-in-zi

KBo 9.127 + KUB 35.107 obv. ii 11’’

(CTH 764, MS)

Attestation following CLL:113 (see also Laroche 1959a:57; Starke 1981a:148, Starke 1990a:536; HEG A-K:657, and HED K:217) checked against the photo of the Konkordanz. Its grammatical form depends on one’s personal views on the existence of an ergative case in Luwian: accordingly it is booked either as a nom. pl. c. (Laroche 1959a:57; HEG A-K:657; Starke 1981a:148, Starke 1990a:536) or as an erg. pl. (CLL:113; EDHIL:487; Steitler 2017a:396). Without any intention to resolve this much vexed issue, this word, formally speaking, clearly stands in the nominative case, as shown by -inzi and not in an ergative case (whose assumed existence requires a separate ergative ending). Moreover, this is not a form derived with -ant- (contra HEG A-K:657 and Starke 1981a:148, Starke 1990a:536), since its meaning is completely identical with that of its base: its existence is required only by the grammatical limitation that the base cannot fulfil the agent function. In other words, it is rather a suppletive stem / form (for a detailed criticism on ergative case in Luwian see most recently Goedegebuure 2018a).

[Zs.S.]

The word is unanimously translated as ‘island’ in this specific passage (Torri 2010a:386; Steitler 2017a:392, 396). But this meaning is exclusively based on its formal identity with the Glossenkeilwort kuršawar ‘separated area, island’ since the text is fragmentary (Starke 1981a:148, his reasoning on contextual grounds does not apply, see the most recent edition in Steitler 2017a:391–394; before Starke no translation was given [Laroche 1959a:57, still without meaning in Ünal 2016a:962]). On the meaning of this Glossenkeilwort see the detailed discussion s.v. kuršawar.

[Zs.S.]

Rejected derivative:

kuršauwanant- (belongs to kuršawar / kuršawan-, see under Forms)

The word is attested in Hittite transmission as a Glossenkeilwort in a NS letter from the king of Aḫḫiyawa to a Hittite king, in the annals of Muršili II, in a field list, and in a Sumerian-Akkadian-Hittite text with poetic content (a message of Lu-diĝira to his mother).

[A.B.]

nom./acc. pl. n.	kur-ša-wa-ra	KUB 26.91 obv. 6’	CTH 183, NS
	ku[r-ša?-wa?-ra?	KUB 26.91 obv. 10’	CTH 183, NS
dat./loc. pl. n.	kur-ša-u-wa-na-an-za	KBo 3.4 obv. ii 32	CTH 61, NS
abl./instr.?	{GIŠ}kur?!-ša-⸢wa⸣[-na-ti]	RS 25.421 rev. 48’	CTH 315, NS
gen. adj. nom. sg. c.	kur-ša-wa-na-aš-ši-iš	KUB 8.75 obv. i 12	CTH 239, NS

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:57f.; CLL:113; HED K 217f.; HEG A–K:657f.; Starke 1981a:143, 145f.; Starke 1990a:270; Ünal 2007a:372; Ünal 2016a:299 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:193; Güterbock 1956a:128; van den Hout 2007a:243, 245, and Zorman 2016a:581), checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (except RS 25.421, which is based on the hand copy in Nougayrol 1968a:445).

See Starke 1981a:143f. for a summary of older assumptions about the stem and the paradigm of this word. For the form kuršauwanantinzi (included by CLL:113), cf. above under the Lemma CLuw. kuršawar / kuršawan-. Starke 1990a:536 admits that the fragmentary form {GIŠ}kur?!-ša-⸢wa⸣[- in RS 25.421 could as well be restored as a Hittite abl. {GIŠ}kur?!-ša-⸢wa⸣[-na-az] but points out that no other Hittite forms are attested for this Luwian verbal noun.

[A.B.]

Hoffner 2009a:291 and Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:134 restore the uncertain damaged instance in line 10’ of KUB 26.91 as ku[r-ša-wa-ra. Moreover, Hoffner 2009a:291 restores the same word in the broken part of line 5’ of the same text, cf. under Meaning.

According to the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, there are traces of another wedge or horizontal at the bottom of the gloss marker in KBo 3.4 (not indicated in the hand copy).

The determinative GIŠ (for plants, trees and wooden objects) in RS 25.421 {GIŠ}kur?!-ša-⸢wa⸣[-na-ti] is considered a scribal error by Starke 1990a:536. He suggests that it might have been moved from the adjacent word zú.lum ‘date palm’, where it fits better (cf. under Meaning) and where it also appears in the Akkadian column (cf. also HED K:217).

[A.B.]

Laroche 1959a:57f. did not indicate any meaning. The meaning ‘island’ is established since Starke 1981a:142–150 (for older views cf. Sommer 1932a:272f. and the summary in Starke 1981a:143f.), followed by many scholars (cf. CLL:113; Melchert 2005a:450; HEG A–K:657f.; Tischler 2008a:95; Tischler 2016a:179, EDHIL:487); a more general meaning is given in HED K:217 (‘cutoff, isolated area, island’). Ünal 2007a:372 (cf. also Ünal 2016a:299) lists a variety of meanings: ‘ship or isle?, describes fields, fields watered by river branches’, the German list of the same lemma includes “Schiff, Kahn oder Insel; Strömung, Strom, Ödland” (followed by Zorman 2016a:581, who lists the word with the same meanings). The word appears in the following contexts:

KUB 23.125+KBo 3.4 obv. ii 28–32 (transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and also the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Starke 1981a:143 and Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:15f. have been taken into account) shows:

(28)⸢na⸣-an-kán ku-e-nu-un ⸢nam⸣-ma-⸢an⸣ egi[r-a]n-pát aṣ-bat nu-kán kur URUar-za-u-wa (29)[pár-]ra-an-da pa-a-un nu i-na URUa-pa-a-ša a-na uru-lì (30)ša mu-uḫ-ḫa-lú an-da-an pa-a-un nu-mu muḫ-ḫa-lú-iš ú-ul ma-az-za-aš-ta (31)na-aš-mu-kán ⸢⸣ḫu-u-wa-iš na-aš-kán a-ru-ni pár-ra-an-da (32)kur-ša-u-wa-na-an-za pa-it na-aš-kán a-pí-ia an-da e-eš-ta

(28)(…) I pursued him, [cro]ssed the territory of Arzawa. (29–30)I went into the city of Apāša, to the city of Uḫḫa-Ziti. (30–31)Uḫḫa-Ziti did not offer me restistance but ran away from me. (31–32)He crossed the sea to the islands and remained over there.

KUB 26.91 obv. 5–6’ (transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Starke 1981a:145–147; Sommer 1932a:268–274; Hoffner 2009a:291; Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:134f. have also been taken into account) shows:

(5’)[x-]ra-a-an-ni muKAM-ti-mu šeš-ia ḫa-at-ra[-e-eš] ú[- ... ] (6’)tu-e-el-wa kur-ša-wa-ra ku-e z[i- ...] (7’)d10 arad-an-ni am-mu-uk pa-iš

(5’)My brother wro[te] to me in the (…) year: [“I? ...] (6’)your islands which y[ou ...] (7’)the Storm God gave them to me in subjugation.”

KBo 19.14++ obv. i 12–15 (transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and in addition, the hand copy as well as the transliterations and translations of Starke 1981a:146 and Starke 1990a:536 [for interpretations and translations of similar field texts cf. also Souček 1959a:5–43] have been taken into account) shows:

(12)1 a.šà ki.min an-dur-ia-aš kur-ša-wa-na-aš-ši-iš (erasure) 4 pa.

(12)1 field, same (owner?), inner-kuršawar [erasure] of 4 parīsu

Starke 1981a:146f. points out (based on a suggestion by Souček 1963a:369) that in this context a parallel construction with anduriaš ‘inner’ is found in the following paragraph, where ša íd “of the river” appears instead of kur-ša-wa-na-aš-ši-iš. He cautiously assumes that kur-ša-wa-na-aš-ši-iš might refer to a separated area of land, for instance, at a meandering river.

RS 25.421 rev. 47’–49’ (transliteration is based on the hand copy in Nougayrol 1968a:445, and furthermore the transliterations, restorations and translations of Laroche 1968a:774f.; Starke 1990a:536 and Viano 2016a:259 have been taken into account) shows:

(47’)URU⸢tal⸣-mu-na-aš-ma-aš mi-li-it (48’)zú-lu4-pí na-aš-⸢kán⸣ {GIŠ}kur?!-ša-⸢wa⸣[-na-ti] (49’)an-da a-ri

(47’–48’)(like) a sweet date from Dilmun (48’–49’)and it comes here [from] the isla[nd]

The notion that the word denotes an island is not least supported by the attestation from Ugarit, where it is connected to the land Dilmun, identified with the island of Bahrain.

As suggested by Starke 1981a:149f., the noun must have been derived from a verb *kurša-, for which he assumed a meaning ´to cut off, to separate´ (in his opinion attested as Hitt. loan word “kuršae-”, but for the discussion of this word see under the lemma kuršā-) to form a verbal noun with an initially abstract meaning ‘separation’ that has subsequently been used to denote concrete entities of separation (cf. HEG A–K:657). The other meanings mentioned above are not supported by the contexts. The assumption of Starke 1981a:151 that kuršawar / kuršawan- denotes specifically spatial or geographic separation can be maintained based on all attested contexts. However, most seem to refer to the specific meaning ‘island’. As already noted by Starke 1981a:148, who points out the paraphrase aruni anda “in the sea”, this could be a case where a Luwian foreign word is used for a specific concept that appears to have no equivalent lexeme in Hittite (cf. Melcherts note in Yakubovich 2010d:400, n. 89).

[A.B.]

kuršauwanša- (rejected, see under the lemma)

[A.B.]

This word is assumed to be Luwian by most scholars (for a summary of the older position, i.e. a foreign word with Hittite morphology, cf. Starke 1981a:143–145 with refs.). It appears in Laroche 1959a:58, in CLL:113 and in the lists of Luwianisms by van den Hout 2007a:243, 245 and Melchert 2005a:450. HED K:217 mentions kuršawar- as a Luwian verbal noun and as “attested in Hittite partly with Luwoid case endings”, but in fact all of the attestations can be analysed as showing Luwian inflection.

Starke 1981a:145 stressed that its morphology is transparent (cf. Starke 1990a: 270, 536; HEG A–K:657f., EDHIL:487). As already pointed out by Starke 1981a:149f. with n. 27, it must be a verbal noun of an unattested verb *kurša-, for the suffix -war-/-wan- cf. Melchert 2003b:198. Hence, kuršawar / kuršawan- is a lexeme of Luwian origin that appears with Luwian inflection (hence as a foreign word) in Hittite texts.

[A.B.]