kuršā-

Hapax in the prayer of Muwattalli II to the Storm-god of Kummanni (NS).

[Zs.S.]

3rd sg. pres.

kur-ša-a-i

KBo 11.1 obv. 26

(CTH 382, NS)

Attestation following CLL:112 (cf. also Starke 1981a:149, Starke 1990a:536 n. 1978; HEG A-K:607, and Ünal 2007a:371, Ünal 2016a:299) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. Starke 1981a:149, Starke 1990a:536 n. 1978 identified the form as 2nd sg. imp. (followed by CLL:112), but the context requires 3rd sg. pres. (thus with HED K:214; Singer 2002a:83; Ünal 2007a:371, Ünal 2016a:299; Daues 2010a:14; Rieken et al. 2016-2017a:§4 n. 34), see under Meaning

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of this word is unclear and thus many scholars refrain from a translation (Houwink ten Cate 1967a:116; Lebrun 1980a:301; de Roos 1983a:225; Rieken et al. 2016-2017a:§4; Daues & Rieken 2018a:415 [but cf. below]). The translation ‘to cut off’ was proposed by Starke 1981a:149 n. 26, Starke 1990a:536 n. 1978 and has been accepted by many other researchers (CLL:112 [adding ‘to separate’]; Ünal 2007a:371, Ünal 2016a:299 [with question mark]; EDHIL:486 [but see below]; Tischler 2008a:95, Tischler 2016a:179 [adding ‘trennen’]). Alternative suggestions are ‘to subdivide’ (HED K:214, labelled as “wenig überzeugend” by Rieken et al. 2016-2017a:§4 n. 34, without arguments), ‘to recover’ (Singer 2002a:83, with question mark, followed by Cammarosano 2012a:10; Kloekhorst 2014b:611f.), ‘gedeihen’ (Daues 2010a:14) and even ‘rétablissement’ (Mazoyer 2008a:339, with question mark). The context is as follows (KBo 11.1 obv. 25f., see most recently Rieken et al. 2016-2017a:§4, own translation), after a short description of the repopulation and rebuilding of the country:

DINGIR^MEŠ KUR-TI-y[a ann]išan maḫḫan ēššer nu=šmaš pēdan QATAMMA EGIR-pa appanzi kuitman=ma KUR-e ašešanuškemi kuitman=at kuršāi

‘Also the gods of the land will take their place, just as they were [bef]ore, while I keep settling the land, while it k.’

The two parallel phrases introduced by kuitman ‘while’ show that an indicative form is more fitting than an imperative, contra Starke and his followers. Both phrases describe the situation, when the gods of the land return during the rebuilding of the country, thus the proposals ‘to cut off’ / ‘to subdivide (the land)’ are also not fitting. However, the suggestions ‘while the land recovers / thrives’ perfectly fit the context, ‘to recover’ being perhaps the best solution as it refers to the revival of the land.

[Zs.S.]

Rejected derivatives:

1. kuršammaliya-
2. *kuršammašša(/i)-
3. kuršawar / kuršawan-
4. ku(wa)rša-

Starke 1981a:149, Starke 1990a:536 suggested Luwian origin (followed by CLL:112; with question mark in HEG A-K:607), but it has not been included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a and it is treated as Hittite in HED K:214 and EDHIL:486. The Luwian origin is based on the assonance with different Luwian words within the semantic sphere of ‘cutting’ (*kursa- ‘to cut off, to separate’, the base of kuršawar ‘separated area, island’ in Starke 1981a:149, Starke 1990a:536 and kuwarša- ‘division’ in CLL:112, which, however, does not mean ‘division’, see s.v.). Since, however, the semantics is not fitting and the ending can be both Hittite and Luwian, no argument remains for a Luwian origin.

[Zs.S.]