*h₂eb-éh₂i̯e/o-

Attested only in the fragments of the festival of Ḫuwaššana (CTH 694) in MS.

[Zs.S.]

3rd sg. pres.	ḫa-pa-a-iz-zi	KBo 23.87 ii? 5’	(CTH 694, MS)
		KBo 23.87 ii? 11’	(CTH 694, MS)
3rd pl. pres.	ḫa-a-pa-a-an-zi	KBo 29.94 i 17’	(CTH 694, MS)

Imperfective:

3rd sg. pres.

ḫa-pí-iš-ki-[iz-zi]

KBo 24.26 ii 13’

(CTH 694, MS)

Attestations following HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:205 checked against the photos of the Konkordanz. 3rd pl. pres. ḫa-a-pa-a-an-zi is a secondary contraction from *ḫāpāianzi (for a similar contraction see e.g. pa-a-an-zi ‘they go’ <*paianzi, EDHIL:616).

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

There is no agreement regarding the meaning of the word. Although it is usually translated as ‘to wet, to moisten vel sim.’ (Friedrich 1966b:13: ‘benetzen’ (with question mark); HEG A-K:160: ‘benetzen’, Tischler 2008a:44 [“umstritten”]: ‘bewässern, befeuchten, besudeln, beflecken?’ [‘trocknen’ with arḫa], Tischler 2016a:68; Starke 1990a:514: ‘benetzen, befeuchten’; HED H:115 (with question mark); CLL:54: ‘make wet’; Oettinger 2003a: ‘benetzen [‘trocknen’ with arḫa]; EDHIL:294), some other scholars prefer the meaning ‘sich waschen’ (Carruba 1966a:8 n. 2 [with question mark]; Lombardi 1999a: 244; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:205 [‘sich abwischen’ with arḫa]); Ünal 2007a:166, Ünal 2016a:154 [includes it only with the preverb, adding also the meaning ‘to dry’]).

The passage in KBo 23.87 ii^? 10-11’ (similarly 4’-5’, but less preserved) is unfortunately ambiguous (transliteration and restoration follow Lombardi 1999a:244 [similarly HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:205 (suggesting, however, parā epzi) and Trémouille 2002a:357f. (suggesting, however, parā dāi)]):

(10’) nu namma ^LÚŠÀ.TAM MÊ QATI ANA MUNUS.LUGAL par[ā pāi] (11’) nu=za MUNUS.LUGAL ḫapāizzi DINGIR^LIM=ya šuppi[yaḫḫi]

‘The chamberlain again [hands over] the hand(washing) water to the queen. (5) The queen ḫ.-s and clean[s?] the god.’

It is ambiguous, because both suggested meanings are possible (and the reflexive pronoun =za fits both of them): In the first case, the chamberlain gives water and the queen washes her hands in order to clean the god appropriately. But it is also possible that the queen makes her hands wet in order to clean the god. Based on Starke 1990a:514 n. 1896 Oettinger 2003a:307f. (not quoting the authors suggesting ‘sich waschen’) translates the last clause differently: according to him, šuppi is the entire word and the sentence means, accordingly, “Sie [räuchert?] für die Gottheit reines […]”. However, in this case it has no sense if the queen only makes her hands wet (as he assumes), but only if she indeed washes her hands.

More helpful is the passage in KBo 29.94 (transcription and restoration follow HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:205):

(16) (…) n=ašta š[an]ḫanzi watar papparššanzi (17) namma=z Q[ATE^M]^EŠ-ŠUNU ú-te-e-iz-zi (corrupted for ú-e^!-te^!-ni^!-it^!! ?) arḫa ḫāpānzi

‘They clean (it) out and sprinkle water. (17) After that they a. ḫ. utēzzi.’

HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:205 (cf. also Oettinger 2003a:310) rightly points out that the verb cannot mean here ‘to wet, to moisten’, since the hand of the protagonists is already wet. Instead, a meaning ‘sich abwischen’ was suggested (cf. the preverb) as well as an emendation of ú-te-e-iz-zi into ú-e^!-te^!-ni^!-it^!! (with question mark) ‘with water’. However, as Oettinger 2003a:310 called attention to it, the context provides no reason for dirty hands that should be cleaned and in the next steps different pastries are brought, whose touch by wet hands is not welcome. Thus he proposes a meaning ‘trocknen’ and takes utēzzi at face value suggesting a meaning ‘wetness’, i.e. ‘they dry their hands from wetness’. This is a both semantically and philologically fitting proposal, especially since it does not require any emendation of the text on the one hand, and on the other hand, the phenomenon that preverbs can reverse the meaning of the verb is cross-linguistically well-known, see e.g. wässern → entwässern ~ ḫāpāi- → arḫa ḫāpāi-. This argues furthermore that the meaning of ḫāpāi- was rather ‘to wet, to moisten’ (the third passage is too fragmentary to be helpful).

CLL:54 reconstructs a meaning ‘irrigate, water’ for the original Luwian verb, which is although semantically possible, the sheer existence of the Luwian verb and the Luwian origin of this verb is more than doubtful, see under Origin.

[Zs.S.]

Although this verb is generally held to be Hittite (HEG A-K:160; HED H:115; HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:205f.; Ünal 2007a:166, Ünal 2016a:154; EDHIL:294), Starke 1990a:514 assumes that this verb is a loan from Luwian. This was followed by CLL:54 and Tischler 2008a:44 (but not anymore in Tischler 2016a:68), though not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for the assumption of the Luwian origin and there has not been provided any.

[Zs.S.]

Attested in two Hittite rituals preserved in Akkadian from Emar.

[Zs.S.]

Akkadographic spelling:

ḫa-ba-i-im-mi	Emar 472 (Msk 74176), 52’	(Arnaud 1986a:460)
	Emar 473 (Msk 74102e), 4’	(Arnaud 1986a:466)

The attestations follow Lebrun 1988a:148f. checked against the hand copies (photographs are not available; ḫa-ba-i-im-mi of Msk 74176, 52’ appears in the hand copy in line 51’).

Arnaud 1986a:466 (followed by Lebrun 1988a:148; Haas 1994a:570, and Archi 2001a:21) reads ḫa-ba-ḫé-em-mi in Msk 74102e, 4’, which stands in contrast with ḫa-ba-i-im-mi of Msk 74176, 52’. This was explained by Lebrun 1988a:154 n. 8 as “provincialism”, i.e. an “altération phonétique” due to the scribe who was less or not at all familiar with Hittite or Luwian. Nevertheless, as these rituals are translations from Hittite (Prechel 2008b:243f. with refs.), a more precise scenario can be given: a scribe, unfamiliar or not fully familiar with Hittite and/or Luwian, could have misread the term in another text or in the Hittite Vorlage, the difference between ḫé and i is indeed only a horizontal. Thus, formally speaking, a ḫa-ba-ḫé-em-mi could have been easily misread as ḫa-ba-i-im-mi (one horizontal less) or on the way round. Latter option is supported by the fact that ḫa-ba-i-im-mi was the original form (see under Origin), but since its reading as ḫa-ba-ḫé-em-mi requires one additional horizontal, the scribe might have been inspired by Hurrian ḫawaḫi ‘?’, which is a term in the cult of Šauška (Richter 2012a:127 with refs.; no similar Akkadian word is attested; note that even if the stem of this form continues *Hab-aHi̯e/o- [see under Reconstruction], ḫé cannot reflect the laryngeal due to chronological reasons).

The problem is, however, probably a mirage, since the hand copies show in both cases the same sign, an i (Arnaud 1985a:252, Arnaud 1985b:448). Prechel 2008b:244 indeed transcribes the epithet as “ḫapaimmi” in Msk 74102e, 4’, without providing, however, any argument or reference to the problem and the dissenting views.

[Zs.S.]

Lebrun 1988a:149f. rightly claims that this is a participle from Luwian *ḫāpāi- (that might be attested in Hittite, cf. s.v.). Since he attributes a meaning ‘to water, to irrigate’ to this verb, he translates this form as ‘arrosant, irriguant’. There are two problems with this suggestion. First, the meaning of the verb is probably ‘to wet, to moisten’ (see the discussion s.v.). Second, this participle was used in both passages as the epithet of the Weather God and a ‘watering’ or ‘irrigating’ (not to mention a ‘moistening’) Weather God does not make much sense (the same applies to the “watered” Weather God of Archi 2014a:154). Therefore, the meaning of this form must be figurative, in accordance with the characteristics of a Weather God and thus a meaning ‘the one who pours the rain’ is proposed here.

[Zs.S.]

Lebrun 1988a:149f. rightly explains it as a participle from the Luwian verb *ḫāpāi- (that might be attested in Hittite, cf. s.v.) demonstrated by its Luwian suffix (“vielleicht” according to Haas 1994a:570 n. 213 [but anyway Luwian] and Prechel 2008b:248, it is Luwian also according to Archi 2001a:21, Archi 2014a:154; the refusal of Laroche 1988a:115 was based on the obsolete reading ḫa-ba-ḫé-em-mi). Note also that both rituals are parallels to the ritual ME 110, in which is clearly stated that it is a ritual of the gods of Hatti (1f., Arnaud 1986a:455) confirmed by the presence of Luwo-Hurrian gods in these rituals (Lebrun 1988a; Laroche 1988a; Haas 1994a:569f.; Prechel 2008b).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 31 July 2020

This lexeme is only attested once in Lycian A in the Letoon trilingual inscription (337 BCE).

[D.S.]

3pl. pres. ind. act.

xbaitẽ

N 320.14 (Xanthos)

The action of the Lycian verb xba(i)-^(di) is performed on a land parcel prior to the installation of a new cult. The semantic identification goes back to Laroche 1979c: in the trilingual inscription, it is rendered with Gk. κατεργάζομαι, which has the semantics of ‘to bring under cultivation, to cultivate’. The meaning ‘to irrigate’ is adopted by Melchert (DLL:82) and Neumann 2007a:117.

[D.S.]