tanama-

Hapax in a Luwian ritual (NS).

[Zs.S.]

abl.-instr.?

ta-na-ma-˹ti˺

KUB 35.48 iii 17’

(CTH 760, NS)

The attestation follows DCL:220 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:90; Starke 1990a:544 n. 2013; CLL:204), checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The emendation ta-‹an›-na-‹am›-ma-ti by Melchert has not been adopted here, since, first, the spelling of geminate nasals is (according to our current knowledge) inconsistent in Cuneiform Luwian and, second, its identity to dannamma/i- ‘drawn’ (see s.v.), the base of the emendation, is not assured, see under Meaning. Note that formally speaking it could be a verb, too (3sg. pres. act.), see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

Although some scholars identified this word with Luwian tanima/i- ‘every, all’ (Laroche 1959a:90; HEG T,D:95 [and not listed separately in Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a either]; Ünal 2016a:971 [as tanamai-, meaning with question mark]), Starke 1990a:544 n. 2013 rightly pointed out that this is not formally possible. Instead, he identified it with dannamma/i- ‘drawn’. Although Melchert first followed this identification (CLL:204, but with question mark), he opts now for a meaning ‘bare, unsheathed’, referring to Starke and the base *danna- in the Glossenkeilwort dannatta/i- ‘desolate, empty’; the meaning ‘unsheathed’ is given by Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a/I: 179, 181, Yakubovich & Mouton 2023b/II:420 as well, also referring to Starke (but note that Starke’s proposal was not fully identical, as per above). Unfortunately, the passage is fragmentary, and thus these meanings cannot be verified. Nevertheless, as Starke pointed out, the next lines refer to cutting, which tips the scale in favour of such meanings, if the word is an adjective referring to the dagger or short sword (GÍR, not ‘knife’, contra Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a/I:179; see, e.g., Weeden 2011b:502) appearing in the previous paragraph. Note, however, that formally speaking the word could be a substantive, an adjective (abl.-instr.), and a verb (3sg. pres. act.), a clear decision cannot be made due to the fragmentary nature of the passage (contra DCL:220: “no basis for underlying verb”).

[Zs.S.]