/hishiya-⁽ⁱ⁾/

Attested twice within the same text, this lexeme can be found in an inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the mid-8^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

ger.	/hishimina/	(PUGNUS+PUGNUS)hi-sà-hi-mi-na	CEKKE inscr. 2, §13 (Karkamiš)
			CEKKE inscr. 2, §16 (Karkamiš)

Although both attestations in CEKKE inscr. 2, i.e. §13 and §16, show the same choice of signs, it should perhaps be noted that the version of 〈sà〉 (*104) in §13 takes the much more stylised and abstract form compared to the more pictorial version used in §16, which also happens to be the form of 〈sà〉 used throughout the remainder of the inscription.

[AH.B.]

This meaning was first suggested by Barnett 1948a:134, who linked the form to the Sumerian group ŠU.DIB ‘bound, enslaved’ because of the use of the logogram PUGNUS.PUGNUS (*31), which consists of two crossed forearms with fists. Further support comes from the cognate links with the other Anatolian languages, i.e. CLuw. /hishiya-/ ‘to bind’ and Hittite išḫāi-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) ‘to bind’, which fit the HLuw. attestations. In HLuw., the verb appears as a gerundive in very similar phrasings in CEKKE, §13 and §16, ki-tara/i-sa (PUGNUS+PUGNUS)hi-sà-hi-mi-na ‘A bequest is to be bound’, the recipients being 20 tá-mi 10 INFANS-ni ‘to 20 adults (and) 10 children’ and tá-ra+a-za INFANS.NI-wa/i-za-ha ‘to fathers and son(s)’ respectively.

[AH.B.]

The verb contains a reduplication (Dempsey 2015a:212f.) and is very likely a formation in /-iya-⁽ⁱ⁾/, see Sasseville 2021a:406 with further literature. Neither of the Luwian corpora holds attestations for the simplex base form.

[AH.B.]

The verb is found only once, in the Kizzuwatnean ritual of Zarpiya.

[E.R.]

3pl. pres. ind. act.

ḫi-iš-ḫi-ia-an-ti

KUB 9.31 ii 24

(CTH 757, NS)

Checked against the handcopy of KUB 9.31.

[E.R.]

The meaning was elucidated by Hrozný 1920a:38 already in 1920 by way of a pseudo-bilingual passage in the Zarpiya ritual, which permitted him to equate the stem with Hitt. išḫāi-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) ‘to bind’.  Used in combination with the particle -tar, it acquires the sense of ‘to bind on, to put on, to dress with’ (scil. a girdle). Since it occurs in a relative clause characterizing a deity, Dempsey 2015a:212f. plausibly concludes that the reduplicated verb has a habitual reading. Cf. also Schwartz 1938a:340f., DLL:46, Oettinger 1979a:417 and 568, HEG A-K:384-388, HED I:402, CLL:70, EDHIL:392, HW² I:117 with the same translation.

[E.R.]

Oettinger 1979a:417, 568 n. 15 argues that the reduplication observed in ḫi-iš-ḫi-ia-an-ti ‘they bind’ is genuine, i.e. #sC- → *#sCV-sC- → #CV-sC-; cf. HEG A-K:385f. and Melchert 1994a:239; more recently HED I:402, EDHIL:393, Dempsey 2015a:303. The acceptance of Oettinger’s analysis has rendered obsolete the earlier attempts to interpret initial ḫ- as a prothetic consonant (Kronasser 1956a:89) or the result of a sound change *s > ḫ. Following Sasseville 2021a:406, the assignment of the stem class (ḫišḫiya-⁽ⁱ⁾) is based on the exclusion of the -i-^(ti) class on account of the preservation of -iya- in Cuneiform Luwian, and that of the -a-^(ti) class by its incompatibility due to the lack of -a- in HLuw. /hishimina/. Moreover, it is supported by its Hittite cognate išḫāi-/i(ya)-^(ḫi), which belongs to the corresponding verb class in Hittite.

[E.R.]

1. ḫišḫiš-

For the derivational base, see PAnat. *sh₂óh₁-/sh₂h₁-´.