/tidi(ya)-/, (LITUUS)ti-ti-
‘(unknown)’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 3003
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/tidi(ya)-/, (LITUUS)ti-ti-
‘(unknown)’1.1.1Transmission
This hapax is attested in a single inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the 10th or early 9th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| abl./instr. | /tididi/ | (LITUUS)ti-ti-ti-i | KARKAMIŠ A12, §10 (Karkamiš) |
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word seems fairly clear, provided the etymological connection proposed by Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1986a:71f. holds, even if a root cognate is more likely. They equate it with CLuw. tītī(t)- ‘pupil of the eye’, but an exact match, while tempting, is difficult, see the discussion of the meaning below. Rather, the word most likely contains the stem forming suffix /-i(ya)-/, which can undergo syncope, i.e. an earlier */tidiyadi/ was shortened to the attested /tididi/.
Still, the use of the sign LITUUS (sign *378) suggests a connection with the semantic field of vision, cf. the discussion of the meaning below.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning ‘pupil of the eye’ was suggested by Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1986a:71f.,The idea was first entertained in passing by Hawkins 1980d:140f. who adduce CLuw. tītī(t)- ‘pupil of the eye’ as an exact cognate, taking the attestation at KARKAMIŠ A12, §10 as a dat./loc. sg.This is followed in Hawkins 2000a:113, who translates the clause as “By my righteousness [I] we[nt] in the ‘apple of his eye’ (‘pupil’)”. However, the context makes an abl./instr. seem rather more likely, because KARKAMIŠ A12, §10 runs: *a-m[u?-pa-wa/i]-tú-tá *a-mi-ia-ti “IUSTITIA”-ni-ti-i (LITUUS)ti-ti-ti-i (PES2)[ …], approx. /ammu?-…=du=tta ammiyadi tarrawannidi tididi …/, perhaps translating as ‘But I …-ed (to/for?) him by my loyalty (and) by (my) tidi(ya)-’.The broken off verb may be the same as in the following two clauses, i.e. /pazza-/ ‘to carry’, in which case the enclitic /=du/ should be understood as an acc. sg. ‘him’, instead of a dat. sg. ‘to/for him’. Because the spelling involves LITUUS, which is common with words of visual perception (cf. Hawkins 1980d), it is likely that /tidi(ya)-/ should have a meaning from the same semantic field. However, since the stem formation is probably different to CLuw. tītī(t)- ‘pupil of the eye’, it seems advisable to leave the meaning open for now.
Outdated is the initial interpretation by Bossert 1933-1934a:111-113 as ‘father’, as it relied on the erroneous reading of the sign 〈ti〉 as 〈ta〉.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
If the syntactic analysis of the attestation at KARKAMIŠ A12, §10 is correct, the noun likely shows a stem in /-i(ya)-/ and may constitute a substantivized adjective. The grammatical gender remains unknown for the moment. Further textual evidence is needed to verify this hypothesis, however.
[AH.B.]