patalḫāi-

The forms with gloss wedges are known from a Hittite ritual in LNS, alleged forms without gloss wedges are known from an OS Hittite ritual fragment, but their existence is very doubtful, see under Forms.

[Zs.S.]

infinitive

pa-tal-ḫa-ú-na

KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 24

(CTH 520, LNS)

Participle:

acc. sg. c.

pa!-tal-ḫa-an?-da?-an

KUB 44.4+KBo 13.241 rev. 32

(CTH 520, LNS)

Attestations following CHD P:239 (cf. also CLL:174; contra CHD, pa-tal-ḫi-ya-ma-‹an^?› does not belong to this specific paradigm, see s.v.), checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz.

Neu 1980b:235 (cf. Neu 1983a:143) suggested restoring ]-tal-ḫa-e-mi and ]-˹tal˺-ḫa-e-mi in KBo 25.150, 4’ and 5’ (resp., CTH 470, OS) as [pa]-tal-ḫa-e-mi and [pa]-˹tal˺-ḫa-e-mi, but without any reasoning. Although followed by many scholars (CHD P:239; Starke 1990a:251; Ünal 2007a:533, Ünal 2016a:409; EDHIL:658; HED Pa:201f.; Bachvarova 2013a:148; implicitly Zorman 2016a:589; cautiously HEG L-S:537 [“möglicherweise”]), these restorations are more than dubious and thus not accepted here, since the probable meaning of this verb, ‘to fetter’ (cf. under Meaning) does not fit the preserved tiny parts of the fragment, which mention different bread and pastry types.

The suggestion of Laroche 1957c:127 to read “NA₄ [?] : [p]a-tal-ḫa-a-an-du (and not “NA₄.[ḪI].˹A˺ :pa-tal-ḫa-a-an-du”, contra CHD P:240) instead of ^ZÁx^? : x-ri ḫa-a-an-du (von Schuler 1957a:43) in KUB 31.86 ii 12 was followed by some scholars (Goetze 1959a:69 [“certainly correct”]; Starke 1990a:251f.; Beal 1992a:242 n. 920), but was classified as “ganz unsicher” by Kronasser 1966a:481 and rejected by Košak 1993a:110, who reads “NA₄ (Rasur) tal-ḫa-a-an-du” based on a photo of the tablet. Košak’s reading was followed by CHD P:240 (implicitly); HEG L-S:538; Pecchioli Daddi 2003a:110 with n. 276, and Miller 2013a:222 (“*NA₄ {x x} tal*-ḫa-a-an-du”), 377 n. 362 (“surely correct”), but led only to a question mark appended to the word in HED Pa:202. Goedegebuure 2012b:278 n. 18 provides a compromise reading “NA₄ erasure? : p[a]talhāndu”, without further discussions or references (similarly, but without erasure, gloss wedges, and any discussion Boysan-Dietrich 1987a:38 [“NA₄-[it^??] pa-tal-ḫa-a-an-du”] and Haas & Wegner 1993a:56: “NA₄-[it(?)] pa-tal-ḫa-a-an-du”]. Based on the photo of the Konkordanz, Košak’s interpretation is basically correct, although gloss wedges are still present in the erasure, thus the correct reading is “NA₄ {x} {x} tal-ḫa-a-an-du”.

[Zs.S.]

There is an unnecessary additional vertical wedge in pa, which led to the frequent transliteration as pa^!-tal-ḫa-an-da-an (Beckman 1983a:178, 291; Starke 1985b:236, Starke 1990a:250; CHD P:239; HEG L-S:538; EDHIL:658; Bachvarova 2013a:138).

[Zs.S.]

The meaning is generally assumed to be ‘to fetter’ (Beckman 1983a:179, 195, 291; Polvani 1988a:143; Starke 1990a:250; CLL:174; Reichardt 1998a:27, 56; Haas 2003a:209; Giorgieri 2004a:410; Ünal 2007a:533, Ünal 2016a:409 [with question mark, adding also ‘chain up, tie, hobble’]; Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:269 [partly with question mark, cf. also below]; EDHIL:658 [with question mark]; Yakubovich 2010d:403; Bachvarova 2013a:140; CHD P:239 [with question mark]; similarly HED Pa:201 [‘shackle, hobble, trammel, incapacitate’]), the only exception are Laroche 1957c:127 (“chausser, cheviller”, with question mark); Friedrich 1961b:20 (‘anpflocken’, with question mark); Neu 1983a:143 (‘fesseln, anpflocken’ with question mark, similarly HEG L-S:537 [but also as of unknown meaning]), and Zorman 2016a:589 (unknown meaning). For a critical discussion see s.v. patalḫiyama/i-.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that patalḫauna is a Luwian word (CHD P:239; Beckman 1983a:180, 291; CLL:174; van den Hout 2007a:251; HEG L-S:537, Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:269; Ünal 2007a:533, Ünal 2016a:409, 967; EDHIL:658; Yakubovich 2010d:403f.; HED Pa:202 [“Luwoid”]; Bachvarova 2013a:151; although not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a), which is undoubtedly correct due to the presence of the Luwian infinitive ending.

More complicated is the case of patalḫandan, since the presence of gloss wedges does not necessarily mean Luwian origin (Melchert 2005a:445, cf. already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78) and the word shows a Hittite participle ending, thus, theoretically, it could reflect a Hittite verb *patalḫāi- ‘to fetter’, too (it is classified as a Luwian participle in Beckman 1983a:291, although “participles” in -ant- are supposed to be only lexicalised forms in Luwian [see most recently Giusfredi 2017a:100–103, with refs.], unlike here, where it is a clearly productive suffix). Nevertheless, considering that the only other assured form of this verb, patalḫauna, is Luwian (note that the alleged Old Hittite forms are dubious reconstructions only, as per above) and the only other assuredly related verb, patalḫiya-, is also Luwian (see s.v. patalḫiyama/i-) – and thus their common nominal base is probably also Luwian, see the discussion s.v. ^(GIŠ)patalḫa- – it is more probable that we are dealing here with a fully integrated loanword from Luwian (see already Starke 1990a:251; “Hittitized” form according to CLL:174; there is no reason to assume a taboo word, contra Zorman 2016a:589).

[Zs.S.]