šamlayaya-

This word is only attested in a manuscript of Muršili II’s annals.

[A.B.]

2nd sg. pres. ind. act.	ša-am-la-⸢ia⸣-ia-ši	KUB 14.24 18’	(CTH 61, NS)
inf.	ša-am-la-ia-]ia-u-wa-an-zi	KUB 14.24 19’	(CTH 61, NS)

The attestations follow: Laroche 1959a:85, CLL:187, CHD Š:124f., HEG L–S:788, HED Sa:94, Ünal 2007a:598 and Ünal 2016a:454 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:195 and van den Hout 2007a:243). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

CLL:187 points out that the analysis for this word is not assured. An alternative interpretation as ušamlayaya- is possible in theory, but not very probable, cf. under Graphic features. With regard to the attestation in line 18’, it should be considered whether the second <ia> represents a scribal error, and HED Sa:94 sugggests emending the form: ša-am-la-ia-{ia-}ši (cf. also Tischler 2008a:158, Tischler 2016a:298). Tischler and Laroche always cite the word as šamlaya-, not as šamlayaya-. Ünal 2007a:598 (cf. Ünal 2016a:454) lists two lemmas with gloss marker šamlaya- and šamlayaya-. For the former he lists the attestation in KUB 14.24 18’ (indicating KUB 14.24 iii 18) and reads the form as šamliyazi, which is not supported by the photos or the hand copy. Hence the attestation of a lexeme šamlaya- is equally doubtful and the only form similar to it is ša-am-ma-al-li-ia-zi in KUB 28.1 rev. iv 37, which belongs to the verb šam(m)alli(ya)-. The connection between šam(m)alli(ya)- and šamlayaya- remains open to discussion.

It is uncertain if the fragmentary Hittite infinitive form in line 19’ restored by CHD Š:124 as ša-am-la-ia-]ia-u-wa-an-zi belongs to the same verb (as considered by CLL:187).

[A.B.]

The gloss marker in line 18’ does not necessarily refer to the word šamlayaya-. It could also refer to the text structure (continuation of the preceding line) as it appears at the beginning of an indented line (cf. Souček 1957-1971a:440 and already Forrer 1922a:215 for this function of the gloss marker). If this is the case, šamlayaya- cannot be classified as an actual Glossenkeilwort, with there being only one attestation (the uncertain instance in line 19’ is fragmentary, anyway), cf. under Origin.

Finally, since the gloss marker has the form of a Winkelhaken, it can also not be excluded that it is a U-sign. However, a word-form ušamlayaya is not compatible with any other word attested in Hittite or Luwian.

[A.B.]

Most dictionaries do not indicate a meaning for this verb (Laroche 1959a:85, CLL:187, CHD Š:124, Tischler 2008a:158, Tischler 2016a:298; Ünal 2007a:598, Ünal 2016a:454). But it is frequently connected to the similar verb šam(m)alli(ya)- for which a tentative meaning related to a negative attitude or action is assumed (cf. below). This connection is based on the similarity of these words and on a like meaning in the context of šamlayaya-. KUB 14.24 shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as the transliteration, restorations and translation in CHD Š:124, have been taken into account):

⁽¹⁴⁾[… -]nu-ut nam-ma lúMEŠ galMEŠ URUmi-ra[-a …] ⁽¹⁵⁾[…]⸢ú⸣-wa-te-et nu lúMEŠ galMEŠ URUmi-ra[-a …] ⁽¹⁶⁾[… li-in-g]a-nu-nu-un nu-uš-⸢ma-aš-ša⸣-an aš-šum e[n-ut-ti …] ⁽¹⁷⁾[…]MEŠ URUmi-ra-a i-n[a k]ur URUmi-ra-a […] ⁽¹⁸⁾[…] ša-am-la-ia-ia-ši […] ⁽¹⁹⁾[… -]ia-u-wa-an-zi egir-pa ú-ul […] ⁽²⁰⁾[… -]ma gim-an u-ni me-mi-a[n …]

⁽¹⁴⁾[…]and it furthermore the grandees of Mir[a …] ⁽¹⁵⁾[…] he/you brought / shall bring and the grandees of Mir[a …] ⁽¹⁶⁾[… I swore an o]ath and you^(pl.) him regarding lo[rdship …] ⁽¹⁷⁾[… the grande]es of Mira i[n the l]and of Mira […] ⁽¹⁸⁾[…] you^{(sg.) ?}šamlayaya […] ⁽¹⁹⁾[… šamlaya]ya^?-ing; again not […] ⁽²⁰⁾[…] but^? when this issu[e …]

The text is fragmentary, but the 2nd sg. prs. ind. act. could represent Muršili II addressing Mašḫuiluwa (“you šamlayaya-”). In this context the verb šamlayaya- describes the attitude or actions of Mašḫuiluwa. The text most likely refers to when Mašḫuiluwa had violated his treaty with Muršili II and fled to another country. According to this treaty, his own people, or more specifically the nobility of Mira, apparently disapproved of his behavior against their great king and asked Muršili II to appoint his adopted son Kupanta-Kuruntiya as their lord (cf. Friedrich 1926a:110–115 and Beckman 1996a:69–71). Hence, a meaning describing a negative attitude or action is possible for šamlayaya-. This term could refer to Mašḫuiluwa´s attitude or actions regarding obligations as a contractual partner, or to his behavior or attitude in general.

As noted above, the verb šamlayaya- is frequently connected with the verb šam(m)alli(ya)- (and its fientive form šammallešš- for which CHD Š:111 lists its own lemma), cf. Laroche 1959a:85; HEG L–S:788; CHD Š:111; HED Sa:94; Tischler 2008a:158; Tischler 2016a:298 (with question mark), 300 (cf. under Origin for a possible but problematic morphologically connection). The meaning of šam(m)alli(ya)- is unclear, as well. However, its use is similar to that of šamlayaya- (cf. CHD Š:111: a negative attitude or action, ‘to be hostile’ or sim., cf. HEG L–S:788 “feindlich sein” o.ä.), hence a connection of these two verbs is within the realm of possibility.

Some dictionaries suggest that the verb is connected to bitterness or sourness based on an assumed connection to the word for ‘apple’ (cf., ‘be like apple, be sour (bitter, crabby)’ (?), cf. (cautiously) HEG L–S:788 (with lit.) and under šamlu(wa) 800; HED Sa:94f., (cf. HEG L–S:800). For some less likely connections of these two verbs with the noun Hitt. šam(a)lu(wa)- ‘apple tree; apple’ and a possible but still problematic link with ^GIŠšamaliya- (a tree, its wood or fruit used for preparing an aromatic steam with sedative effect), cf. below and under Origin.

HEG L–S:788 also considers a connection to a plant-designation: GIŠšamaliya- (a tree, its wood or fruit used for preparing an aromatic steam with sedative effect), cf. HEG L–S:787f., CHDŠ:111 (differently HED Sa:94: ‘appletree’ (?)). GIŠšamaliya- could be connected to the verbs šamlayaya- and/or šammalliya-, which probably refer to the characteristics of the plant (or, if the plant designation itself is a substantivized adjective, to this meaning), cf. Soysal 1989a:181 n. 41 (with further lit.), 183 n. 51 and Soysal 2004c:91. Which plant precisely is denoted by GIŠšamaliya- remains uncertain, because it is only attested in a list of plants or plant parts used to create an aromatic steam in a ritual to appease (cool down) an angry (heated up) deity (HKM 116.21 18–24, cf. CHD Š:111). This effect could be associated with the plant’s acidity, which could also be its motive of designation. But even if a connection between GIŠšamaliya- and šamlayaya- fits semantically, it has several morphological problems.

[A.B.]

Since it is inflected according to the Hittite mi-conjugation, šamlayaya- is a Hittite form. But it has been suggested to be of Luwian origin, presumably on the basis of the (uncertain) gloss marker, cf. Laroche 1959a:58, Soysal 1989a:181, n. 41, CLL:187; Tischler 2008a:158, Tischler 2016a:298, 300; HED Sa:94 (Luwoid?), it also appears in the lists of Luwianisms by van den Hout 2007a:243 and  Melchert 2005a:450 (albeit with the latter marking its Luwian status as uncertain). Note, however, that the use of gloss markers does not necessarily guarantee a Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445) and as explained under Graphic features, šamlayaya- may not  even be a real Glossenkeilwort at all, rendering this argument even weaker.

As mentioned under Meaning, most of the authors consider a connection to the verb šam(m)alli(ya)- based on the similarities in meaning and form (cf. Laroche 1959a:85, HEG L–S:788, HED Sa:94; cf. Tischler 2008a:158, Tischler 2016a:300). The nature of this connection is unclear and there are several possibilities:

Kronasser 1966a:498 simply assumes a scribal error in the form šamlayayaši for allegedly intended *šam(m)aliyaši. Laroche 1959a:85 assumes a syncopated base *šamla- of the verb šam(m)alliya-. Accordingly, šamlayaya- could be a contracted form of the verb šam(m)alliya, but on the other hand šam(m)alliya- might also be a secondary form that developed after šamlayaya-.

If one considers a Luwian origin, šamlayaya- might contain the Luwian verbal suffix -i(ya)- (cf. Melchert 2003b:199) in the last part of the word and could be a derivative of a Luwian noun or adjective of the form *šamla(ya)-. Such a lexeme is not attested, only the plant designation GIŠšamaliya- comes close to in form and semantics (cf. under Meaning). If this word is the base, it would be of Luwian origin, too, and could be a substantivized adjective from a noun *samal(a)- with the Luwian suffix -iya- (cf. Melchert 2003b:197). Although these considerations probably fit semantically (as discussed under Meaning, šamlayaya- would refer to an attitude or action that is like the GIŠšamaliya-plant or the underlying adjective), the formal relation is still very problematic: a derivation of šamlayaya- from GIŠšamaliya- requires syncope of a (as suggested by Laroche 1959a:85) and the change of i to a remains unexplained.

To conclude, even though a Luwian derivation (and origin) of šamlayaya- (and its assumed base) should be considered, it is, at present, impossible to prove that it constitues a Luwian loanword in Hittite. As discussed under Graphic features, even its status as a Glossenkeilwort is uncertain, since it appears in an indented line.

[A.B.]