tiššatwa-

The texts from Kuwattalla tradition contain one possible attestation of the word, thus restored for syntactic reasons.

[E.R.]

erg. sg. c. (?)

ti-iš-ša-a[t-wa-an-ti-iš(?)]

KBo 29.22 l. col. 4’

(CTH 760, NS)

The restoration of ti-iš-ša-a[t-wa-an-ti-iš^(?)] at KBo 29.22 l. col. 4’ follows Melchert apud Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a:186f. The ergative form is demanded by the subject function of tiššatwa- in a transitive clause.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

See under tiššatwa- in Hittite transmission below. As Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a:186f. point out, the word denotes a substitute used to decontaminate the ritual patron.

[E.R.]

See under tiššatwa- in Hittite transmission below.

[E.R.]

Except for one attestation found in an oracle report, all other attestations are exclusive to the Maštigga ritual (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. pl.	ti-iš-ša-at-⸢wa⸣	KBo 39.8 i 45	(CTH 404, MS)
	ti-iš-ša-at-wa	KBo 39.8 i 47	(CTH 404, MS)
	ti-iš-ša-at-wa	KUB 12.34 i 6, 9	(CTH 404, NS)
	t[i-iš-ša-at-wa]	KBo 43.7 i 6	(CTH 404, MS)
	ti-iš-ša-at-wa	VSNF 12.59 obv. 6	(CTH 404, NS)
	ti-iš-ša-du-wa	KBo 9.106 ii 6	(CTH 404, NS)
	ti-iš-ša-du	KUB 50.84 ii 8’	(CTH 578, NS)

For the reduction of word-final -wa > -u, Melchert (DCL:s.v.) adduces HLuw. /-iya/ > /-i/ in nom./acc. pl. /halliya/.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Miller’s (Miller 2004a:67) translates the passage from the Maštigga ritual with the attestation of tiššatwa as follows: “Then she takes white wool (and) black wool, she wraps tallow therein, she calls it tiššatwa, and she holds it over the two ritual patrons. And she speaks thus: ‘That which you two spoke to each other with mouth (and) tongue, now (it is) hereby tiššatwa; let the tongues of those days be removed from your persons!’ And she throws it into the hearth.” Early scholarship concluded that the term tiššatwa refers to the tongue replicated by the wool and tallow, hence the translation ‘tongue’ in Götze apud Sturtevant 1936b:160, Götze 1938a:100 n. 9, HW:225, HHw:177, also considered in Ünal 2007a:719 and HEG T:381 (with further references). Others are more cautious, refraining from any semantic interpretation, thus DLL:97, Rost 1953a:350, Kammenhuber 1965a:201 n. 9, Miller 2004a:67, Mouton 2016d. Only recently, Melchert (DCL:s.v., following a pers. comm. by Calvert Watkins) started from a basic meaning ‘made/shaped thing’ and glossed the word as ‘fabrication; lie’, which also fits the context of KUB 50.84 ii 8, in which the majesty seems to be deceived by a false message and to have taken the wrong action (see also the context in Luwian transmission). Apparently, the translation is also informed by the assumed connection with tiššā(i)-^(mi) ‘to shape, prepare’ and the semantic parallel of Lat. fictum ‘shaped, invented’. Less abstract is the new interpretation by Ivanov 2024a:208, who uses the term tiššatwa-tool.

[E.R.]

Following Watkins (pers. comm.), Melchert (DCL:s.v.) analyzes the nominal plurale tantum as a formation in -twa- deriving the verb tiššā(i)-^(mi) ‘to shape, prepare’, superseding the unlikely interpretation as a (secondary) neuter u-stem by DLL:97, Weitenberg 1984a:50f., HEG T:380f., HHw:177, Ünal 2007a:719.

[E.R.]

Already Laroche (DLL:97) classified the word as Luwian, albeit tentatively, whereas Kammenhuber 1965a:201 n. 9 is more confident on account of the formula n=at=za X ḫalzai-/i(ya)-^(ḫi) ‘to call it an X’. Since this expression is not restricted to Luwian glosses, the assignment is called into question by Weitenberg 1984a:50f. and HEG T:380f. Today, the assumption of a Luwian origin of tiššatwa- can be based on that of the underlying verbal stem tiššā(i)-^(mi) ‘to shape, prepare’ (Melchert 2005a:449, DCL:s.v.) and the occurrence in Cuneiform Luwian context (see above).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. *tišš-.