padūkilātta[(-)

Hapax in a MS Luwian ritual.

[Zs.S.]

unknown

pa-du-ú-ki-la-a-at-ta[

KUB 35.49 iv 5’

(CTH 761, MS)

Attestation following CLL:174 (checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz), who suggests a dat.-loc. sg. based on tarpatarpatta in KUB 35.49 iv 7’ (but see Tischler 2008a:143 [“unklare Wortform”], Tischler 2016a:270 [“forme sans analyse”]). However, formally speaking this is not the only possibility (a nom.-acc. pl. n. is equally possible) and note that the tablet is broken off immediately after the last sign and thus it is not assured that this spelling represents the full word. Moreover, since it stands in a list of spells consisting of middle imperatives to render the evil ineffectual (paḫḫittaru, [ta]ruwīttaru, p., šašlattaru), one may entertain the possibility that pa-du-ú-ki-la-a-at-ta[ is in fact pa-du-ú-ki-la-a-at-ta[-ru] (3rd sg. pres. impv. midd.) from a (denominative) verb *padūkilā-.

For the sake of comprehensiveness one must mention the proposal of Laroche 1957-1958a:164 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:81), who sees a sentence initial particle chain in this word as pa=du=ukila=tta (since it is preceded by a verb, presumably the last element of the previous sentence), i.e. sentence connective + enclitic pronoun 3rd sg. dat. + emphatic personal pronoun 1st sg. + locative particle. The obvious problem is that a non-clitic personal pronoun (especially an emphatic one) cannot appear within the sentence initial particle chain (note that a segmenting pa=du ukila=tta is not possible based on the photograph), not to mention that ukila is a Hittite, not a Luwian form (and that the nominative form upon which ukila is based was substituted by the accusative form in all attested variants of Luwian).

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of this word is held to be unknown (CLL:174 [without referring to the above mentioned proposal of Laroche]; Tischler 2008a:143, Tischler 2016a:270; not included in Ünal 2016a; Reichardt 1998a:142 skipped this word in her transcription and translation of the passage). The context is too fragmentary and currently hardly understood and thus it cannot provide any clue, beyond the possibility mentioned under Form that we are dealing with a verb. In this case it should mean something that can make the evil hand, eye and tongue ineffectual.

[Zs.S.]