šalḫant(i)- (or šalḫiant(i)-)

This lexeme is found in the myth of Telipinu and related fragments.

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	[šal-ḫa-a]n-t[i-i]š	KUB 17.10 iv 35’	(CTH 324, MS)
acc. sg.	ša-al-ḫi-an-ti-en	KUB 17.10 i 11’	(CTH 324, MS)
	šal-ḫa-an-ti-in	KUB 33.24 ii 10’	(CTH 325, LNS)
	šal-ḫa-an-ti-i[n]	KUB 33.24 i 21’	(CTH 325, LNS)
	šal-ḫa-an-t[i-in]	KUB 33.25 i 9’	(CTH 325, MS)

For the lexeme šalḫitt(i)-, which underlies a different stem formation, see under lemma. The hapax šalḫiantin makes it possible that it is a spelling mistake, although a morphological explanation for a variant with -i- is also viable, see under stem.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[D.S.]

For the semantics of šalḫant(i)- (and šalḫiant(i)-) assumed to match the ones of CLuw. šalḫitt(i)-, see under the respective lemma.

[D.S.]

Melchert 2014e:261 takes šalḫiant(i)- to be the true form and assumes a possessive formation in -ant(i)- derived from the original i-stem continued in Hitt. šalli- ‘great’ and probably CLuw. šalḫa(/i)-. Differently, Yakubovich 2010d:235f. assumes that šalḫiant(i)- is a participial formation in -ant(i)- derived from a fientive in -i- (= Hitt. -ē(šš)-) “growing”, which is not convincing not only for phonological reasons, but also for reasons of probability with the stem class adduced being virtually absent in Luwian. Both scholars assume the form with -i- to be original over the one without, even though the form with -i- could easily be treated as a hittitized form influenced by the synchronic i-stem šalli-. Regardless, the more secure form šalḫant(i)- can basically be taken as a derivation in -ant- + -i- build on a substantive *šalḫa- or a late substantivized adjective in *šalḫa/i-. A different substantivization of the same nt-formation is found in HLuw. /salhant-/.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. šalḫa(/i)-.