kattawatnalla/i-

Attested three times, this lexeme only occurs in rituals from the Kuwattalla tradition (from MS^? onwards).

[E.R.]

acc. pl. c.	[kat-ta-wa-at-na-a]l-li-in-zi(sic!)	KUB 35.48 ii 12’	(CTH 760, NS)
	kat-ta-wa-⸢at⸣-na-al-li-⸢in⸣-za	KUB 35.45 ii 19	(CTH 760, NS)
unknown	kat-ta-wa-a[t-na-	KUB 35.16 iii 2’	(CTH 762, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The restoration follows Starke 1985b:155 with n. 64.

[E.R.]

The semantic interpretation of the attestations in Hittite transmission as ‘vengeful’ (itself dependent on the semantics of the underlying noun attested as Hitt. kattawatar ‘(grounds for) vengeance’) also provides a meaningful translation for the Cuneiform Luwian contexts, where the word occurs as the first in a list of negative epithets for the hostile ritual opponent (“the enemies, the vengeful, the lords of spells, of binding, taparu-, curse and perjury”); cf. DLL:55, van Brock 1962a:107, Weitenberg 1984a:116, Yakubovich 2017d. However, following Melchert 2000a:181 (CLL:103), a substantival analysis seems equally possible, or even preferable in view of the word order, which, otherwise, would have the adjective follow its head noun. The substantival analysis accepted here yields a translation “the enemies, the revengers (or “the vengeful ones”), the lords of ...”); cf. Laroche 1965a:51, Weitenberg 1974a:54, HED K:140. Both possibilities are considered in EDHIL:466; without translation Otten 1953a:72.

[E.R.]

See under the lemma of the gloss wedge word kattawatnalla/i- below.

[E.R.]

Most attestations occur in two duplicate manuscripts from an evocation ritual, the sole exception being found in a MH decree of Tudḫaliya I.

[E.R.]

nom. sg. c.	kat-ta-wa-⸢at⸣-na-liš	KUB 58.73 iii 10’	(CTH 485, NS)
	⸢kat-ta-wa-at⸣-na-al-li-iš	IBoT 3.148 iv 42	(CTH 485, NS)
	kat-ta-wa-⟨at⟩-na-al-li-iš	KUB 13.7 i 15	(CTH 258, NS)
acc. sg. c.	kat-ta-wa-at-na-li-en	KUB 58.73 iii 12’	(CTH 485, NS)
	⸢kat⸣-ta-wa-at-na-al-li-[in]	KUB 58.73 iii 8’	(CTH 485, NS)
	⸢kat-ta-wa-at-na-al-li-in⸣	IBoT 3.148 iv 45	(CTH 485, NS)
	[kat-ta-wa-at-na-a]l-li-in	IBoT 3.148 iv 40	(CTH 258, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The readings in IBoT 3.148 are confirmed by those of the duplicate KUB 58.73. – The form kat-ta-wa-⟨at⟩-na-al-li-iš at KUB 13.7 i 15 should either be corrected as a proper Luwian form (as done here, following Starke 1990a:470), or it may represent a form adapted to Hittite phonology by way of assimilation *-tn- > -nn-. A purely Hittite form seems unlikely in view of the Luwian suffix -alla/i- and the consequence that a stem in the Hittite -ātar/-ann- suffix would, in this case, be used as a derivational base.

[E.R.]

From the contexts, it can be deduced that the word refers to a person hostile to the king or a property of such a person, especially since it is paired with be-el di-ni-šu ‘legal opponent’ at KUB 13.7 i 15 (for the context, see Miller 2013a:140f.). This accords well with the assumed meaning of the Luwian base noun *kattawattar/-t(ta)n-, which matches Hitt. kattawātar/-ann- ‘(grounds for) vengeance’ (see Melchert 1979a:268-271), hence kattawatnalla/i- ‘vengeful’ (or substantivized ‘revenger’). The collocation with ^LÚkúr ‘foe, enemy’, always in the order ^LÚkúr kattawatnalliš unexpected for syntagms of an adjective plus head noun, tips the scales in favor of the substantival analysis (thus Rosenkranz 1952a:22, van Brock 1962a:107, Laroche 1965a:51, CLL:103 against HW:385, DLL:55, Kronasser 1966a:212, Weitenberg 1974a:54 and Weitenberg 1984a:116, Starke 1990a:470, HHw:76, Ünal 2007a:331, EDHIL:466, HED K:140; undecided HW 2nd ed.K:268).

[E.R.]

Obviously, the lexeme derives from the oblique stem of heteroclitic *kattawattar/-t(ta)n- with the suffix -alla/i- (Starke 1990a:469f., replacing Hitt. kattawātar/-ann- with the expected Luwian stem as the base of kattawatnalla/i- and, thus, correcting e.g. Kammenhuber 1954a:437 n. 92, van Brock 1962a:107, Laroche 1965a:51, Kronasser 1966a:212, Weitenberg 1974a:54).

[E.R.]

On account of the use of the gloss wedge, the preservation of the cluster /-tn-/ and the -alla/i- suffix, most scholars assume a Luwian origin of the lexeme (see Otten 1953a:72, DLL:55, HW:385, Weitenberg 1974a:54, Neumann 1976a:142, Weitenberg 1984a:116, Morpurgo Davies 1986a:142, Starke 1990a:469f., CLL:103, Oettinger 2000c:360 n. 9, HHw:76, HEG A-K:545; still undecided Weitenberg 1974a:56).

Kloekhorst (EDHIL:466) points out that, unless Skt. śatru- ‘enemy’ belongs to a different root, the received etymology would imply the reverse process of a borrowing from Hittite (see under Reconstruction), but this claim can now safely be rejected based on the derivational chain (see under Stem Formation).Erroneously, the corrupt spelling kat-ta-wa-⟨at⟩-na-al-li-iš at KUB 13.7 i 15 was sometimes seen as representing a Hittite or Hittitized form with assimilation of the cluster -tn- (DLL:55, van Brock 1962a:107, Laroche 1965a:51, CLL:103; see under Graphic Features).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. *katt(i)-.