paratt(a)-

In Luwian context, all attestations appear in the Puriyanni ritual (from MS onward).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The word occurs in a list of evils, viz. the evil word, defilement, and paratt(a)-, and denotes another bad quality. The meaning ‘impurity’ adopted here was first suggested by Laroche (in DLL:78). Formally, it is attractive to view Hitt. *papra- in paprant- ‘impure’ and paprātar ‘impurity, defilement’ as derived from the reduplicated stem of *para-, which also served as the basis for CLuw. paratt(a)- (Melchert 1984a:33 n.68, CLL:167, HEG P:449, EDHIL:629). Contextually, the beginning of the Hittite Puriyanni ritual is relevant: “When a person has some papratar in his house, I sacrifice as follows to the Storm-god of the Steppe, (to) him of paratta- (^Dparattaššin)” (KUB 7.14 obv. 2-3, see CHD P:142), because it further supports the relationship between the Hittite and the Luwian lexeme (Melchert 1987a:36). Therefore, the translation ‘impurity’ is superior to ‘misconduct’ (thus HHw:s.v., HEG P:449). It is accepted in HW:426, Melchert 1984a:33 n. 68, CLL:167, HEG P:449, EDHIL:629; no meaning is offered in Rosenkranz 1952a:23, Otten 1953a:98, Ünal 2007a:515, HED P:106.Wholly outdated Laroche 1975a:342 and Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:32f., followed in Starke 1987a:253, Marazzi 1990a:103; cf. Melchert 1988a:36 and Melchert 2003c:146 with n. 4.

[E.R.]

The nom./acc. sg. form in -anza proves that we are dealing with a neuter stem in -a-, as generally posited (for references, see under Meaning); more specifically, a stem in -tt(a)- (for the type, see Starke 1990a:585).

[E.R.]

The word appears once with gloss marker in a NS land register (CTH 239) and furthermore as theonym in the NS ritual of Puriyanni against impurity of the house (CTH 758), probably also fragmentarily in a god list of a MS festival text for Ḫuwaššanna (CTH 694).

[A.B.]

nom. sg. c.	pa-ra-at-ta-aš-ši-iš	KUB 8.75 rev. iii 6	(CTH 239, NS)
	pa-˹ra-at˺-t[a-aš?-ši?-i]š?	KBo 29.33 r. col. 6’+	(CTH 694, MS)
		KBo 20.72 rev. iii 4’
acc. sg. c.	Dpa-ra-at-ta-aš-ši-in	KUB 7.14 obv. i 3	(CTH 758, NS)

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:78, CLL:167, CHD P:142, HEG L–S:449f., (cf. EDHIL:629, Ünal 2007a:515, Ünal 2016a:396 and van den Hout 2006a:239). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.Note that dictionaries book these forms under different lemmata, since from a formal perspective, they belong to the genitival adjective of Luw. paratt(a)- ‘impurity’ (cf. Laroche 1959a:78, CLL:167, HEG L–S:449f., EDHIL:629, Tischler 2008a:136, Tischler 2016a:258, Ünal 2007a:515, Ünal 2016a:396 and under the respective lemma), cf. under Meaning and Origin.

[A.B.]

The attestation in KBo 29.33 r. col. 6’+KBo 20.72 rev. iii 4’ is fragmentary. Popko & Taracha 1988a:111 read the form as: pa-ra-˹at-ta˺-x-x pointing out in n. 62 that the expected form would be pa-ra-˹at-ta˺-aš-ši- but the traces in KBo 20.72 iii 4’ do not support this. More confidently, Lombardi 1999a:237 reads: pa-ra-at-t[a-aš-š]i-[i]š. While the hand copy of KBo 20.72 rev. iii 4’ supports the reading of a fragmentary IŠ-sign, this is only hardly recognizable on the available photos. And also the assumed fragmentary sign ŠI is not visible on the photos nor indicated in the hand copy.

It is, however, still probable that the form is to be read and reconstructed as pa-˹ra-at˺-t[a-aš^?-ši^?-i]š^? since this is a known word from another god list involving the Storm-god (cf. under Meaning) and thus it is generally (in part cautiously) accepted (cf. CLL:167, CHD P:142, HEG L–S:449, Ünal 2007a:515, Ünal 2016a:396).

[A.B.]

As noted under Forms, a morphological connection to CLuw. paratt(a)- ‘impurity’ is usually assumed and also morphologically justified (cf. under Origin). HEG L–S:449f. assumes a meaning “für die Unreinheit zuständig, auf die Verfehlung bezüglich” (with question mark), Melchert 2005a:451 ‘polluted’ (or sim.). CHD P:142 does not indicate a specific meaning, only pointing out that it could be a topographical feature. For the outdated assumption of Starke 1987a:253 n. 38 that paratašši- (and parattašatta- cf. under the respective lemma) belong together with an alleged HLuw. “parata-” which is actually to be read as marata-, cf. HEG L–S:449).

The Glossenkeilwort appears in KUB 8.75 rev. iii 6 as an attribute of a field (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore the hand copy as well as transliterations and translations of Souček 1959a:20f., CHD P:142 and HEG L–S:449 have been taken account of):

^(66’)1 a.šà pa-ra-at-ta-aš-ši-iš 4 pa. nu[mun …]

^(66’)1 parattašši field, 4 parīsu-measures se[ed]

In KBo 29.33 r. col. 6’+ KBo 20.72 iii 4’ a fragmentary form of the same word appears in a god list as an attribute of the Storm-god (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore the hand copies as well as transliterations and translations of Popko & Taracha 1988a:111; Lombardi 1999a:237, 240, CHD P:142 and HEG L–S:449 have been taken account of):

^(6’)Dwa-ša-li-ia-an ša ^Dim pa-˹ra-at˺-t[a-aš^?-ši^?-i]š^?

^(6’)the deity Wašaliya, the paratt[assi^?] Storm-god

Another connection to the Storm-god and a field (or steppe?) is attested in the ritual of Puriyanni, in which impurity is to be removed from a house with a ritual including a sacrifice to a parattašši-deity. The context of KUB 7.14 obv. i 3 shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore the hand copy as well as transliterations and translations of Starke 1985b:60, CHD P:142, HEG L–S:449 have been taken account of):

⁽¹⁾(…) ma-a-an-kán un-ši pár-ni ⁽²⁾pa-ap-ra-tar ku-it-ki an-da e-eš-zi nu líl-aš ^d10-an ^(3)dpa-ra-at-ta-aš-ši-in ki-iš-ša-an bal-ḫi

 

^(1–3)(…) When there is some impurity in the house of a human, I sacrifice in the following way to the Storm-god of the field, (and) the parattašši-deity.

This context links the Hittite word for ‘impurity’ papratar- with its alleged Luwian cognate paratta/i- (cf. under this lemma for a discussion of this connection) and further supports the morphologically-based connection of the latter word to its derivatives parattašši- and ^dparattašši- in Hittite transmission via a Luwian adjective *parattašša/i- ‘pertaining to impurity’ (or sim.) that can also be assumed also for the Glossenkeilwort parattašši- and the corresponding name theonym ^dparattašš(i)-.

[A.B.]

The word is generally assumed to be of Luwian origin (cf. Laroche 1959a:78, CLL:167, CHD P:142, HEG L–S:449f., EDHIL:629, HED P:106, Tischler 2008a:136, Tischler 2016a:258, Ünal 2007a:529 and Ünal 2016a:406, 967 and the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a:451 and van den Hout 2006a:239, cautiously already Souček 1959a:390).

The use of the gloss marker could support this assumption (although its use does not constitute proof of a word’s Luwian origin cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445, the vast majority of words provided with this marker are in fact of Luwian origin). But more importantly, as mentioned under Meaning, the source of both, the Glossenkeilwort parattašša/i- and the corresponding theonym ^dparattašš(i)- must be a Luwian adjective *parattašša/i- which is most probably a derivative of Luw. paratta/i- ‘impurity’ with the Luwian nominal suffix -ašša/i- (forming possessive adjectives from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:196). Hence, its Luwian origin is quite certain, and it is a Luwian loan and/or foreign word in Hittite (hence, either a Luwian stem parattašša/i- or a Hittitized i-stem cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:53 parattašši-).

[A.B.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. par-^(ti).