elelḫā-⁽ⁱ⁾ (ililḫā-)

All attestations are found in ritual texts from the Kuwattalla tradition (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

3sg. pres. act.	[i-li-i]l-⸢ḫa-i⸣	KUB 32.9 obv. 16’	(CTH 761, MS)
	i-li-⸢il⸣-ḫa-a-i	KUB 32.9 rev. 7’	(CTH 761, MS)
	[e-l]e-el-ḫa-a-i	KUB 35.62, 2’	(CTH 763, NS)
3pl. impv. act.	e-le-el-ḫa-an-du	KUB 9.6 ii 4	(CTH 759, LNS)
	e-le-el-ḫa-a-an-du	KUB 9.6 ii 10	(CTH 759, LNS)
	e-le-⸢el⸣-ḫa-a-an-du	KUB 35.39 ii 26	(CTH 759, LNS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Occurring with ēlḫā(i)-^(di) in the diagnostic contexts of KUB 35.39 + KUB 9.6 ii 10f. and ii 14f., the verbs were treated together and interpreted as ‘to wash (off)’ together (see under lemma for references). Naturally, also the reduplicative character of elelḫa-⁽ⁱ⁾ and the relationship to ēlḫā(i)-^(di) was immediately recognized (thus already Otten 1953a:83 n. 107). More recently, the difference between the two regarding the lexical aspect was discussed. Dempsey 2015a:218f. suspected that the reduplicated verb had a distributive meaning, but only Sasseville 2021a:344f. was able to prove it by noticing that, in KUB 9.6 ii 14f., the two-part subject of the simplex ēlḫādu, tappašantiš tiyammantiš ‘heaven (and) earth’, are read as a single entity, as shown by the singular reflexive pronoun -ti. Therefore, nothing stands in the way of assuming the suggested distinction between the simplex and reduplicated stems.

[E.R.]

On the reduplication, see under Meaning. The 3sg. pres. act. in -āi is diagnostic for a ḫi-verb in -a-⁽ⁱ⁾ (Starke 1980a:146f., Sasseville 2021a:344f.; outdated Oettinger 1979a:564).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. lūwa-⁽ⁱ⁾.