*sa/omlu-

Attested in (L)NS Hittite rituals.

[Zs.S.]

erg. sg.

ša-ma-lu-wa-an-za

KUB 35.145 iii 18’

(CTH 767, NS)

Sumerographic spelling:

abl.

GIŠḪAŠḪUR-lu-wa-an-za

KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 28

(CTH 520, LNS)

Attestations following CLL:187 checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. He adds “^GIŠḪAŠḪUR-an-za” from KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 26, but this form does not exist: Only “GIŠ^! tág-an-za KI.MIN” can be seen on the tablet (checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz and the hand copy), referring to apple and with KI.MIN to the previous sentence ḫūwandaza ^NA4ZÚ-in ˹da^?!˺-a-i ‘she takes the flint from the ḫūwant-’. Since tág cannot be read as ḪAŠḪUR (contra Starke 1981a:153 n. 49 [“verderbte[s] Zeichen”], followed by Soysal 1989a:184; Rieken 1999a:449; Giorgieri 2004a:410; Bachvarova 2013a:137a; excluding the proposal of HED Sa:93, too, who reads ḪAŠḪUR and would delete as scribal error [with question mark]) and a scribal error is improbable, since the signs are quite different (Starke’s “Zwischenform” of ḪAŠḪUR in KUB 33.9 iii 12 is quite different from tág [cf. Güterbock 1973b:74, who considers this faulty ḪAŠḪUR as a case of “Zeichenverwechslung”]), and finally the parallelism with the previous sentence requires a place in ablative, which could be only taganza (on nasalised ablative endings in Hittite see Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:77), but a clear reference to the apple (and not to the apple tree) required by the context is still missing, the most plausible solution is that the scribe unintentionally omitted the sign ḪAŠḪUR and thus the sentence is to be corrected as ^GIŠ!<ḪAŠḪUR> tág-an-za KI.MIN, as proposed by Haas 2003a:210 and CHD Š:113 (latter with question mark; the text appears without any emendation in Beckman 1983a:178f.; Polvani 1988a: 143; EDHIL:732f.; Maier 2013a:51).

Starke 1981a:153f. (followed by Soysal 1989a:176, 188; Giorgieri 2004a:415 as well as by Bachvarova 2013a:137 n. 15 in case of KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 26) claims that these forms are Luwian nom.-acc. pl. n. (for his reasoning see below). According to CLL:187, the “most likely” analysis is a Hittite erg. sg., but a Luwian nom.-acc. sg. n. is also possible. The Hittite sentence in KUB 35.145 iii 18’ is as follows (Beckman 1983a:194; Starke 1985b:232; CHD Š:113):

(1) šamaluwanza=kan ZU₉^ḪI.A-uš d[āu]
‘May the apple take the teeth!’

As it can be seen, šamaluwanza is a regular Hittite ergative singular (with CLL:187; cf. also Rieken 1999a:449f. and HED Sa:93) and there is no argument or need to assume a Hittite ablative (contra Tischler 2002a:348f. with n. 15; Haas 2003a:268; Bachvarova 2013a:138 n. 21) or a Luwian nom.-acc. sg. n. (šamaluwan=za) here (a plural form is not possible, contra Starke and Polvani 1988a: 110; also Laroche 1971b:149 argued against it [but only on chronological grounds] as well as van den Hout 1984a:75 n. 84, who pointed out the lack of plural marking in ^GIŠḪAŠḪUR, cf. below). Note furthermore that one would expect also in case of Luwian an ergative form, i.e. †šamaluwantiš. The situation is a bit more complicated in the sentence of KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 26 (Beckman 1983a:178f.; CHD Š:113):

(2) ^GIŠḪAŠḪUR-lu-wa-an-za=ma=aš=kan ZU₉-uš dandu
‘May they take their teeth with an apple!’

Starke 1981a:154 argues that the copyist misunderstood the Luwian nom.-acc. pl. ^GIŠḪAŠḪUR-lu-wa-an-za as a Hittite ablative and thus inserted an enclitic pronoun =aš required by the missing subject in the enclitic chain (followed by Soysal 1989a:176f.; Giorgieri 2004a:415, and implicitly by Puhvel 2017a:93 [who talks about “Luwoid text” and deletes =aš as a scribal error]; cf. also Rieken 1999a:450 [who also assumes a misinterpretation as ablative and labels the appearance of the pronoun as “unverständlich”, so did Reichardt 1998a:52, too]). Setting aside that the Luwian form could only be singular, the theory of misunderstanding is equally possible with a Hittite ergative singular ^GIŠḪAŠḪUR-lu-wa-an-za (for the ergative singular and the nasalized ablative [cf. above] are homophonous), thus it does not require any Luwian origin. Since we are not dealing here with a collective singular, the verb in plural excludes both the Luwian nom.-acc. sg., contra Starke, Soysal, Giorgieri 2004a:415 and Bachvarova (and thus the Luwian form) and the Hittite erg. sg., contra Melchert (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:240f.). Moreover, as CHD Š:113 rightly points out on the basis of the sentence IŠTU ^GIŠḪAŠḪUR ZU₉-ŠU da[ndu] of KBo 52.33 obv. 3’ (Beckman 1983a:197; Polvani 1988a:143; Soysal 1989a:188; Fuscagni 2012a), ^GIŠḪAŠḪUR-lu-wa-an-za is an ablative (cf. already Beckman 1983a:197; followed by Weitenberg 1984a:215; Tischler 2002a:348, HEG L-S:789; HED Sa:93; Bachvarova 2013a:138, but 150 with n. 88 allows both ablative and nominative), thus there is no misunderstanding (contra Starke, Soysal, Giorgieri and Rieken) or suffixed form with -ant- (Siegelová 1971a:26). What remains to be explained is the form of the enclitic pronoun: since we are dealing with a transitive sentence, it cannot refer to the subject (contra Starke, Soysal and Giorgieri). =aš can be 3^rd pl. acc. too (note that this is an LNS tablet) and thus standing in partitive apposition, which makes perfect sense setting aside that a singular form (i.e. =an) is required. Thus there are two possibilities: either the scribe was inconsistent and used plural here (this is the translation of Beckman 1983a:179; Reichardt 1998a:51; Tischler 2002a:348; Haas 2003a:210, and Christiansen 2012b:425) or =aš should be emended into =an as suggested by CHD Š:113 (followed by HEG L-S:789 and implicitly Bachvarova 2013a:140).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that the word šamlu(wa)- and ḪAŠḪUR are identical (as proposed by Laroche 1971b:149) and they mean ‘apple, apple tree’ (Siegelová 1971a:26; Ertem 1974a:60; Hoffner 1974a:113–115; Starke 1981a:153f. [only the fruit]; Weitenberg 1984a:215; Polvani 1988a:110, 143; Soysal 1989a:176; CLL:187; Tischler 2002a:347, HEG L-S:789, Tischler 2008a:159, 259, Tischler 2016a:300, 504 [on his opinion on the exact meaning see below]; Ünal 2007a:193 [question mark on the meaning in the English version], 595 [only the tree in the German and the Turkish version and adding a question mark to the identity with the Sumerogram], Ünal 2016a:273, 452; EDHIL:712 [with a question mark to the identity with the Sumerogram]; Weeden 2011b:507 [only the fruit]; Christiansen 2012b:425; Bachvarova 2013a:140, 150; HED Sa:92; CHD Š:112–114 [with critical remarks]). Dissenting voices are few: Oettinger 1979a:434 n. 83 notes that an equivalency with Hitt. “šakšakilu-” of unknown meaning cannot be excluded, but this is not the case, since it is an a-stem, cf. e.g. CHD Š:51. Tischler 2002a:345 with n. 3, 347 with n. 12 (cf. also Tischler 2008a:159, 259, Tischler 2016a:300) argues that it cannot be the cultivated apple, just an apple-like fruit, most probably the wild apple (‘Holzapfel’ / Malus sylvestris [according to him also quince or even service tree could be a possibility], followed by Giorgieri 2004a:410; similarly Haas 2003a:209, 268, Haas 2003b:222), but the only evidence provided is the “extreme” acidity that even attacks the teeth, thus leading to their fall as wished in the above quoted curses.

In order to explain the exact process of these falling teeth, Starke 1981a:153 n.45 (cf. also Kempinski & Košak 1982a:93) also assumed malic acid (the apple’s acid), see already Laroche 1973b:91 (followed by Tischler 2002a: 347), who talked about a “sudden and execrable” acidity (but see the critical remarks of Soysal 1989a:187f.); unlike Beckman 1983a:179, who translated KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 26 with “apple-wood (branch)” (followed by Reichardt 1998a:51), and CHD Š:113 and Bachvarova 2013a:140, who translated these cases only with the apple itself, thus latter assuming (implicitly) a physical impact, not the burning by acid.

Several circumstances argue that we are not dealing with extremely acidic apples. First, it is hardly credible that the acid of any version of the apple can destroy the teeth. Second, as the parallel objects in the context show (a flint cutting the tongue, an object blinding the eyes), the impact of the apple must be quick (cf. Laroche’s assumption on the “sudden” acidity; this problem was realized also by Soysal 1989a:187f.), which is not the case with the acid in any version of the apple. Note also that there is a separate phrase for ‘sour apple’ (CHD Š:113 with text). One can thus conclude that these apples were not extremely acidic and thus there is no reason to assume wild apples. This is supported also by the fact that the Hittite texts talk about apple trees growing in orchards (for texts see CHD Š:112). Finally, in the curses the simple translation ‘apple’ as given by CHD and Bachvarova is to be followed: as Bachvarova 2013a:144 n. 65 aptly describes, these phrases obviously refer to a crisp apple pulling out the tooth when the cursed person bites (for a similar interpretation see already Watkins 1995b:427).

[Zs.S.]

This word was identified as Luwian by Starke 1981a:154 (followed by Soysal 1989a:176, 188; Giorgieri 2004a:415 as well as by Bachvarova 2013a:137 n. 15 in case of KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 26; cf. also HED Sa:93 and Rieken 1999a:450) and although CLL:87 allowed this possibility, it has not been included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a. As it has been shown above, there is no reason to see a Luwian loanword in it.

[Zs.S.]

This lexeme is found in the Palaic incantations of the festival for the god Ziparwa.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz.

[D.S.]

Soysal 1989a:177 connects convincingly the Palaic word šamluwaš, which qualifies breads, with Hitt. šamlu- ‘apple’ and thus assigns the same semantics (followed by Melchert 1994a:221, Tischler 2002a:349). Thus, the syntagma wištaš šamlūwaš wulašinaš equating 1 NINDA.GUR₄.RA EM-ṢA in the Hittite version of the festival for Ziparwa (CTH 750) means ‘one thick apple bread’ or in other words ‘one sour bread loaf’; for the contextual comparison see under Pal. wīšta-.

[D.S.]

Although the nominative or accusative case is not attested, the word šamluwaš is most likely a u-stem on comparative grounds; cf. Soysal 1989a:175, Starke 1990a:46 n. 78a.

[D.S.]