ḫi-

This word is found in a festival text for the Palaic pantheon.

[D.S.]

acc. sg.

ḫi-in

KUB 32.17 + KUB 35.167 14’

(CTH 751, MS?)

It has not always been clear how the sequence ḫi-in-mu-du is to be analyzed or further segmented; cf. Carruba 1970a:56. The almost certain presence of the pronoun du ‘to you, to him’ in ḫin=mu=du does not support the recognition of the pronoun mu ‘to me’. Therefore, it is suggested here tentatively that mu actually represents the particle ma (see under lemma) and that the vowel was colored by the following enclitic du. Thus, ḫin=mu=du stands for *ḫin=ma=du, which yields a better particle chain (for another case of vowel harmony in Palaic particle chains see KBo 37.150 ii 1’). This allows ḫin to be interpreted as a substantive ḫi- in the accusative singular common gender. Since the context is fragmentary, this hypothesis must be considered tentative until further evidence emerges.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz.

[D.S.]

No exact meaning can be assigned. However, the word occurs within a beneficiary formula addressed to the Sun-god. Since it appears to be the direct object of the verb marišš(a)-^(ti) ‘to destroy’, one could expect that it represents something negative; cf. la-a-la-an-ta ku[-i]š ta-ar-ta-an ma-ri-iš-ši (KUB 35.165 rev. 9’) ‘(You), who destroys the (evil) gossip…’:

                ḫi-in-˹mu-du˺ ku-iš ku-i[š … ] ma-ri-eš-š[a-t]i (KUB 32.17 + KUB 35.167 obv. 14’-15’)

                ‘Whoever [ …] destroys (2^nd sg.) the ḫin for him…’

Considering the fragmentary state of the passage, any interpretation must be considered tentative. Carruba 1972a:21 does not assign the verb marišš(a)ti to the same clause as ḫin=mu=du, which is also possible.

[D.S.]

No reconstruction possible.

[D.S.]