zaltaiya-

The lexeme occurs in historical texts such as letters, annals, and a treaty (from MS texts onward).

[E.R.]

nom. sg.	GIŠza-al-ta-i-ia-aš(=)	HKM 18, 24	(CTH 186, MS)
	GIŠza-[al]-ta-i[a-aš]	HKM 24, 5	(CTH 186, MS)
	[GI]Šza-al-ta-ia-aš	KUB 19.22, 13’	(CTH 40, NS)
nom./acc. coll.	za-al-ta-i-ia	KUB 23.68 obv. 19	(CTH 133, NS)

On the interpretation as nom. sg. instead of gen. sg., see under Meaning. – Erroneous interpretation of za-al-ta-i-ia as stem form in Rieken 2004a:538. Neu’s (apud Alp 1991a:312; followed in CLL:275, Prins 1997a:113, HHw:s.v.) analysis of za-al-ta-i-ia as zalta=ya with the additive particle =ya is also highly unlikely given the attestations of the inflected form zaltayaš.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv with the exception of the HKM-texts, for which only a handcopy is available. – On the correction of the erroneous reading izzalta(ya)- of Alp 1987-1990a:443, see Alp 1991a:310f. Unsuccessful attempts to revive this reading are found in Beal 1992a:244f. and Ünal 2007a:813.

[E.R.]

The first meaning assignment goes back to Neu (apud Alp 1991a:311f., with reference to Starke 1990a:337-340 and 544-547), who connects ^GIŠzalta- and ^GIŠzaltaiya- with the Luwian word family of zallawar/un- ‘driving’, zalla- ‘trot’, HLuw. /zallalla-/ ‘cart, wagon’ and reconstructs a root *zal- ‘to drive’. Based on this relationship, he suggests a meaning ‘cart, wagon’, but also considers ‘retinue’ and ‘chariot’. Alp then discusses the possible equations of érin.meš ^GIŠgigir^(MEŠ) ‘infantry (and) chariot(s)’ and érin.meš anše.kur.ra^MEŠ ‘infantry (and) horse(-wagons)’. While it is not possible here to delve into the vexed problems of the logogram readings (see also Beal 1992a:243f., more recently also Weeden 2011a:220-224), the pairs show that the combination of foot and horse troops is a familiar concept for the Hittites. This speaks for an asyndetic coordination of two names for troop types, so that the second member of érin.meš ^GIŠza-al-ta-i-ia-aš(-š=a) is best interpreted as another nom. sg. (e.g. HKM 18, 23-25 kāšma érinmeš ^URUišḫūpitta érinmeš ^GIŠzaltaiyašš=a kuin ḫalkin tukanzi ḫark[anz]i ... “The grain and forage that the troops of Išhupitta, (i.e.) infantry and retinue, keep, ...”. This is confirmed by the collocation tuzzin=ma zaltaiya at KUB 23.68 obv. 19. The fact that the érin^{meš GIŠ}za-[al]-ta-i[a-aš] are mentioned in the context of starvation (HKM 24, 5) further tips the scales towards ‘retinue’ rather than ‘chariotry’ also considered by Neu.

The translation as ‘chariot, cart’ is accepted in Ünal 2007a:813, HHw:s.v., HEG U-Z:636, Rieken 1997a:171f.

[E.R.]

Kempinski & Košak 1970a:195 (followed in Prins 1997a:112f., HEG U-Z:636) take ^GIŠzaltaiya- and ^GIŠzalta- as a single lexeme representing a substantivized adjectival i-stem with a full grade suffix, thereby excluding an origin from Luwian, where no adjectival suffix ablaut -ai-/-i- is found. However, even the Hittite evidence for the endings -a and -aya in adjectival i-stems is extremely sparse. The forms in -a show mostly adverbial use or feature a strange lack of agreement with their respective head nouns (see the material presented in Prins 1997a:109-114, 150-152). Therefore, it is much more likely that the forms in -a belong to original a-stems.

In addition, there is more than one reason to believe that ^GIŠzaltaiya- and ^GIŠzalta- are borrowings from Luwian (see under Origin). If this is the case, the former can be considered a substantivized adjective of a stem in -i(ya)- based on the latter, i.e. a non-mutated a-stem zalta- or collective form. This is a derivational pattern typical for Luwian (cf. Rieken 2005b:68; see also CLuw. kummai(ya)- and Lyc. adai(je)-). For the substantivization in -a-, i.e. -ai(ya)- → -aiya- c., see Sasseville 2021a:96-98. The variation between the common gender forms and the collective forms correlates with their syntactic function as subject (agent) and object (patient), respectively.A stem zaltāi- is excluded by Neu (apud Alp 1991a:311, but still considered in Beal 1992a:241), because the expected gen. sg. would be **zaltiyaš. Rieken 2004d’s analysis of -y- as a means of avoiding a hiatus is now superseded by the one presented here; cf. under Phonological Interpretation.

[E.R.]

The word is assumed to be borrowed from Luwian in Neu apud Alp 1991a:311, Alp 1991a:311, Oettinger 1994b:74, Starke 1995a:41 n. 94, Rieken 1997a:171). Several indicators for a Luwian origin can be listed (contra Prins 1997a:113): the phonological shape with initial za-, the Luwian cognate zalt(i)-, and the suffix chain -a-i(ya)- (see under Stem) and especially its spelling with °a-i-ia(-), since, with the exception of final -ai plus the additive particle -ya ‘and’, the spelling °a-i-ia(-) occurs only exceptionally in Hittite words.

Furthermore, Carruba 2000c:63 suspects that Luwian *zal- in zalt(i)-, zalta-, zaltaya- as well as zalla- is borrowed as a technical term in horse management from Indo-Aryan car-/cal- ‘to move’ (< *k^u̯el-, with z ← Indo-Aryan c as in panza- ← pañca ‘5’), but this is unnecessarily complicated (see under Reconstruction).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head, see Luw. */zal(l)-/.