wištatnim(m)a/i-

Attested in a Hittite ritual (NS) and in an offering list (LNS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	NINDAwi5-iš-ta-at-ni-mi-iš	KUB 32.129 i 22	(CTH 474, NS)
acc. sg. c.	NINDAú-iš-ta-at-ni-im-mi-in4	KUB 25.50 ii 10	(CTH 705, LNS)

The attestations follow CLL:270 (cf. also Friedrich 1952a:255) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. CLL:270 corrects ^NINDAwi₅-iš-ta-at-ni-mi-iš into “^NINDAwi-iš-ta-at-ni--mi-iš” (followed by EDHIL:1013). Although this is logical, considering that we are probably dealing with a participle (in -m(m)a/i-, cf. under Origin), the spelling of the geminate nasal of this suffix is not consistent, and thus there is no compelling reason for this correction. Ünal 2007a:805, Ünal 2016a:595 assumes a form wištatnam(m)i-, too, this must be a misunderstanding.

[Zs.S.]

Although KUB 25.50 ii 10 clearly shows ^NINDAú-iš-° (cf. also Goetze 1951b:72; Hoffner 1974a:190; Starke 1990a:495; Wegner 2002a:176), many scholars quote it falsely as ^NINDAwi₍₅₎-iš-° (Laroche 1959a:111; CLL:270; EDHIL:103; Tischler 2016a:569).

[Zs.S.]

Setting aside CLL:270, who does not assign any meaning, there is a general agreement that this word means a type of bread due to the determinative NINDA meaning literally ‘bread’ (Laroche 1959a:111; Berman 1972a:182; Ünal 2007a:805, Ünal 2016a:595; EDHIL:1013; Görke 2015e; Tischler 2016a:442). Nevertheless, considering the broad semantics of the objects denoted by NINDA, it is more prudent to define the meaning as ‘a type of bread or pastry’ (with Friedrich 1952a:255; Kronasser 1966a:191, 219, 221; Starke 1990a:495; Wegner 2004a:143; Tischler 2008a:228, Tischler 2016a:569).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that this word is of Luwian origin and derives from wišta- ‘a type of bread or pastry’ as a Luwian participle of a denominative verb (Laroche 1955a:75, Laroche 1959a:111; Kronasser 1966a:219, 221; Starke 1990a:495; CLL:270; EDHIL:1013; Tischler 2016a:569 [similarly in Neumann 1962a:208 n. 13 and Tischler 2008a:228, Tischler 2016a:442: Luwian word from wišta-]; derived from wišta- by Ünal 2007a:805, Ünal 2016a:595, too, but without attributing it to Luwian, similarly Berman 1972a:182, who, however, points out that the preservation of the -tn- cluster is typical Luwian; only Hoffner 1974a:150 claims Hattian origin, but without any argument and there is no evidence for this claim). This denominative verb cannot be defined more precisely (for possibilities see Starke 1990a:495 and Tischler 2016a:569), but it must be derived from *wištattar/wištattn-, itself a derivation from *wišta- (Starke 1990a:495, followed by CLL:270 and EDHIL:1013; the derivation by Kronasser 1966a:221 is outdated; that of Hoffner 1974a:190 is wrong, see Starke 1990a:495 n. 1827). In other words, not only the suffix of the participle but also the preservation of the -tn- cluster demonstrates its Luwian origin (note that the underlying word, *wišta- may be attested in Hittite as a Luwian loanword, see s.v. and wīštašša/i-). Despite its clear Luwian origin, it was not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 29 April 2020

Kronasser 1966a:191 claims that wištatnim(m)a/i- is attested with gloss wedges. However, none of its attestations identified until now (KUB 32.129 i 22 and KUB 25.50 ii 10, cf. s.v.) show any gloss wedges (checked against the hand copies and the photos of the Konkordanz). He may have misunderstood the DIŠ ‘1’ sign standing in front of the attestation in KUB 25.50 ii 10.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 29 April 2020