*winiyaduwant(i)-

This postulated adjective is partially attested in a NS Luwian ritual fragment.

[E.R.]

unclear

⸢ú⸣-i-ni-ya-du-wa(-)[

KBo 13.263, 2’

(CTH 766, NS)

Yakubovich (pers. comm.) hypothesizes that an adjective *wiyani(ya)- is underlying CLuw. ^GIŠGEŠTIN-an-za at KUB 35.133 iii 15. However, Schürr 2019b:48 points out that the word behind GEŠTIN may very well be madduwi(ya)-, which is clearly attested in Cuneiform Luwian. Similarly, Weeden 2018a:337 believes that the word for ‘wine’ in CLuw. is maddu- without discussing the reconstruction of *wi(ya)n-. A decision does not seem possible.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Reading contra Starke 1985b:256, who reads ⸢ú⸣-i-ni-i̯a-du-wa [ and regards the sequence as complete as is. However, the tablet breaks off immediately after the last visible sign, i.e. there is no space between the sign and the edge of the tablet. Therefore, the word possibly continues as indicated above in the transliteration -wa(-)[.

[E.R.]

A form ú-i-ni-ya at KBo 13.263, 2 was established by various scholars (CLL:269, HEG W-Z:558, EDHIL:1012, Oettinger 2003a:143) as an adjective derived from *wi(ya)n- ‘related to wi(ya)n-’ with the relational suffix -i(ya)-. The putative meaning ‘wine’ for the base word *wi(ya)n- is suggested by its supposed cognates in other Anatolian languages, namely Hitt. wiya(n)- ‘wine’ and HLuw. wa/i-ia-ni- /wiyani(ya)-/ ‘vine’. The interpretation of ú-i-ni-ya as an adjective deriving from expected *wiyan(i)- ‘wine’ implies an analysis as ú-i-ni-ya=du=wa with an enclitic personal pronoun in the dat./loc. sg. =du and the particle =wa (cf. CLL:269, HEG W-Z:558). However, Schürr 2019b:48 rightly points out that =du as an enclitic pronoun should follow, not precede the particle =wa. This speaks decidedly against the analysis as ú-i-ni-ya=du=wa and renders the alternative suggested above, i.e. the continuation of the word after the break, very attractive.

With the difficulties arising from the reading ú-i-ni-ya, it is preferable to suppose an adjective *winiya(n)tuwant(i)- ‘having grapevines’, derived from the attested base Luw. winiyant- ‘grapevine’ (see under Lemma) by means of the productive possessive suffix -want(i)- (cf. Maier 2013a:202f.). Given the climatic circumstances, it is very likely that vines were cultivated near rivers in ancient Anatolia. In fact, at KBo 13.263, the river ^ÍDMa-a[-la is mentioned a line earlier. The putative adjective *winiyant(u)want(i)- possibly refers to said river, which, accordingly, could have been called ‘having grapevines’.

[E.R.]

If the supposed lexeme *winiya(n)tuwant(i)- is restored correctly, it is a formation with the possessive suffix *-want(i)- based on Luw. winiyant-.

[E.R.]

This lexeme was written together with the intern Elia Weber.

For the lemma head see CLuw. *wiyan(i)-.