ḫišḫiš-
‘spell, binding’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, neuter
- ID
- 1556
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
ḫišḫiš-
‘spell, binding’1.1.1Transmission
Attestations are so far limited to the Kuwattalla tradition (probably from MS copies onward).
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| gen. adj. acc. sg. c. | [ḫi-iš-ḫi-ša-aš-ši-i]n | KUB 35.48 ii 22’ | (CTH 760, NS) |
| ḫi-i[š-ḫi-ša-aš-ši-in] | KBo 9.147, 2’ | (CTH 761, MS?) | |
| adj. acc. pl. c. | ḫi-iš-ḫi-ša-aš-ši-˹in˺-za | KUB 35.45 ii 19 | (CTH 761, NS) |
| ḫi-iš-ḫi-ša-aš-ši-zi | KUB 35.48 ii 12’ | (CTH 760, NS) |
The acc. pl. c. form in /-intsi/ is irregular in Cuneiform Luwian and has been interpreted by Yakubovich 2010a:29 as resulting from interference from Ḫattuša Luwian, which is attested in the Hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Empire period and continued later in the Iron age.
[E.R.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – At KUB 35.48 ii 12’, the frequent omission of the nasal is found in the ending /-intsi/.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The lexeme is part of a list of adjectives that characterize the malicious doings of the ritual opponent: “the lords of vengeful words, traps (ḫišḫišašša/i-), manipulation, curse, perjury.” The translation cited is suggested by Mouton, Puértolas Rubio & Yakubovich, pers. comm., who, obviously, have in mind an etymological connection with ḫišḫiya-(i) ‘to bind’. This was already considered by Rosenkranz 1952a:71, who thought of ‘allied (enemies)’ and later by Melchert (CLL:70), who arrived for the nominal base at the meaning ‘spell’ developed from ‘binding’ (followed in Tischler 2008aHHw:51 and EDHIL:392; no meaning assigned in DLL:46). Since the word order indicates that the adjective relates to the actions (as per above), not to the person behind them, the suggested translation ‘allied (enemies)’ can be discarded. Among the latter two viable options, ‘spell, binding’ is preferred here, because it is closer to the basic meaning of the underlying verb.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
While it is clear that the lexeme is a relational adjective in -ašša/i-, it is ambiguous as to the stem of its base, which, in principle, can end in -ša- c., -š(a)- n., -š(i)- c. or -š- n. (see the divergent proposals in DLL:46, EDHIL:392). Since neuter s-stems derived from the root or nominal bases are a productive class, it is likely, but by no means assured, that the underlying noun is *ḫi-šḫi-š-.
[E.R.]
For the lemma head see CLuw. ḫišḫiya-(i).