upatitalla/i-

The lexeme is found only twice in a single manuscript of a votive text.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The fragmentary context at KUB 56.12, 10’ mentions ^LÚ.MEŠupatitalla twice: ^(8’)...]-ni qa-tam-ma ši-pa-an-ta-aḫ-ḫi ^(9’)[                ^LÚ.MEŠ]⸢ú⸣-pa-ti-ta-al-la ta-a-an egir-pa ^(10’)...] ka-ru-ú udu ^LÚ.MEŠú-pa-ti-ta-al-l[a “ ...] I will offer to the [         ] likewise [         ] the upatitalla-men a second time back [         ] the upatitalla-men [         -ed] the sheep already” (modified from de Roos 2007a:232; see also Tischler 2016b:14f.). Since it is unlikely that persons are mentioned as items in a list after sheep (cf. in contrast nam.ra gu₄ udu) and that an adjective upatitalla/i- ‘of/related to a land-grant’ referring to udu ‘sheep’ would feature the determinative LÚ.MEŠ, the ^LÚ.MEŠupatitalla are analysed as the subject of the clause in the stem form.In cult inventories, one finds multiple examples for the syntactic position before the verb in this type of contexts. This would conform with the equation with the lú^MEŠ upatiyaš, who has an active role and is translated as ‘employer’ by Ünal 2007a:761.

[E.R.]

It is generally recognized that ^LÚ.MEŠupatitalla- derives from upati(t)- by means of the relational suffix -alla/i- (Starke 1990a:196, CLL:243, HHw:186, HEG U:83). While it is certainly possible that the a-stem form in Hittite results from an adaptation of a Luwian mutated a/i-stem, one should also consider an individualizing common gender derivative thereof ending in non-mutating -a-.

[E.R.]

On account of the Luwian base upatit(t) and the Luwian suffix or suffixes (-alla/i- or possibly -alla-, see under Stem), the Luwian origin of the word is beyond doubt (cf. also Starke 1990a:196, CLL:243, HHw:186, EDHIL:923, HEG U:83, DCL:s.v.).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. upa-⁽ⁱ⁾.