*d^héh₁i-to-

The lexeme occurs twice within the same context in a single manuscript of a birth incantation.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The meaning ‘(female) breast, teat’ was first suggested by Meriggi 1957a:199f. (followed in DLL:98, HW:427, Starke 1990a:229f., CLL:228, Melchert 1994a:301, HEG T:343-345, Rasmussen 2001a:358f., Neumann 2007a:359f., HHw:s.v., EDHIL:875). The context of “furthermore, let them lift and overturn^? this child (after birth), let them place him at the mother’s breast” (KUB 35. 103 iii 4-6) and the equation with Hitt. tēta(n)- ‘(female) breast, teat’ furnish conclusive evidence for this translation.Outdated Otten 1953a:53 (‘father’) and Rosenkranz 1956a:375 n 5 (‘nurse (?)’).

[E.R.]

Based on the forms in Luwian transmission, both an n-stem and a stem in -na- could be underlying. However, the form ti-i-ta-an in Hittite transmission (see under Lemma) points to a stem in -a- or -n-. Thus, the combined evidence supports Starke’s (Starke 1990a:228f.) conclusion that Luwian changed the original thematic stem *tīda- to tīdan- by reinterpretation of the ending -n as a stem final consonant. For its general acceptance, see the references cited under Meaning.

[E.R.]

1. titaimma/i-

2. tītant-

3. titiyāl(i)-

The assured attestations of the lexeme are limited to two fragments of incantations in the Tunnawiya and Maštigga rituals, but see also under tīta- ‘(female) breast, teat (?)’.

[E.R.]

Miller 2004a:136 and 191 interprets the form ti-ta-an-za at KBo 53.29, 6’ as the part. nom. sg. c. of an unknown Hittite verb tita-, but see below under Meaning.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

For the recognition of Luwian tītan- ‘(female) breast, teat’ in Hittite context, see Starke 1990a:229f. Following Beckman 1990a:42 and 48, the context of HT 6 i 22’-24’ (dupl. KUB 35.149 i 8’-10’) can be interpreted as follows: ^(21’)ka-a-aš-ma ur^!(text: udu).tur ma-aḫ-ḫa-an igi^Ḫ[(^I.A-wa an-da)] da-me-⸢in-kán⸣-za na-a-ú-i ne-pi-iš a-u[(š-zi)] ^(22’)na-a-ú-i-ma ta-ga-an-zi-pa-a[n] ⸢a⸣-uš-zi na-a-ú-i-ma-za an-na-aš ^(23’)ti-i-ta-an ḫu-u-da-a-a[k] a-uš-zi § ^(24’)... “As this (newborn) puppy’s eyes are clamped shut, and he has not yet seen the sky, and he has not yet seen the earth, and he has not yet immediately seen (even) his mother’s teat § ...”

The other attestation at KBo 53.29, 5’f. with its parallel KBo 43.319 i 11’f. is more controversial: kuiš=wa=šši [                       ] ḫantanza (KBo 43.319 i 12’: titanza) ul kaništa “who [                    ]-ed to him, did not recognize the ...”. Melchert (pers. comm.) interprets ti-i-ta-an-za as the nom./acc. sg. of Luw. tītan- with the secondary ending -ša/-za, whereas Miller 2004a probably sees the analogy between ḫantanza and titanza in the two parallel contexts, but analyzes the forms as nom. sg. c. of participles. A more satisfactory parallelism emerges if -za is parsed as the reflexive particle belonging to kanešš- ‘to recognize’, and ḫantan (acc. sg. c.) ‘face’ is mapped onto titan (acc. sg.) ‘breast’. The recognition of familiar persons and objects is a common motif (HW 2nd ed.:K62-65) and likely present here as well.

[E.R.]

Since the stem varies between tēta- n. and tētan- n. in the Hittite cognate, the borrowed Luwian neuter n-stem tītan- may have been exceptionally transferred to the neuter thematic nouns or kept in the athematic class of neuter n-stems (instead of being thematized as a common gender -na- stem, as would have happened normally). Even a thematic common gender a-stem cannot be excluded on formal grounds. Therefore, the form ti-i-ta-an is ambiguous as to its gender and stem class (-a- c./n. or -an- n.). In addition, there is a possible instance of a common gender variant, viz. tīta- ‘(female) breast, teat (?)’, for which see under Lemma.

[E.R.]

Under the morphological interpretation offered above, the only but conclusive indication for Luwian influence in the two attestations of ti-i-ta-an is the vowel -ī- in the first syllable. In turn, the cases of tēta-/tētan- (already attested in an OH composition) that Starke 1990a:229f. adduces and considers to be Luwian, lack any hint of a borrowing. For the match of Luwian /ī/ and Hittite /ē/, see under Reconstruction. (A hypercorrect Hittitization by substituting /ī̆/ with /ē̆/ as suggested in Yakubovich 2010a:326-333 would be unnecessarily complicated in this case.)

[E.R.]

The word is attested twice in an oracle report.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The reading of the tablet is difficult due to its worn surface and shallow impressions. The relevant paragraph runs as follows (modified in several relevant points to Groddek 2011a:181f.):

12’           ] ⸢ku⸣-wa-pí ^KURaš-šur e-eš-ta ma-a-a[n

13’        ]x x nu dingir^LUM si×sá-at x[

14’      ]x-aš gub-ri aš-ru^ḪI.A-ma-aš-ma-aš-kán ul[

15’    a]-pa-a-aš ti-ta-aš du-uk-ka₄-ri (Otten, Hethitologie-Archiv) x-x[

16’   ]x-kán ti-ta-aš du-ka₄-ri x[

If the topic of the paragraph is a statue (perhaps from Aššur), the clause a]-pa-a-aš ti-ta-aš du-uk-ka₄-ri could mean something like “that breast is visible” (i.e. is not covered). However, on account of the fragmentation of the tablet, this cannot be assured so that it is better to reserve a separate lemma for tīta-. Moreover, the word is a common gender noun.

[E.R.]

In Hittite, the nom. sg. c. in -aš points to a thematic stem for the word that is very likely a Luwian loanword (see under Origin).

[E.R.]

Although not all lexemes marked with a gloss-wedge are Luwian, tīta- has a good chance of being borrowed from that language, even more so, since a lexeme tīta- exists in Luwian. Accordingly, it is listed as such by Melchert (DCL:s.v.).

[E.R.]

1. tideime/i-

2. tddãta

3. tidere/i-

1. tidñt(i)-

HEG T:343-345, EDHIL:875