duttarya(ta)-

Hapax in a NS fragment of a Kizzuwatnean ritual in Hittite.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c. / gen. sg. / gen. pl. / dat.-loc. pl.	MUNUSdu-ut-tar!-ya-ta-aš!	Bo 4120 r. col. 4’	(CTH 500, NS)
or
dat. sg.	MUNUSdu-ut-tar!-ya

Attestation following HEG T,D:471f.; CLL:238 and Zehnder 2010a:297 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:742, Ünal 2016a:390; EDHIL:902), for the reading cf. under Graphic features. For further alleged forms of the paradigm see s.v. duttarriyati(ya)-. Contra these authors, the two words must be separated, since duttarriyati(ya)- is either a regularly suffixed form of duttarya(ta)- or shows a stem different from duttarya(ta)-.

In the sequence ^MUNUSdu-ut-tar^!-ya-ta-aš^!-kán in Bo 4120 r. col. 4 <aš^!> was emended by H. Klengel apud Starke 1987a:252 n. 34 from <ni>, followed by practically all scholars (HEG T,D:472; CLL:238 [not indicating the emendation]; Fuscagni 2007a:65; EDHIL:902; Zehnder 2010a:297 [not indicating the emendation]). Dat. sg. duttarya is the interpretation of Starke 1987a:252 (based on the collation of H. Klengel, cf. Starke 1987a:252 n. 34), who segmented the relevant line as follows: -]an-zi ^MUNUSdu-ut-tar-ya ta-aš^!-kán. Neu apud HEG T,D:472 argued, however, that in this case †duttarya would stand isolated between the end of the previous sentence (-]anzi) and the beginning of the next one (t=aš=kan). Thus he reads it as -]an-zi ^MUNUSdu-ut-tar-ya-ta-aš^!-kán (^MUNUSduttaryataš=kan), followed by CLL:238; EDHIL:902 and Zehnder 2010a:297 (Fuscagni 2007a:65 remained agnostic). However, extraposited constituents are known in Hittite (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:408 with examples and refs., pointed out already by Starke 1987a:252 with ref.; right-dislocated constituents appear, however, only in translation literature from Hattian and Hurrian [see most recently Melchert 2015b with refs.], which is not the case here), thus the original interpretation cannot be excluded on these grounds. Even less assured is Neu’s interpretation of duttaryataš as nom. sg. (followed by HEG T,D:472; EDHIL:902; Zehnder 2010a:297), since formally speaking it can be gen. sg. (assumed by CLL:238) and (if it is not a PN, for a discussion see under Meaning) gen. pl. and dat.-loc. pl. as well and any of these can undergo fronting (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:407). Although the restricted usage of ta= (Old Hittite, later only in texts going back either to the Hattian-Hittite tradition or to the Hurrian-Luwian milieu, Rieken 1999b, esp. 79f.) could exclude the interpretation of Starke, this is not the case yet, since the context of this fragment is unknown (the Konkordanz (v. 1.96) attributes it to a Kizzuwatnean ritual, in this case the alleged appearance of ta= in a NS text is possible).

[Zs.S.]

Collation of a photo of Bo 4120 r. col. 4’ (courtesy of G. Müller) shows that the TA sign is not followed by a single horizontal but at least by two stepped horizontals. J.L. Miller (pers. comm., 07.02.2015) called to our attention that the TAR sign (which shows traces of two slanted wedges) appears in an unusual spelling with following IA. An interpretation of the passage remains difficult until the publication of the fragment.

[A.B.]

The exact meaning of the word is unknown, the following possibilities have been proposed: (a) ‘a female functionary’; (b) ‘daughter’ or similar; (c) personal name (for references see below). The word is attested in the following unpublished passage (Bo 4120 r. col., transcription follows Starke 1987a:251 and Fuscagni 2007a:65, but cf. the discussion under Graphic features):

2’ [ A-N]A^{(?) LÚ.MEŠ}EN^ḪI.A UTÚL-ya [
3’ [ ]ša-ak-nu-wa-an-ta-za x[
4’ [ ]-an-zi ^MUNUSdu-ut-tar-ya(-)ta-aš^!-kán
5’ [ ]x NINDA-an KAxU-az pa-ra-a da-a-i

It cannot be the word ‘daughter’ itself as assumed by CLL:238 (cautiously) and Ünal 2007a:742, Ünal 2016a:553 (with question mark), since the Hittite word for ‘daughter’ ends in -la- (DUMU.MUNUS-la-an, KBo 20.101 rev.^? 3’, it is not attested yet in full spelling, HEG T,D:471; EDHIL:903); the Luwian word for ‘daughter’ is attested as tú-wa/i-tara/i- (TELL AHMAR 1 §24, §29); and the determinative MUNUS refers either to female professions or to female personal names, and not to kinship terms (Starke 1980b:77 n. 14; HEG T,D:471; Zehnder 2010a:297). This led to the assumption of a female functionary (EDHIL:903). Although this would fit the passage, the interpretation as a personal name cannot be excluded either (although Starke 1987a:252 believes that in this case a personal name is less probable).

Finally, it must be noted that neither the interpretation as a female functionary nor as a personal name exclude an etymological connection with the word for ‘daughter’, since designations of professions based on a kinship term are cross-culturally known (e.g. Hitt. ^MUNUSšiwanzanna- ‘a type of priestess’, lit. ‘divine mother’, including the term ‘daughter’ itself, see French fille, Swiss German Tochter ‘maid servant’, HEG T,D:471) and kinship terms can be used as personal names in Anatolia, see e.g. Nani-, lit. ‘brother’, Starke 1980b:77 n. 14; HEG T,D:471). However, if *duttariya- is indeed a verb (see under Origin), the connection to the words meaning ‘daughter’ must be excluded.

[Zs.S.]

Possible derivative:

I. duttarriyati(ya)-

[Zs.S.]

Although the word does not appear in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a, a Luwian origin of this word is generally assumed (Starke 1980b:77 n. 14, Starke 1987a:251f.; CLL:238; EDHIL:903 [“likely”]). The grounds for the assumption of Luwian origin have rarely been articulated. Kloekhorst pointed to an alleged alternation duttaryata- and duttarriyati-. These two alternating stems can be explained only if an original i-mutating stem split in Hittite (and the i-stem spread analogically). However, this alternation does not necessarily exist. Set aside that the very existence of duttaryata- is doubtful, as per above, nom. / gen. sg. duttarriyatiš / duttarriyatiyaš can reflect not only an i-stem (when duttaryata-, if it exists, indeed shows an alternate stem), but also an -iya-stem duttarriyatiya- (with contraction in nom. sg., this type of contraction is attested also in Hittite, cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:32). In latter case duttarriyatiya- is only a regularly suffixed form of duttaryata-. In other words, this alleged alternation is not probative regarding the origin of the word.

Every investigation of the origin is hampered by the fact that the stem is currently unknown. If it is duttarya-, then the only evidence for the Luwian origin is etymological, i.e. the assumption that it reflects a regularly contracted form of Hieroglyphic Luwian tú-wa/i-tara/i- with the ubiquitous suffix -iya-. This is possible, but by no means proven. If the stem is duttaryata-, then the suffixation pattern of the word identifies it as Luwian: while Hittite has no suffix in the shape of -(a)ta/i- vel sim., Luwian provides three possibilities:

1. -ta- forming nouns, added directly to the root (Melchert 2003b:196)
2. -ta- forming (often substantivized) adjectives from nouns (Melchert 2003b:196; suggested by HEG T,D:471).
3. -t(i)- deriving animate nouns from verbs (Melchert 2003b:197).

Since the meaning of the stem *duttariya- is unknown, a solid decision between these options can hardly be made. Suffix No. 1 does not seem to be productive in Luwian and it is restricted only to relic forms: CLuw. ašta- / HLuw. á-sa-ta- ‘(evil) spell, charm’, if connected with Lat. astus ‘wile, cunning’ and CLuw. ḫūta- ‘haste, alacrity’ <*h₂uh₁-to- (Melchert 2003b:196 with refs., cf. here s.vv.). Suffix No. 2 requires an underlying noun, while *duttariya- formally speaking is an adjective built by the ubiquitous suffix -iya-, which, however, could have been substantivized (Starke’s counterargument [Starke 1987a:251f.], these nouns are neuter, is not correct, see animate ḫapāta/i- ‘river-valley’ < ḫāpa/i- ‘river’; Melchert 2003b:196 and here s.vv.). In case of suffix No. 3 (which would exclude the interpretation of this form as nom. sg.) *duttariya- must be a verb, which is formally speaking entirely possible. A precise formal parallel is provided by kupiyat(i)- ‘plot’ from kup(iya)- ‘to plot’ (Melchert 2003b:197 and here s.vv.).

All in all, it is possible that we are dealing with a Luwian word, but it cannot be proven until its stem is not clarified.

[Zs.S.]