duttarriyati(ya)-

Attested in a NS oracle inquiry in Hittite.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	MUNUSdu!-ut!-tar!-ri-ya-ti-iš	KUB 22.40 iii 18’	(CTH 577, NS)
gen. sg.	MUNUS˹du˺-ut-tar-ri-ya-ti-ya-aš	KBo 24.126 obv. 28	(CTH 577, NS)

Attestations following HEG T, D:471f.; CLL:238 and Zehnder 2010a:297 (cf. also Ünal 2007a:742, Ünal 2016a:553 and EDHIL:902) checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (on the readings see under Graphic Features for further information). Contra these authors, MUNUSdu-ut-tar^!-ya-ta-aš^! or MUNUSdu-ut-tar^!-ya of Bo 4120 r. col. 4’ does not belong to the paradigm of this word, see s.v. duttarya(ta)-.

[A.B.], [Zs.S.]

The photo of KUB 22.40 iii 18’ (hethiter.net: PhotArch BoFN01009) shows three problematic sign forms. The DU sign has an additional vertical that precedes the horizontals but not the vertical at the end of the sign. The following UD sign has a horizontal at the bottom. There are, however, instances of ligatures with UD, in which the horizontal of the preceding sign is extended and used to connect the two signs: KÙ.BABBAR (cf. Rüster & Neu 1989a:125). Yet, in the present case the lower horizontal is not extended, rather it begins at the UD sign. According to the photo there is no lower horizontal or slanted wedge at the following TAR sign.

[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, cf. also Weeden 2011b:204). The word is attested in the following passages (for transliteration and translation see CHD L-N:395 and P:141, slightly corrected based on the photos of the Konkordanz):

(1) KUB 22.40 iii 18’
[nam]-ma DINGIR-LUM ^MUNUSdu^!-ut^!-tar^!-ri-ya-ti-iš na-ni-ti gán-ga-ti-ti
‘Next shall d. nani- and gangati- the deity.’

(2) KBo 24.126 obv. 28-29
(28)˹ar-ḫa˺-ma-aš-ma-aš i-wa-ar ^MUNUS˹du˺-ut-tar-ri-ya-ti-ya-aš
(29)˹˺pa-ra-at-ta-ša-at-ta[-an-za] a-ni-ya-an-zi
‘They will ritually remove from them the parattašatta- in the manner of D.’ or ‘They will
ritually remove (it) from them like the parattašatta- of D.’

It cannot be the word ‘daughter’ itself (as assumed by CLL:238 [cautiously]; CHD L-N:395 [“probably”]; 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 has not yet been found attested in fully syllabic spelling, HEG: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, 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 (HEG T,D:471, Tischler 2008a:205 [“wörtlich vielleicht ‘Tochter’”], Tischler 2016a:390; EDHIL:903). Although this would fit all passages, the interpretation as a personal name cannot be excluded either.

The possibility of a personal name was noted already by Laroche 1966b:No. 1388, who booked the form of KUB 22.40 iii 18 as such, but his suggestion has frequently been neglected and mentioned only by Starke 1980b:77 n. 14; HEG T,D:471 and Zehnder 2010a:297. Starke and Zehnder even underline that this word may represent a personal name in both cases, more precisely formulated in Starke 1987a:252f. drawing attention to the fact that personal names can appear in oracle questions as they refer to actual events. Accordingly, CHD L-N:395 sees rather a personal name in KUB 22.40 iii 18. Moreover, CHD P:142 identified the word in KBo 24.126 obv. 128 as a personal name, since it follows a preposed iwar, which precedes only logograms and personal names (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:256). Thus ^MUNUSdu-ut-tar-ri-ya-ti-ya-aš in KBo 24.126 obv. 28 is a personal name and ^MUNUSdu-ut-tar-ri-ya-ti-iš in KUB 22.40 iii 18 is probably a personal name.

Finally, it must be noted that neither the interpretation as a female functionary nor as a female personal name exclude an etymological connection with the word for ‘daughter’, since designations for professions based on kinship terms 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.]

Although the word does not appear in the list of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a, a Luwian origin is generally assumed for this word (Starke 1980b:77 n. 14, Starke 1987a:252f.; CLL:238; EDHIL:93 [“likely”]; Tischler 2008a:205, Tischler 2016a:390; cautiously Weeden 2011b:204f. with n. 903). Less unanimous is the linguistic identification of the attested forms: CLL:238 believes that duttariyatiš is a Luwian form, while duttariyatiyaš is a Hittite genitive singular (similarly Rieken 1999a:102 n. 464), but Weeden 2011b:204 n. 903 points out that it can be Luwian, too. According to HEG T,D:471 and Zehnder 2010a:297, both forms are Luwian.

The reasons for the assumption of a Luwian origin have rarely been articulated. Starke 1980b:77 and HEG T,D:471 saw in duttarriyati- a suffixation pattern identical to ḫūḫa- ~ huhati-, both believing that the suffix does not change the meaning of the word (but note that ḫūḫa- means ‘grandfather’ and huhati- means ‘great-grandfather’, cf. KARKAMIŠ A11b+c §8; MARAS 4 §11, cf. s.vv.). Kloekhorst pointed to an alleged alternation duttaryata- (based on Bo 4120 r. col. 4’) 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. Aside from the fact that the very existence of duttaryata- is doubtful (see s.v.), nom. / gen. sg. duttarriyatiš / duttarriyatiyaš can reflect not only an i-stem (when duttaryata-, if it exists, indeed shows a different stem), but also an -iya-stem duttarriyatiya- (with contraction in the nom. sg., this type of contraction is also attested in Hittite, cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:32). In the 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.

It is the suffixation pattern of the word that identifies it as Luwian: while Hittite has no suffix of 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 cannot be reached at present (the first two options also require a further suffixation by the ubiquitous suffix -iya- and thus a secondary substantivization). 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. s.vv.). Suffix No. 2 requires an underlying noun, while *duttariya- formally speaking is an adjective built with the ubiquitous suffix -iya-, which, however, could have been substantivized (Starke’s counterargument [Starke 1987a:251f.] that these nouns are neuters 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 *duttariya- must be a verb, which is entirely possible from a formal viewpoint. A precise formal parallel is provided by kupiyat(i)- ‘plot’ from kup(iya)- ‘to plot’ (Melchert 2003b:197).

[Zs.S.]