zamnant(i)-

Apart from an instance in the Ištanuwa festival text, the word is only attested in the Puriyanni ritual or texts strongly associated with it.

[E.R.]

acc. sg. c.	za-am-na-an-˹te˺-in	KBo 4.11, 58	(CTH 772, NS)
nom./acc. sg. n.	za-am-ma-an-za	KUB 35.54 ii 4’	(CTH 758, MS)
		KBo 22.137 iii 9	(CTH 758, NS)
nom./acc. pl. n.	[za-am-ma-an-t]a	KBo 29.2 ii 4’	(CTH 758, NS)
	[za-a]m-ma-an-ta	KUB 35.54 ii 25’	(CTH 758, MS)
	za-am-ma-an-ta-a(=)	KUB 35.68, 16’	(CTH 763, NS)

za-am-ma-an-ta-a=t-t[a at KUB 35.68, 16’ is erroneously assigned to zam(ma)n- in CLL:276. – Reading [za-a]m-ma-an-ta at KUB 35.54 ii 25’ follows Mouton, Puértolas Rubio & Yakubovich (pers. comm.).

[E.R.]

The stem of zamnant(i)- ‘having zam(ma)n-’, i.e. the transparent derivation in -ant(i)- from the -m(ma)n- stem zam(ma)n- ‘damage’ (Starke 1990a:278, CLL:276, HEG U-Z:647), is formally ambiguous to subject or object orientation. Accordingly, both active ‘damaging’ and passive ‘damaged’ have to be considered (Starke 1990a:279).

In the incipit of an Ištanuwa song, the zamnant(i)- ^dWarwaliya- ‘the z. god of sowing/fertility’ is contrasted with the alan(n)in zamniyan ‘the hostile damager’. Here, passive ‘damaged ^dWarwaliya-’ is obviously to be preferred.

According to the interpretation of Mouton, Puértolas Rubio & Yakubovich (pers. comm.), KUB 35.54 ii and its duplicates describe the damage done to various items (by kneading and cutting), thus providing an analogy for the evils to be damaged. Consequently, the zammanza utarša represents ‘damaged items’ instead of ‘damaging words’ as assumed elsewhere, e.g. in Hutter 1988a:94, Poetto 2010c:298 n. 21, HEG U-Z:647, Nikolaev 2019a:195 n. 49.

[E.R.]

With gloss wedges, the word is attested twice in the NS birth ritual of Pittei, which is heavily interspersed with Luwianisms, with and without gloss wedges. Otherwise, zamnant(i)- also appears once in a NS fragment referring to the netherworld deities.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Reading against Görke 2016a, who proposes za-am-na-⸢an-te^?-eš^?⸣ (KBo 55.52 l. col. 6’).

[E.R.]

The gloss wedge word is attested twice as an attribute of the child in a birth ritual. As pointed out by Giorgieri 2004a:419f. (following Haas 1994a:273), the Moon-god dressed in blood-red is a bad omen, which confronts the child to be born with the danger of some kind of damage or even constitutes damage already by itself. Nevertheless, the child is born: nu-uš-ši-kán IGI-an-da mi-e-eš-ta za-am-na-an-ti-iš DUMU-iš “and before him (scil. the Moon-god) he was born, the z. child” (KUB 44.4 rev. 6). Later, child and mother are treated. In the course of a second conjuration, the “tongues” say: ⸢za-am⸣-na-an-ti DUMU.NITA la-la-u-na^! KI.MIN “to the z. child for seizing likewise (= we are going)” (KUB 44.4 rev. 24 + KBo 13.241 rev. 12’’), and another treatment by conjuration follows. Given the problematic situation during birth, Hutter 1988a:94f. suggests a meaning ‘damage’ for zam(ma)n- and a derived meaning for zamnant(i)-, accordingly. In spite of the doubts put forward byStarke 1990a:289, the passive concept ‘damaged’ as the description of the child suits the context (similarly HEG U-Z:645f.: ‘von Schaden bedroht, gefährdet’).Outdated Beckman 1983a:184f. (followed in Ünal 2007a:814): ‘mortal’, and incompatible with the other occurrences of the root Ivanov 1998a, Ivanov 1999b:30f.: ‘(new)born’.

Taylor’s translation ‘cursed’ (apud Nikolaev 2019a:190 n. 49) though not demanded by the present context, is not excluded by it. However, other attestations in Luwian context and the derivates provide little evidence for this specific meaning: The ritual, in which the attestation without gloss wedge is found, is performed to remedy illness and plague. The adjective characterizes the ritual client threatened by the ‘terrifying dog’: ^(6’)na-an za-am-na-⸢an-te-en^?⸣ ur.gi₇-aš kal-ga-aš ^(7’)[...-z]i “and him, the damaged one, the dog (being) terrifying [... (verb in sg. or pl.)]” (differently Görke 2016a).

[E.R.]

It is generally agreed that zamnant(i)- is a loan word from Luwian (see Götze 1954a:80 n. 100, Hutter 1988a:94, Starke 1990a:279, CLL:279, Giorgieri 2004a:412, van den Hout 2006a:247, HEG U-Z:645f.). Its attestation in Cuneiform Luwian context and the gloss wedges furnish sufficient evidence.

[E.R.]

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