gangat(a)i-^(di)

The lexeme occurs in some Kizzuwatnean rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition.

[E.R.]

part. nom. sg. c.	ga-an-ga-ta-im-mi-iš	KUB 35.67 ii 3’	(CTH 759, NS)
part. nom./acc. sg. n.	ga-an-ga-ta-a-im-ma-an	KUB 35.67 ii 6’	(CTH 759, NS)
part. nom. pl. c.	[ga-an-ga-ta-i]m-mi-in-zi	KUB 35.78 iv 15’	(CTH 759, NS)
	ga-an-g[a-ta-im-mi-in-zi]	KBo 29.24 ii? 4’	(CTH 759, NS)

For the likely restoration KBo 29.24 ii^? 4, see Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a:100-102.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Transparently, the lexeme is the participle of a Luwian verb occurring as a hapax in Hittite transmission. Since most occurrences of the verb in Luwian context are quite fragmentary, the meaning was first grasped thanks to the Hittite attestations and the putative base, namely gangati-^SAR. It denotes a kind of plant used in some rituals; hence the common translation ‘to treat with the gangati-plant’ (Melchert in CLL:100, DCL:s.v., Yakubovich & Mouton 2023b:408), see also the attestations in Hittite transmission under Meaning.

In fact, the clearest context is KUB 35.78 iv 14f. despite some restorations, being the only passage where the gangati-plant itself is mentioned. It runs as follows: ⁽¹⁴⁾[nu ^MUNUSŠU.GI g]a-an-ga-ti da-a-i nu me-ma-i ⁽¹⁵⁾[ga-an-ga-ta-i]m-mi-in-zi-ia-ta^! a-ša-an-du, to be translated as “[The Old Woman] takes a [g]angati-plant and says: ‘May they be treated [with the gangati-plant]!’” (thus Yakubovich & Mouton 2023b:84f.; see also Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a:100-103 and 104f.).

[E.R.]

The verb is a denominative in -(a)i-^di deriving the noun gangati-^SAR; for refences, see under gangat(a)i-^(di) in Hittite transmission under Stem.

[E.R.]

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

This word is attested with a Luwian ending only once in an oracle report (SU, KIN and MUŠEN).

[E.R.]

3sg. pres. act.

kán-ga-ti-ti

KUB 22.40 iii 18’

(CTH 577, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The attestation with the Luwian ending occurs in a problematic context (see below). Its semantics would be elusive, were it not for the other attestations with Hittite endings and the base word (see below under Stem), viz. gangati-^SAR, which denotes a kind of plant used in several rituals. This leads to the assignment of the specific meaning ‘to treat with the gangati-plant’ (CLL:100 and DCL:s.v.; similar Laroche 1950a:38, HED K:53f. and Ünal 2007a:307f.: ‘to treat with vegetal/vegetable mash’). Probably, it developed into the more generic ‘to mollify, propitiate’ or ‘to ingratiate’, since in some occurrences the verbal action does not seem to be connected to the gangati-plant (see Strauß 2006a:105f.). Therefore, Ünal 2007a:307f. also adds ‘satisfy, appease, expiate’), similarly Kronasser 1966a:477, HHw:71, HEG A-K:484, HW 2nd ed. 5:76f. (‘entsühnen, reinigen’), Strauß 2006a:376 (also ‘besänftigen’).See already HW:98: ‘mit Gemüsesuppe bewirten(?)’. The translation by Sturtevant 1933a:227 is outdated. No translation was offered by DLL:54.

The understanding of the text where the Luwian form occurs is unfortunately impaired by the presence of an unknown term, the Glossenkeilwort nani-^(ti) or nani(t)-, which can be either a verb or a substantive; see s.v.). We read ⁽¹⁷⁾(…) PA-NI ^DUTU ^URUpú-na ḫu-wa-al-liš ki-iš-ta-nu-an-zi ⁽¹⁸⁾[… na]m-ma DINGIR-⸢LU₄⸣ ^MUNUSdu^!-ut^!-tar^!-ri-ia-ti-iš (eras.) na-ni-ti gán-ga-ti-ti (KUB 22.40 iii 17-18), which can be translated as “(…) in front of the Sun-goddess of Arinna, they deglaze^? juniper^?. [… th]en, the duttariyati-woman nani-es and treats the deity with the gangati-plant / treats the deity with the gangati-plant in/at/to the nanit- (thus under nani-^ti or nanit-) or ‘further shall D. influence [?] [and] propitiate the deity?’ (thus HED K:53).

[E.R.]

The verb is transparently a denominative verb in -(a)i-^(di) deriving the noun gangati-^SAR, as was considered since Sturtevant 1933a:227; for the denominative origin see also HHw:71,HEG A-K:484, HW 2nd ed. 5:76f., HED K:54 and DCL:s.v.Wrongly Wegner 2004a:108, who considers the verb denominative to ^TU₇gangatiya-, which instead is another derivative from the same base. Outdated are the hypercritical doubts by Güterbock 1957a:353f., followed by Hoffner 1974a:112, who considered the two words unrelated, since from the attestations alone only a generic meaning could be grasped; the occurrences in which the texts explicitly connect the verb to the plant name in figurae etymologicae were considered to be due to folk etymology.

[E.R.]

The borrowing of the verb from Luwian is obvious, as the inflectional ending -ti shows (Oettinger 1979a:379, Starke 1990a:336 n. 1191, Rieken 1999a:126, Melchert 2005a:452, and van den Hout 2006a:250). The fact that it is attested also in Luwian context (see s.v.) dispels any doubt.

As Laroche 1950a:38f., DLL:54 and HW:98 (under Hitt. gangati-) already suggested, the ultimate origin of this word might be Hurrian, since most attestations occur in Hurrian-tinged lexical contexts, see also HED K:54, Starke 1990a:336, n. 1191, Taracha 2006a:126, and Richter 2012a:184f.

[E.R.]