tiššalla/i-

The sole attestation of the noun occurs in an oracle report.

[E.R.]

acc. sg.

⸢DUG⸣ti-iš-ša-al-li-in

KUB 5.9 i 4

(CTH 579, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The reading of the first sign has been under discussion for a long time. Its remnants are interpreted as an erasure followed by gloss wedges in DLL:97, HW:333, Del Monte 1975a:339f., DCL:s.v., but the former is an additional and unnecessary assumption and the two final Winkelhaken have a position different from that in the gloss wedges of the following line. Differently, Hoffmann 1985a:206f. (accepted in HHw:177, HEG T:392) suggests ti-, which is likewise impossible and for the same reason. While Ünal 2007a:718 considers both GU₄ and DUG as determinatives, Güterbock apud Hoffner 1994a:226 and CHD Š:48 opt for the latter alternative, now confirmed by the connection with ^DUGteššummi- ‘unbaked cup’ and the context (see under Meaning).

[E.R.]

The translations offered differ depending on the reading and contextual interpretation (for a research history and evaluation of the proposals, see Hoffmann 1985a:206f., but her own suggestion, titišalli- ‘suckling’, can be excluded for graphemic reasons; outdated is also HW:333 ‘zeugungsfähig(??)’). The context of the oracle inquiry checking the possible miasma runs as follows: ⁽³⁾nu lú^MEŠ é.gal pu-nu-uš-šu-u-en um-ma-šu-nu-ma ⁽⁴⁾⸢^DUG⸣ti-iš-ša-al-li-in-wa ša mu 3^KAM ša-ak-nu-wa-an-da-an ⁽⁵⁾⸢igi⸣-u-en nu-wa-kán ga an-da ti-ša-in-ta “We asked the people of the palace. (They answered) as follows: ‘We saw a ^DUGtiššalli- vessel of three years (and) defiled, and they prepared the milk inside.’” The reading ⸢^DUG⸣ti-iš-ša-al-li-in combined with the new reading ga in subsequent line permits a coherent and meaningful translation.

As an alternative, also Melchert’s (DCL:s.v.) interpretation should also be reported here, yielding the following translation: “We saw a tiššalli- equipment (for making a pot) of three years (and) defiled, and they prepared the pot (dug) inside.”

[E.R.]

Following Melchert (DCL:s.v.), the lexeme represents a denominal derivative in -alla/i- (adapted as an i-stem in Hittite). It is probably built from the a-stem base *tišša-, also underlying the verb tiššā(i)- in Hittite transmission.

[E.R.]

Although both the indication of the alleged gloss wedges and the etymological connection with titišalli- are now obsolete, the verbal stem and the word-final suffix -alli- (adapted from Luwian -alla/i-) betray the Luwian origin of the word, for which see DLL:97, van Brock 1962a:113, CLL:227, Melchert 2005a:452, van den Hout 2006a:245, DCL:s.v.

[E.R.]

The word in question appears in a NS oracle text.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The first sign on the left edge of the tablet is partly broken off. However, enough is left to exclude various readings that have been proposed. First, Friedrich 1934a:366 (followed in Riemschneider 1962a:119) thought of gu₄ and translated “ein ...-es unreines Rind(?)”. In a second attempt, he misinterpreted the final wedges of the DUG sign as gloss-wedges (HW:333, likewise van den Hout 2006a:245, EDHIL:876), ignoring not only the inscribed broken vertical of DUG, but also the space originally present left of the wedges. A third proposal came from Hoffmann 1985a(followed in HEG T:392, HHw:178, Ünal 2007a:718), who excluded gu₄ and the gloss-wedges and read ti- instead, i.e. titiššalli-. This, however, is also incompatible with the remains of the sign, because the wedges are arranged vertically, and †titiššalli- is thus rendered a ghost word and its assumed base *titišša- (Hoffmann 1985a, HEG T:392) without foundation.

The best solution appears to be DUG, since it agrees with both the sign form and the following context (see under Meaning).

[E.R.]

In the context immediately following tiššalli-, it is said that nu-wa-kán DUG an-da ti-ša-in-ta “they tišai-ed in a vessel” (ibid. i 5). The verb certainly belongs to tišša(i)- (DLL:97) and is a possible cognate of tiššalli- (i 4), probably also of teššummi- ‘cup’. This confirms Laroche’s (DLL:97) early assumption that tiššalli- is the name of a recipient (see under Graphic Features). His suggestion is followed in CLL:227 and modified in van Brock 1962a:113 (‘sieve’); undecided Güterbock 1946a:59.

[E.R.]

Ending in -allin, the stem belongs to the class of i-mutated stems in -alla/i-. Its base is most likely nominal: perhaps a common gender -a- abstract noun derived from a -šša-⁽ⁱ⁾ verb?

[E.R.]

Since DLL:97, the word is regarded as Luwian. However, the linguistic assignment relies often on etymological considerations depending on the erroneous readings reported under Graphic Features (with references). Nevertheless, the connection with Luw. tiššā(i)- in the immediate context and the use of the -alla/i- suffix with i-mutation point into the same direction (cf. also DLL:97, CLL:227, Melchert 2005a:452).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. *tišš-.