partā(i)-^(mi)

The verb occurs exclusively in rituals with incantations and/or mythological parts (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

The form partaiš in fragmentary context is regarded as a verbal form (following CHD P:198 and HEG P:507), because no nominal stem partai- is attested elsewhere and the ]x-an immediately preceding the form has a good chance of being either an accusative object or a preverb ending in -an. On account of the mi-conjugation stem partā(i)- in act. partāizzi and med. partaittat, the mi-conjugation 2sg. pret. act. in -š is preferred here against a 3sg. pret. act. of the ḫi-conjugation (undecided HEG P:507 and [CHD P:197f.).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

In the context of KUB 43.62 ii 9, the medio-passive verb partaittat describes the action in myth of the Fire, son of the Sun-god, that disappears like a bee (see Fuscagni 2012b). Other comparisons are made with a snail that unites with the night or darkness and an eagle that leaps off the ground and flies away. Therefore, the verb must mean either ‘to set off’ or ‘to fly away’ (cf. HED P:173 for the middle: ‘(de)part’). Since regarding the eagle the focus is on the act of leaping when taking off, this is probably also the case for the bee, which amounts to a meaning ‘to set off’ for medio-passive para(i)-. This meaning accords well with that of the reduplicated verb partipartiške/a- ‘to set off for running/flying’ (see under Lemma). It is also probably no accident that partā(i)- is used with an eagle in a similar context within the mugawar ritual KBo 12.77.

More problematic is the instance of 3sg. act. partāizzi. In the preceding paragraph, the ritualist takes blue and red wool strands and makes them into a thread. Although the verb of combining the strands is broken, the general understanding proposed by Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:8f. is certainly correct, since SÍG mitišš=a ‘and red wool’ must have a coordinated counterpart, which is certainly the blue wool. In the subsequent paragraph containing the form partaizzi, the ritualist takes the blue and red wool, performs the action partā(i)- on it, and throws it up (and probably over) the ritual client. Following Götze, partā(i)- is generally translated as ‘to disentangle, to unravel’ (CHD P:197f., Ünal 2007a:528), ‘to separate, to part’ ([HED PA:173), and ‘locker machen, entwirren, zupfen’ (cf. HW 2nd ed.:164, Kronasser 1966a:283f. and 503, HEG P:507f., Tischler 2008a:125 with less plausible the opposite alternative: ‘verflechten’).

In contrast to the above interpretation, an attempt is made here to reconcile the apparently diverging meanings of the active and medio-passive forms of partā(i)-. First, attention is drawn to the fact that in spite of the ruler line between i 31 and i 32, the content § 10 and 11 represent a single section of the text. In fact, according to all translations the ritualist deals with the wool both in the end of § 10 and the beginning of § 11. Moreover, not even a sentence particle intervenes between n=at partaizzi in i 31 and tuekkaš šarā peššezzi (sic) “she throws up at the body” in i 32. This either indicates that the second sentence is an elaboration of the first one (following Hoffner 2007a) or that the two sentences form a serial construction as described by Garrett 1990a:75f. (cf. e.g. šēr=a=ššan ^UZUNÍG.GIG ^UZUŠÀ kuerzi dāi “but he cuts, and places thereon, liver and heart.”), where the sentence initial particle chain may be governed by the second verb. If the latter applies to i 31f. (despite the ruler line), a translation of n=at partaizzi tuekkaš šarā peššezzi as “she builds up momentum and throws it up at the body” seems indicated, the two verbs describing two parts of a single act. (A certain momentum is necessary to make wool fly at least a little distance.) Under this interpretation, it would be possible to give a coherent translation for the active, medio-passive and reduplicated forms of the verb for each context.

[E.R.]

For the identification of the -a(i)- stem, see under Forms.

[E.R.]

1. partipartiške/a-

A Luwian origin of the verb has not yet been suggested. Even Oettinger 2015d:271-273 when arguing for the Luwian origin of partipartiške/a-, does not refer to partā(i)-^(mi). However, if on phonological grounds, i.e. the loss of *s in the initial cluster *sp-, partipartiške/a- is assumed to be Luwian, the same should be posed for its simplex partā(i)-^(mi).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. part-.