tītī(t)-
‘pupil (of the eye)’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, n.
- ID
- 3004
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
tītī(t)-
‘pupil (of the eye)’1.1.1Transmission
The attestation of the lexeme are limited to texts of the Kuwattalla tradition (from MS onwards).
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| abl./instr. | [ti]-ti-ta-a-ti | KUB 35.24 obv. 7’ | (CTH 761, MS) |
| ti-ti-ta-a-ti | KUB 35.43 ii 14 | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| ti-ti-t[a-a-ti] | KUB 35.43 iii 8 | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| [ti]-⸢i-ti⸣-i-ta-a-ti | KUB 35.42 ii! 3’ | (CTH 760, NS) | |
| [ti-i-t]i-i-ta-a-ti | KUB 32.14 + KUB 34.6 iii 8’ | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| UZ[Uti-ti-ta-ti] | KBo 29.20, 8’ | (CTH 762, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
Contra the erroneous interpretation of CLuw. tītītāti as ‘nose’ and confusion with Hitt. tittitta- ‘nose’ (Friedrich 1923a:374 n. 1, HW:329, Otten 1953a: 78, 99f.), Laroche 1958a:106f. (followed in HW:427, DLL:98) realized that tītī(t)- is a part of the eye (cf. dāuwaššanzati tititāti at KUB 35.43 ii 14) and suggested the pupil of the eye as the central and probably most important part of the eye. The translation was defended and finally confirmed by Starke 1990a:193-195, and it has entered the handbooks by now (CLL:228, HEG T:393f., Hawkins 2000a:114, HHw:s.v., Ünal 2007a:721).
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
Scholars consider titi(t)- to be a reduplicated formation (Kronasser 1966a:119, Oettinger 2016b:276f.) or a baby talk (Berman 1972a:104). In addition, Starke 1990a:195 identified the stem class, assigning the word to neuters in -i(t)-, i.e. a reduplicated base *tītī- was enlarged with -t-.
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.1.7Origin
Neumann (apud Starke 1990a:195) suggests that it is related to CLuw. titiyāl(i)- and the base noun tīda- n. ‘teat’ and adduces Lat. pupilla “Germ. Püppchen” thinking of a small figure to describe the pupil of the eye. In this case, one would have to assume a reduplication of the root.
[E.R.]
1.2 Luwian in Hittite transmission
tītita-
‘pupil (of the eye)’1.2.1Transmission
All attestations are found in fragments of a single ritual.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| acc. sg. | [UZ]U⸢ti⸣-i-ti-ta-an | KBo 3.8 iii 34 | (CTH 390, NS) |
| UZUti-i-ti-ta-an | KUB 7.1 iii 13’ | (CTH 390, NS) | |
| UZUti-ti-ta-an | KUB 7.1 iii 22’ | (CTH 390, NS) | |
| ti-i-ti-ta-an | KUB 43.52 iii 5’ | (CTH 390, NS) | |
| ⸢UZUti-i-ti⸣-[ta-an] | KUB 43.52 iii 11’ | (CTH 390, NS) | |
| ⸢UZU⸣ti-i-ti-ta-an | KUB 60.17, 4’ + KUB 43.52 iii 15’ | (CTH 390, NS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
Contra HEG T:393f. and Fuscagni 2017a, who revived the outdated translation ‘nose’ (in Friedrich 1923a:374 n. 1, HW:329, Otten 1953a: 78, 99f.; undecided Ünal 2007a:721), the consistent spelling with twice a single -t- shows that the (UZU)tītita- has to be kept distinct from Hitt. tittitta- ‘nose’ and assigned to the putative borrowing of CLuw. tītī(t)- (see under Lemma); cf. Starke 1990a:193-195. Also, the context with a list of hair, skull, titita-, ears, mouth, tongue, esophagus, and windpipe speaks for pupils of the eye as the more important body part, rather than the nose.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
As pointed out by Starke 1990a:311, the a-stem goes back to the normal thematization of the Luwian word tītī(t)- in the course of its borrowing into Hittite. For the analysis of the base, see under CLuw. tītī(t)-.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Origin
Starke 1990a:194 presupposes a Luwian origin of UZUtītita-. In fact, its typically Luwian transfer to the neuter stems in -t- /-d-/ and subsequent thematization in Hittite speaks for the borrowing scenario. Less conclusive is Berman’s (Berman 1972a:104) argument that ti- would have developed into **zi- in an inherited Hittite word, because probably reduplicated /tī-dī-/ < */dī-dī-/ would have been preserved to keep the structure transparent.
[E.R.]
tititi