partiant-

The word occurs only twice in a NS copy of a MH ŠIPTU ritual.

[E.R.]

nom. sg. c.	pár-ti-an-za	KBo 3.8 iii 6	(CTH 390, NS)
		KBo 3.8 iii 24	(CTH 390, NS)

In the contexts at KBo 3.8 iii 6 (pár-ti-an-za ḫa-a-ra-aš[^MUŠEN] ḫa-mi-ik-ta) and iii 24 (pár-ti-an-za [ḫa-a-ra-aš^MU]^ŠEN la-a-ad-da-at), two morphological interpretations are possible. For one, the word may be regarded as an attributive -ant- adjective of a nom. sg. c. ḫāraš^MUŠEN, which is the subject of a passive verb (for ḫamikta wrongly used as a preterite passive, instead of correct ḫamiktat, see ibid. iii 35-39): “The partiant- eagle was bound/released.” For another, as a substantival body part term in the Luwian thematic acc. sg. n. in -an-za in limitative function: “The eagle was bound/released with regard to (its) partiya.” The latter solution is generally preferred, while the actual translation of the lexeme varies among scholars; cf. Kronasser 1961a:158, Meriggi apud Kronasser 1962a:112: ‘Flügel’, CLL:171: ‘?’, Melchert 2005a:248, CHD P:197, Oettinger 2004f:298f. n. 5: ‘Schwingen(?)’, HEG P:506: ‘Kralle, Klaue’, van den Hout 2006a:248, Ünal 2007a:528: ‘Fuß?, Kralle?’, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:697: ‘Klauen’. A variation of this starts from a morphologically correct 3sg. pret. act. ḫamikta ‘he bound’ and partianza as accusative object with ḫāraš^MUŠEN as a hardly plausible postposed New Hittite genitive singular; cf. Oettinger 2007a:544: ‘Schwingen’, Fuscagni 2017a: ‘Schwingen(?)’.

The former solution (nom. sg. c. partianza in agreement with ḫāraš^MUŠEN) is preferred here, because in the adjacent lines iii 3-5 and iii 7f. with the same verb form and presumably parallel structure, each item is modified by an attribute (adjectival, once genitival). In addition, based on this understanding, ḫāraš^MUŠEN can be analyzed as a correct nom. sg. with a preposed adjectival attribute. This interpretation is also found in Collins 1989a:217 (partiant- without translation) and Haas 2002a:28.

[E.R.]

In accordance with the interpretation of partianza as an adjective in the nom. sg. c. (see under Forms), the analysis as a possessive -ant- derivative of an -i(ya)- adjective ‘belonging to parta-’ is straightforward. Either *parta- is the base for partawar ‘wing’ and partiant- means ‘possessing that which belongs to wings, i.e. possessing feathers’ – thereby voiding any reason to assume a Luwian origin –, or parta(/i)- is the Luwian word for ‘leg’ or ‘hoof’ (see under Lemma), and then partiant- can be assigned the meaning ‘possessing that which belongs to the leg, i.e. possessing claws’ vel sim. Both meanings would suit an eagle, so that a decision between the two options is impossible at this point.

[E.R.]

Under the analysis proposed under Meaning, partianza is the Hittite nom. sg. c. of an -nt- stem.

[E.R.]

The underlying base may be either Hittite *parta- ‘wing’ or Luwian parta- ‘leg’ or ‘hoof’ (see under Meaning). As a consequence, it remains unclear whether the word is Hittite or Luwian in origin. However, those authors who interpret partianza as an accusative advocate a Luwian origin for the word (see under Forms for references).

[E.R.]