zammaniya-

The word is attested only in a single NS copy of the OH Ištanuwa festival.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz. – Contra Starke 1985b:341 n. 178 and CLL:277, there is no doubt about the reading of ˹za˺-, because the head of the first vertical of A would be inscribed much higher than the head of the lower vertical of ZA preserved in the manuscript. Cf. also ibid. 58 za-am-ma-na-an-˹te˺-in.

[E.R.]

There is a common sense regarding the analysis of the derivational process, i.e. zam(ma)n- ‘bad omen, damage’ plus the relational suffix -i(ya)- (DLL:113, Starke 1990a:278 with n. 947, CLL:277, HEG U-Z:645f.), thus leading to a meaning assignment ‘related to a bad omen, related to damage’. In KBo 4.11, contextual support and the evidence for a further semantic specification comes from the co-occurrence of ˹za˺-am-ma-ni-ia-an and za-am-ma-na-an-˹te˺-in (ibid. 58). If a-⸢la⸣-ni-in=tar ... ˹za˺-am-ma-ni-ia-an designates a negative concept, perhaps a ‘hostile damager’, then it would contrast with the za-am-ma-na-an-˹te˺-in ... ^Dwa-ar-wa-li-ia-an ‘damaged god of sowing/fertility’. This points to the lexical distinction between active zammani(ya)- and ambiguous zamnant(i)- already seen in HEG U-Z:645f.

[E.R.]

Contrary to the accepted analysis of zammaniyan as zam(ma)n- ‘bad omen, damage’ plus the relational suffix -i(ya)-, the acc. sg. c. in -an suggests that zammaniyan represents a form of an individualized common gender a-stem (without mutation). An action noun ‘damage’ of the kind reconstructed in Sasseville 2020c is less likely, because it involves an unattested verb *zam(ma)ni-^(ti) as an additional intermediary step. Moreover, one would expect an individual to be the opponent of the deity ^DWarwaliya-.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. zam(ma)n-.