/tawast(i)-^?/, ta-wa/i-sà-ta-, COR

This lexeme is attested in a letter dated to the late 8th century BCE.

[D.S.]

abl./instr.

/tawastadi/

(“COR”)ta-wa/i-sà-ta-ti

ASSUR letter e §10 (Assur)

The phonological interpretation is strongly dependent on the morphological interpretation of the lexeme; see under Stem.

[D.S.]

The word ta-wa/i-sà-ta-ti has been interpreted by Hawkins 2000a:547 as a genitival adjective of the lexeme /taw(i)-/ ‘eye’. He sees in it the pluralizing suffix -nz-, although the presence of the sign <ta> instead of required <za> does not support his interpretation. Thus, Hawkins’ suggestion of a genitival adjective must be abandoned, pace Giusfredi 2010b:221, Payne 2012a:116. However, the connection with the lexeme for ‘eye’ remains convincing. The word ta-wa/i-sà-ta-ti occurs in a series of words referring to negative conditions through which children died. Thus, one may conclude that this word refers to a negative condition as well.

[D.S.]

There are different ways of interpreting the morphology behind the spelling of ta-wa/i-sà-ta-ti, e.g.:

1. An abstract noun in /-ast(i)-/ c., cf. CLuw. lumpašt(i)- ‘regret, sorrow’, derived from /taw(i)-/ ‘eye’.
2. A formation in /-nt(i)-/ derived from a substantivized form of the genitival adjective */tawassa/i-/ ‘of the eyes’
3. A nominal formation in /-t(a/i)-/ derived from a substantivized form of the genitival adjective */tawassa/i-/ ‘of the eyes’

The first possibility is morphologically speaking more economical and also more attractive, since the suffix /-ast(i)-/ builds abstract nouns and the parallel lexeme CLuw. lumpašt(i)- also bears a negative connotation.  

[D.S.]

For the base of the derivative see HLuw. /taw(i)-/.