*h₂ot-éh₂-i̯e/o-

This lexeme is attested twice in inscriptions from Tabal dating from the mid- to the late 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

3pl. pret. ind. act.	/hattanta/	ha-ta+ra/i?	KARABURUN, §1 (Tabal)
part. nom./acc. pl. n.	/hattamma/	ha-ta-ma	KULULU 1, §2 (Tabal)

The form attested at KARABURUN, §1, looks like it represents /hattada/, because it is spelt with 〈+ra/i〉 (which in this case is exactly and curiously vertical). However, contextually a plural is mandated, and Melchert (apud Sasseville 2021a:86) hypothesises that the short 〈+ra/i〉 was chosen over the rather larger signs TA for layout reasons.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The meaning was first suggested by Hawkins 1971a:129 on the basis of the contexts of attestation at KULULU 1; the link with CLuw. ḫatta- ‘violent blow, harm’ was only established later (see e.g. HEG A-Ḫ:215). The context at KARABURUN, §1 shows it to be transitive, and the same can be gleaned from KULULU 1, §2: a-wa/i za-ia DOMUS-na-a [^? s]a-hi-zi-i á-sá-ta ha-ta-ma, approx. /a=wa zaya parna sahinzi as(an)ta hattamma/, translating as ‘These houses were ruined for generations, (and I rebuilt them)’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:443f.).

[AH.B.]

This verb probably belongs to the stems in /-a(i)-^(di)/,It is assumed to have lenited endings because of the form of the attestation at KARABURUN, §1, cf. also the note under Forms above. deriving from a noun */hatta-/, whose exact cognate is preserved in CLuw. ḫatta- ‘violent blow, harm’ and Lyc. xtta- ‘damage’, see Sasseville 2021a:86. Sasseville cautiously hypothesises that the stem-final /i/ was lost in the attested paradigmatic forms at an early date.

Outdated is the analysis as a stem in /-mman-/ as put forward by Starke 1990a:293f.

[AH.B.]

1. /hah(h)atta-/

This lexeme is attested on the sepulchral inscriptions TL 45b, TL 131 and N 309c. Out of these, TL 45 can be dated to the reign of the Carian satrap Pixodaros, ca. 340-335/334 BCE (Wagner 2011a:151). The lexeme is also attested on N 320, the Letoon trilingual inscription, most commonly dated to 337 BCE, the first year of the Achaemenid king Arses, also during the reign of Pixodaros (Badian 1977a:49f, Bryce 1986a:48f, Keen 1998a:10, Wagner 2011a:156).

[O.B.]

3sg. pres. act.	xttadi	TL 45b.7 (Xanthos)
		TL 131.3 (Limyra)
		N 320.34-35 (Xanthos)
	[x]ttadi	N 309c.7 (Myra)
3pl. pres. act.	xttaiti	TL 45b.5 (Xanthos)
3sg. pret. act.	xttade	N 320.36-37 (Xanthos)

The action described by xtta(i)-^(di) is certainly undesirable. On TL 45b, the verb is preceded by a negation and on TL 131 the action seems to incur a fine. The two most common translations are ‘to damage, do harm (vel sim.)’ (cf. Carruba 1965a:558, Shevoroshkin 1969a:266, Oettinger 1976c:147 n. 49, Hajnal 1995a:155, HED H:254, DLL:85, Rieken 2005b:69, Sasseville 2021a:104) and ‘to alter (vel sim.)’ (cf. Gusmani 1975e:65 n. 9, Neumann 2007a:134, Schürr 2007a:28, Christiansen 2020a:244 n. 315, note that Eichner 2007a:107 n. 17 is agnostic and Laroche 1979c:74 compromises with ‘ôter’). The latter is motivated by the Greek correspondence in the verb μετακινέω ‘to alter’ on N 320. However, substantial differences in the Greek and Lycian prohibition sections do not permit direct semantic equivalence between the two verbs (Laroche 1979c:74, Melchert 2018b, Sasseville 2021a:104). Etymological considerations rather support the former meaning ‘to damage, do harm’ (cf. the base xtta- and related Anatolian lemmata).

[O.B.]

Lyc. A xtta(i)-^(di) is a denominative leniting verb in -a(i)- derived from the noun xtta- ‘harm’ (Laroche 1979c:118, Melchert 1997b:133, Sasseville 2021a:104).

[O.B.]