/tawiyan(ni)/

The 20 attestations of this lexeme are spread through several regions. Its pan-Luwian distribution in the first millennium BCE is not to be doubted. No second-millennium examples have been identified thus far.

[I.Y.]

undecl.	/tawiyan/	ta-wa/i-ia-na	KULULU 1, §15 (Tabal)
		VERSUS-ia-na	KARKAMIŠ A31+, §10 (Karkamiš),KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §5 (Cilicia), KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §32 (Cilicia), ALEPPO 2, §24 (Tell Ahmar), GAZİANTEP, l. 2 (Miscellanneous)
		VERSUS-na	ASSUR letter f+g, §16 (Assur), KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §5 (Cilicia), KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §30 (Cilicia), KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §32 (Cilicia), KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §25 (Cilicia), KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §30 (Cilicia)
		“VERSUS”-na	KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §25 (Cilicia)
	/tawin/	VERSUS-wa/i-na	KARKAMIŠ A17b, §5 (Karkamiš)
	/tawiyanni/	VERSUS-ia-ni	KARKAMIŠ A11c, §19 (Karkamiš), KARKAMIŠ A11c, §20 (Karkamiš)
	/?/	˹VERSUS˺-[…]	KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §5 (Cilicia)
		VERSUS	CEKKE, §20 (Karkamiš), ADANA 1, §4 (Karkamiš), KARKAMIŠ A 19p, l.4 (Karkamiš)

The form VERSUS-ia-ni is chronologically older in Karkamiš than the forms ending in -na, being attested in the 10th c. BCE. All the forms from outside Karkamiš are compatible with the phonetic interpretation /tawiyan/.

[I.Y.]

Note that the logogram VERSUS graphically represents a human profile, so it may have been originally designed for rendering Hitt. mēnaḫḫanda, a functional equivalent of Luw. /tawiyan(ni)/.

[I.Y.]

The local adverb /tawiyan(ni)/ can function as both preverb and postposition, but its invariable feature is its co-occurrence with a dative complement in the same clause. As preverb, it accompanies the motion verbs /awi-^(di)/ ‘to come’, /wis(a)i-^(di)/ ‘to emerge’, /i-^(di)/ ‘to go’, /ari(ya)-^(ti)/ ‘to raise’ and /tuwa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to put’, and can usually be translated as ‘against’. As postposition, it has the basic meaning ‘toward’.

[I.Y.]

Attested in a mythological text in MS and in one or two ritual fragments in NS and perhaps MS.

[Zs.S.]

da-u-e-ya-an	KUB 35.107 iii 8ʼ	(CTH 764, MS)
ta-a-wi5-˹ya˺-a-an	KBo 29.34 i 14’	(CTH 770, NS)

Problematic:

ta-a-u-e-[…]

KUB 35.69, 11’

(CTH 761, MS)

Attestations following CLL:225 checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. ta-a-u-e-[…] is generally restored as ta-a-u-e-[ya-an] (Otten 1953c:69 n. 5 [cautiously]; Laroche 1959a:96 [implicitly]; Starke 1985b:183; CLL:225; cf. however Rosenkranz 1956a:287), but the completely fragmentary context does not allow any verification.

It requires further research if the lack / presence of plene spelling is connected with the postpositional / adverbial function, respectively (former supposedly being clitic and unaccented), as argued by Melchert 1994a:247, Melchert 2003b:183 in case of ānnan / annān ‘below, under’ (see s.v.), leading ultimately to two different words.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement regarding the functions and meanings of this word, but the details considerably differ. The starting point is the only clear instance of this word (KUB 35.107 iii 8ʼ, Starke 1985b:238):

DUTU-wa-az	DKam-ru-še-pa-i	da-u-e-ya-an	ma-am-ma-[an-na-at-ta]
Sun God-NOM.SG	Kamrušepa-DAT.SG.	d.	look.at-3SG.PRET.

It is clear from this sentence that daweyan is either a postposition governing dative (Laroche 1959a:96; CLL:225; Plöchl 2003a:81; Tischler 2008a:196, Tischler 2016a:372) or an independent adverb (or even a preverb of the verb). However, daweyan is spelled plene, when it is used adverbially or preverbal (see below), thus a postposition governing dative is more probable.

Regarding the meaning, setting aside the outdated proposals (‘word’ [Rosenkranz 1956a:287]; ‘Frage’ [Meriggi 1957a:213, with question mark]) based on false translations of the verb, the usual translation of the sentence in question is either “der Sonnengott sah Kamrušepa entgegen” (Starke 1990a:45; HEG L-S:734; similarly Brosch 2014b:399: “Die Sonnengottheit schaute Kamruseba entgegen”; cf. also Plöchl 2003a:81: “auf…zu”) or “the Sun God looked towards Kamrušepa” (CLL:225; Goedegebuure 2010c:63; Torri 2010a:387). Nevertheless, since this sentence is immediately followed by the question of the Sun God to Kamrušepa, thus Kamrušepa must have stood next to the Sun God, a translation “the Sun God looked at Kamrušepa” is more precise.

Furthermore, CLL:225; Plöchl 2003a:81; and Tischler 2008a:196, Tischler 2016a:372 assume an adverbial usage as well, which would be presented by the other instance according to Melchert (VBoT 60, 10’ + KBo 29.34 i 14’, Starke 1985b:378):

a-wa-ma-aš-ta an-na-ru-um-˹mi˺-[in]-˹zi˺ x[ ]x-˹zi˺ ta-a-wi₅-˹ya˺-a-an ạ[

Starke 1985b:378 claims that the last sign of the word preceding ta-a-wi₅-˹ya˺-a-an is ˹zi˺, which is possible based on the photos of the Konkordanz, but far from assured. Decisive is, however, that annarumminzi is an adjective (‘forceful’, see s.v.), thus one expects a noun in agreement with it filling the space between annarumminzi and tāwiyān. This would mean at the same time that tāwiyān is not connected with the preceding word, at least not as a postposition governing dative, since annarumminzi and the restored noun are in nom. pl. As a result, tāwiyān can indeed be identified as a free-standing adverb (unless if it is a preverb of a following verb, but the text is broken). Unfortunately, its meaning cannot be defined on the basis of this context, since it is too fragmentary. The suggestions made on etymological grounds (‘en face de’ [Laroche 1959a:96 with question mark]; ‘facing’ [CLL:225]; ‘angesichts’ [Plöchl 2003a:81]; ‘gegenüber’ [Tischler 2008a:196; cf. Tischler 2016a:372: ‘en face, contre’]) may still be correct considering the transparent origin of the word from tāwa/ī- ‘eye’ (see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]