mantallaššamma/i-

The lexeme, a participle, is extremely rare, occurring only in two oracle reports.

[E.R.]

part. nom. sg. c.	SISKURma-an-tal-la-aš-ša-am-mi-iš	KBo 2.6 iii 20	(CTH 577, NS)
	ma-an-tal-la-aš-ša-am-[mi-iš]	KUB 8.27 iv 10’	(CTH 569, NS)

Only in KBo 2.6 iii 20 is the word preceded by SISKUR; for the presence and the value of SISKUR see also mantalli(ya)- ‘(ritual) for a mantalla/i-person’. – Melchert (DCL:s.v.) mentions the form [ma-an]-tal-la-aš-ša-at in KBo 60.63 obv. 10 (CTH 579, NS), which could be a genitival adjective mantallašša/i- ‘pertaining to the mantalla/i-ritual’ followed by a clitic pronoun (thus [ma-an]-tal-la-aš-ša=at: In this case, the base of the present verb would be attested; see under Stem).The alternative view expressed by Melchert (DCL:s.v.), namely that this form represents the verb mantallašša- showing Hittite inflection, cannot be upheld, since we would expect the ending -iš-ta or -at-ta.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

On account of the context and the cognate words, especially mantalli(ya)-, which refers to a ritual meant to reconcile two parties (see s.v.), we can grasp the meaning, namely ‘designated for mantalla/i-rituals’, the word being a participle of an otherwise unattested verb (CHD L-N:176, HHw:100, HEG L-M:127, Ünal 2007a:427, EDHIL:555).No translation was offered in DLL:68. In the better-preserved oracle report, we read: ⁽¹⁹⁾... ma‑a‑an‑ma GIDIM ⁽²⁰⁾Ú‑UL SISKUR ma‑an‑tal‑la‑aš‑ša‑am‑mi‑iš ⁽²¹⁾SISKUR ma‑an‑tal‑li‑ia‑za Ú‑UL BAL^!‑an‑ti (KBo 2.6 iii 19-21), which can be translated as ‘If the deceased has not been designated for mantalla/i-rituals, (then) he (scil. the king) will not offer mantalla/i-rituals’ (CHD L-N:176; see also the translation ‘but if the dead one [is] not qualified for rancor-abatement, he does not offer rancor-abatement’ by HED M:60f.). The base verb consequently means something like ‘to designate for mantalla/i-rituals’ (thus CLL:138 and DCL:s.v.; already CHD L-N:176 but with incorrect stem of mantalli(ya)-).

[E.R.]

The lexeme is a participle of an unattested verb, which, according to DLL:68 and CHD L-N:176, would be the imperfective stem *mantallašša-.Differently, Güterbock 1956a:120 and 122f. saw in the syllable -ša- a morpheme forming denominative verbs, which is now outdated. This hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny in terms of grammar, since we do not know any example of a participle of an imperfective verb in Luwian. Instead, we should consider a denominative *mantallašša-^(ti) built, via an agent noun in -allašša- c., to a genitival adjective mantallašša/i- ‘pertaining to the mantalla/i-ritual’ (possibly attested; see under Forms; the genitival adjective belongs to an unattested substantivization in -alla/i-, also base of mantalli(ya)- ‘(ritual) for a mantalla/i-person’); thus HEG L-N:127, HED M: 60, CLL:138, and DCL:s.v.The possibility of a denominative verb was already raised by DLL:68.

[E.R.]

The presence of the participle suffix in -mma/i- leaves no doubt about the Luwian origin of the lexeme. The word is considered Luwian by DLL:68, CLL:138, DCL:s.v., CHD L-N:176, HHw:100, HEG L-N:127, HED M:60f., EDHIL:555f. and Melchert 2005a:450.

[E.R.]

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

For the lemma head see CLuw. *mant-.