parattašatta-

The word appears only once and with gloss marker in a NS oracle.

[A.B.]

acc. sg. c. or nom/acc. sg./pl. n

˹˺pa-ra-at-ta-ša-at-ta[-]x

KBo 24.126 obv. 29

(CTH 577, NS)

The attestation follows CHD P:141f., HEG L–S:449, Ünal 2007a:515, Ünal 2016a:396, EDHIL:629, van den Hout 2006a:577 (not in CLL or Laroche 1959a). The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

Since the end of the word is fragmentary (cf. under Graphic Features), the form remains unclear. The context requires a direct object (cf. under Meaning). Starke 1987a:253 restores the end of the word as [-an-z]a and translating ‘Verwünschungen’ (cf. under Meaning) assuming a Luwian acc. pl. c. (the ending [-nts] would be the Kizzuwatnean form of this ending). If this restoration is correct, it could also be a nom.-acc. sg. n. with the Luwian particle (-ša-/-za-). A nom.-acc. sg. n. is cautiously assumed by Melchert (pers. comm.), who, considers the restoration of CHD P:141 likely that restores the end of the word as -[a]n (cf. similarly HEG L–S:449 restoring -˹a˺n). This ending could be either an acc. sg. c. or a nom.-acc. sg. n. Melchert (pers. comm.) refers to the apparent lack of the particle (-ša-/-za-) as “mildly surprising”, but since the word appears in Hittite context, this Luwian particle is not obligatory. The interpretation of the form remains uncertain but it functions as a direct object.

[A.B.]

The end of the word is unclear and not clearly visible on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, the hand copy shows traces of a vertical after a break which could include one or two signs.

[A.B.]

The meaning of this word is usually assumed to be a negative quality, some kind of (cultic) impurity: CHD P:141 “a bad quality” (cf. Ünal 2007a:515, Ünal 2016a:396, EDHIL:629); HEG L–S:449 “etwas Übles, ‘Verfehlung, Unreinheit’ (?)” (cf. Tischler 2008a:136, Tischler 2016a:258); more precisely Starke 1987a:253 “Verwünschung” or van den Hout 1995a:120 “Fluch”. Melchert (pers. comm.) cautiously considers an action noun with the meaning ‘act of impurity’ (?).

The assumed semantics of this word are mainly based on the context of KBo 24.126 obv. 28–29 which shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore, the hand copy as well as the transliterations and translations of van den Hout 1995a:120, CHD P:141, HEG L­–S:449, HEG T,D: 471f., and Starke 1987a:251 have been taken account of):

⁽²⁸⁾(…) a[r]-ḫa-ma-aš-ma-aš i-wa-ar ^munus˹du˺-ut-tar-ri-ia-ti-ia-aš ⁽²⁹⁾˹˺pa-ra-at-ta-ša-at-ta[-]x a-ni-ia-an-zi

^{(28– 29 )}(…) they will ritually remove the parattašatta in the manner of the Duttariyatti / (it) like the parattašatta in the manner of the Duttariyatti

The context points to a bad quality that has to be ritually removed. Regarding its morphology, parattašatta- can be connected to Luw. paratta/i- ‘impurity’ and its derivative *paratašša/i- ‘pertaining to impurity’ (cf. under Origin for the morphological details) which is attested as Glossenkeilwort parattašša/i- ‘pertaining to impurity’ (or sim.) in Hittite transmission (cf. under the respective lemma). Hence, a meaning ‘impurity’ (or sim.) is highly likely for this word.

[A.B.]

The word is generally accepted to be of Luwian origin (cf. Starke 1987a:253 n. 38, HEG L–S:449, CHD P:141f., EDHIL:629 and the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a:249). As explained under Forms, a Luwian inflection is not assured due to the fragmentary end of the word. Another reason for the assumed Luwian origin is the gloss marker. Although its use does not constitute proof of a word’s Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445), the majority of words provided with this marker are in fact of Luwian origin. Most importantly, the morphology of parattašatta- points to a Luwian origin, showing the Luwian suffix -t(ta)- (forming substantives from verbs and [substantivized] adjectives from substantives, cf. Melchert 2003b:196). Accordingly, the base of parattašatta- could be either a verb or a noun *parattaša-.

There are two possibilities to analyse *parattaša-. The first option is that we are dealing with a Luwian noun *paratta/i- ‘impurity’ with the nominal suffix -ašša/i- (forming possessive adjectives from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:196; for the outdated assumption that paratašša/i- and parattašatta- [as assumed by Starke 1987a:253 n. 38] belong together with the alleged HLuw. “parata-” [which is actually to be read as marata-], cf. HEG L–S:449), yielding a (lexicalized and substantivized) Luwian adjective *parattašša/i- ‘pertaining to impurity’, which is also attested in Hittite context as the Glossenkeilwort paratašša/i- (cf. under the respective lemma). The problem is that ˹˺pa-ra-at-ta-ša-at-ta[-]x is written with a single -š- while the suffix -ašša/i- usually appears with double -šš-. In theory, this could happen if the scribe left out the sign -aš- as a kind of shorthand (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:12), but this is rather atypical for the suffix -ašša/i-.

The second possibility is the Luwian suffix that indeed shows vacillation between both spellings: the verbal suffix -š(š)a- (cf. Sasseville 2021a:489f. Note, however, that the above mentioned “shorthand” spelling can be excluded in certain cases). This suffix is assumed in parattašatta- by Starke 1987a:253 n. 38 and cautiously by HEG L–S:449. The problem with the suffix -š(š)a- is that it is not a derivational but rather an inflectional suffix used to signal the imperfective aspect of a verb (cf. Melchert 2003b:205). However, it is possible that we are dealing with a lexicalized imperfective form *parattaš(š)a- of a Luwian verb *paratta- ‘to make impure’ (or sim.) that forms the base of further derivatives. The assumed verb *paratta-^(ti) could have been derived from the above mentioned Luwian noun (or adjective) *paratta/i- as a factitive form (cf. Sasseville 2021a:18).

Since the derivation via the imperfective form requires several additional assumptions (i.e., it is less economical) and the Luwian adjective *parattašša/i- is actually attested in the Glossenkeilwort paratašša/i-, the derivation with the nominal suffix -ašša/i- seems more plausible. In any case, the Glossenkeilwort parattašatta- is a Luwian loan or foreign word in Hittite.

[A.B.] [Zs.S.]