puškantatar

The word is a hapax legomenon occurring only in a letter, which was listed under CTH 177.3 by Laroche (letters of Tutḫaliya IV to the Assyrian king Tukultī-Ninurta I). The dating, however, remains unclear (thus Otten 1959a:64 n. 4 and Wouters 1998a:272). Differently Mora & Giorgieri 2004a:179, who date the text to the second half of Muršili II’s reign or to the first half of Muwatalli II’s.

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.

pu-uš-kán-ta-tar

KUB 23.101 ii 15

(CTH 177, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Oddly, there is a word space between the Glossenkeil and the word, but the presence of pu-uš-[...] (which probably belongs to this lemma) at KUB 23.101 ii 25, in broken context, makes clear that the Glossenkeil pertains to this lemma (thus CHD P:400). – For the possibility that we are dealing with an instance of a deficient writing of geminate -tt-, see below under Stem.

[E.R.]

Due to the context, in which the writer denies the bad quality of the gift he sent to the Assyrian king, the word has been tentatively translated as ‘Bösartigkeit’ (HEG P:673 and HHw:137), ‘Knausrigkeit’ (Starke 1990a:519), ‘miserliness’ (DLL:226 and CLL:181), ‘aloofness (?), unfriendliness (?)’ (CHD P:399-400 and Ünal 2007a:556), ‘small-mindedness’ (HED PE, PI, PU:142) and ‘scortesia (?), avarizia (?)’ (Mora & Giorgieri 2004a:181), which all conform to the context to a certain degree. Similar is the translation ‘Täuschung, Betrug, Übervorteilung’ by Freydank 1990a:311. However, since the author of the letter contrasts his alleged puškantatar with his explicit wish to be on good terms with the addressee (ibid. ii 17f.), the interpretation by CHD P:399-400, viz. “aloofness (?), unfriendliness (?)”, is favored here.

[E.R.]

Likely, the lexeme is an abstract noun of the heteroclite stems in -ttar/-ttn-, which are commonly used Luwianisms in Hittite texts (see Starke 1990a:518-519 and already Hagenbuchner 1989a:280). However, this interpretation encounters a problem, since the word seems to show the Hittite abstract suffix -ātar/-ann-: unless we suggest a deficient writing omitting the sign AT, which is a possibility, we must think either that this is an inner-Hittite derivation or that the Luwian suffix -ttar/-ttn- was replaced with the Hittite -ātar/-ann- suffix (for some examples of this substitution, see Rieken 2023b:214-215).Since the word is a hapax legomenon in the nom. sg. and no oblique forms are extant, the statistically unlikely possibility that it is not a heteroclite stem but another kind of formation (such as a thematic stem in -atar < *-d^hro-) cannot be fully ruled out (see Rieken 2023b:218).

[E.R.]

On account of the morphology (if this is truly a -ttar/-ttn-stem; cf. under Stem) and the Glossenkeil, we can confidently state that we are dealing with a Luwian word. The word is considered Luwian by Starke 1990a:518-519, Melchert 2005a:451 (DCL:226, CLL:181) andvan den Hout 2006a:241.

[E.R.]

*This lemma was written together with the trainee Marco Ammazzini.

For the lemma head see puškant(i)-.