/pašiḫā(i)-^(di) (pāšiḫa-^(ti))

The attestations of the verb are widely strewn across the genres (rituals, letters, medical texts, and prayers). Although not all texts are of NH age, all manuscripts feature NS.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, except for KUB 33.93 iii 22. – On the reading at KUB 14.3 ii 24 without -d[a], see Hoffner 2009a:306 and Sasseville 2021a:90, but also CHD P:205 and Heinhold-Krahmer et al. 2020a:47f. n. 122 with references for a reading that includes the sign. The width of the space does not permit a decision. In view of the argument of morphological coherence adduced by Sasseville 2021a:90, pašiḫait has more to recommend itself. – Although there can hardly be any doubt about the assignment of pa-a-⸢ši⸣-ḫa-aḫ-ḫa at KUB 40.1 rev.^! 9 to the present lemma (gloss wedges, object inim-an ‘word’), it is noteworthy that the spelling features two peculiarities in that it shows an exceptional plene writing of the first syllable as well as geminate -ḫḫa in the ending. Both are unexpected and one may wonder whether they represent scribal errors (see Sasseville 2021a:90). – The reading ⸢pa^!-ši-ḫ⸣a^!-iš-ki-iz-zi at VBoT 120 ii 6 cited in CHD P:205 is clearly wrong, because the signs a-ar-iš-ke-ez-zi are easily recognizable (see already Haas & Wegner 1988a:133). The missing -ri- of ārriške/a- is omitted by haplography due to the identical sign sequence in the final part of AR and in RI.

[E.R.]

Based on KUB 33.93 iii 21f. with a simile of treading on ants, contexts of treatments with a medical cream, as well as the obvious connection with Hitt. peš(š)- ‘to rub’, it is commonly agreed that pašiḫā(i)- means ‘to rub, squeeze, crush’. Also, the interpretation of the puzzling idiom =za=kan gaba-(š)i pašiḫā(i)- lit. ‘to rub one’s chest’ in the sense of ‘to betray, double-cross, disregard (a word or command)’ is generally accepted (see CHD P:205, HED P:519f., HEG P:185f., EDHIL:650, and most recently Heinhold-Krahmer et al. 2020a:167f., all with references).

[E.R.]

The clear examples with Hittite endings show a consistent stem final suffix -ā(i)-. However, the forms with Luwian endings offer evidence for both denominative pašiḫā(i)-^(di) and factitive pāšiḫa-^(ti), within two lines of the same text, the draft of the so-called Tawagalawa letter. Therefore, it is likely that the latter is an erroneous spelling (see under Graphic Features). While several etymological attempts start with complicated analyses assuming suffixes such as -ḫa- (Kronasser 1966a:481) or -iḫ- (Sasseville 2021a:90f.), the immediate solution would be a base noun *pašiḫa- derived from a root pašiḫ-, from zero grade *psḫ- by anaptyxis (similar HED P:185f., implicitly Starke 1990a:484; undecided EDHIL:650Outdated is the compound hypothesis by Čop 1966-1968a:48.); cf. under Reconstruction.

[E.R.]

The use of the gloss wedges and the attestations with Luwian endings point to a Luwian origin of at least these forms (DLL:80, Starke 1990a:484, CLL:172, Melchert 2005a:451, van den Hout 2006a:241, CHD P:205, HEG P:519-520, EDHIL:650, HED P:185f., Sasseville 2021a:90). The stem pašiḫā(i)-^(mi) may either be borrowed and adapted to Hittite or represent the exact genetic match of Luwian pašiḫā(i)-^(di).

[E.R.]