x(-)padumm(a)-

This word appears only in (a LNS and probably also a NS manuscript of) the ritual of Alli of Arzawa.

[A.B.]

abl.	?pa-du-um-ma-az-zi=ia	KUB 24.11 (=KBo 52.26) obv. ii 40’’(=26’)	CTH 402, LNS
	-a]z-zi=ia	KUB 24.10 obv. ii 5’	CTH 402, NS

The attestations follow: Laroche 1959a:81; CHD P:247; CLL:175; HEG L–S:547f.; HED Pa:207f.; EDHIL:653; Ünal 2007a:535; Ünal 2016a:410 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:195; van den Hout 2007a:402, and Zorman 2016a:589).

For different and unlikely readings, cf. under Graphic Features. For the fragmentary attestation in the duplicate (KUB 24.10 obv. ii 5’), cf. Mouton 2013-2016a. The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The form is usually interpreted as Hittite abl. (cf. under Meaning and for the allomorph -azzi- in the ablative before the enclitic conjunction -a/-ya, cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:42).

[A.B.]

Rosenkranz 1950a:195 considered the gloss marker uncertain, and other scholars have wondered why it would mark an obviously Hittite form (see under Origin). The marker is indeed uncertain, it seems to be written over another sign, as seen not only on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, but also in the hand copy.

Rosenkranz 1950a:195 read pa-ad-du-ma-i-zi-ia, but comparing e.g. the I-sign in line 38’’(=24’), the sign between MA and ZI is rather to be read as AZ than I (for this form of the AZ-sign cf. Rüster & Neu 1989a:137).

With regard to the sequence read by Rosenkranz 1950a:195 and CLL:175 as ad-du, later authors correctly agree upon the reading du-um, cf. e.g. the shapes of the signs DU and AT in line 36’’(=22’).

[A.B.]

Laroche 1959a:81 did not indicate any meaning for this word (for a discussion of the outdated meanings ‘breadth’ and ‘frame’, cf. HEG L–S:548). Its meaning is now assumed to be ‘foot(?) (of a bed)’, cf. CHD P:247, HEG L–S:547f., HED Pa:207f.; EDHIL:653; Tischler 2008a:143; Tischler 2016a:271; Ünal 2007a:535; Ünal 2016a:410. The context of obv. ii 39’’ shows (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, additionally the hand copy as well as transliterations and translations of Mouton 2013a:210, 225; Mouton 2013-2016a; CHD P:247, Š:308f.; HEG L–S:547 and HED Pa:207 have been taken into account) :

(39’’)GIŠná-ša-aš-ša-an SÍGe-ša-ra-an ke-et-kar-za (40’’)?pa-du-um-ma-az-zi-ia ḫa-ma-an-ki

(39’’–40’’)On the wooden (parts of the?) bed she binds ešara-wool at the head and at the foot.

Since the Hittite clause shows ketkarza (a local adverb with frozen ablative referring to the location of the head, cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:77), to which ?padummazzi=ya is connected via the enclitic conjunction -a/-ya (cf. under Forms) and with the same case ending, it has been interpreted as an antonym to ketkarza. While ketkarza refers to the head, the opposite would be the foot and Hittite pāta-/patā- ‘foot’ (cf. under the lemma  *pód- or *pód-/pd-´) would fit perfectly as base for a derivative padumm(a)- ‘of the foot’ (cf. CHD P:247f., HED Pa:208, EDHIL:653, HEG L–S:547f.), cf. under Origin. From a morphological perspective, padumm(a)- is expected to mean ‘of the foot’, and hence it could be a noun referring to the ‘foot’-part (of the bed). However, it is used parallel to the adverb ketkar (with a later form ketkarza, cf. HEG A–K:569f. for this word) and could also be a local adverb to indicate the location ‘at the foot’ (similarly CLL:175 ‘at the feet’; cf. Melchert 1983a:10). One could compare the German phrase “zu Häupten” (thus HEG A–K:569f. for ketkarza) and analogically translate ?padummazzi=ya as ‘und zu Füßen’.

The Akkadographic phrase corresponding to the part with ?padummazzi=ya in the duplicates is i-na ra-ap-ši ‘widthwise’. The first part corresponding to ketkarza ‘at the head’ is broken off in the duplicates. The preserved Akkadographic passage seems to be semantically different, instead indicating the extension of the wool threads rather than the locations where they are tied with the bed, as expressed in the exemplar(s) with ketkarza ?padummazzi=ya (cf. CHD P:247, HEG L–S:548, HED Pa:207).

[A.B.]

The form of this word is clearly Hittite but it appears in Laroche 1959a:81 and in the list of Luwianisms by van den Hout 2007a:402 (not in that by Melchert 2005a).

If the word was Luwian, it could contain the Luwian suffix -m(m)a/i- (forms verbal participles and secondarily possessive adjectives from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:197). However, the base for this assumed Luwian word would be *padu- which is unattested.

CHD P:247 doubts the Luwian origin of the word under discussion “despite the Glossenkeil” (cf. HEG L–S:548) because of the plausible Hittite inflection and assumes a Hittite word padumm(a)- (with question mark). As noted under Graphic features, the gloss marker is uncertain here. If it is a gloss marker, it could point to a Luwian origin although it does not necessarily imply it (cf. Schwartz 1938b:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445). HED Pa:208 sees “no obvious reasons for gloss wedges”, assuming a Hittite derivative of the lexeme for ‘foot’ (cf. EDHIL:653, HEG L–S:548, for Hittite pāta-/patā- ‘foot’ and its cognates cf. under the lemma *pód- or *pód-/pd-´) with the appurtenance suffix -uman- deriving locatival adjectives (cf. Melchert 1983a:14 and examples in Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:60; note that according to ibid.:11, 60f. the zero-grade form *-umn- with assimilation to -umm- is used in the oblique stems). This was already suggested by Melchert 1983a:10 (cf. CLL:175), assuming that the word is purely Hittite (rejected by Oettinger 1986b:51, n. 50 without further discussion, but now accepted e.g. in Yakubovich 2010d:101f.). At the moment it seems to be the most plausible solution to regard ?padumm(a)- as a Hittite word, while its status as Glossenkeilwort remains uncertain.

[A.B.]