*k̑ī́do/i-

This lexeme is found both in the Bronze Age and in the Iron Age period. It is never spelled fully syllabic, but its first attestation as VIR-ti- is found in Malatya 2 dated to the 11th or 10th century BCE.

[D.S.]

The semantic assignment of the lexeme VIR-ti- as ‘man’ was facilitated not only by its association with FEMINA-ti- ‘woman’, but also by its equation with Cuneiform LÚ ‘man’ comparing functionary titles and personal names on seals; cf. Meriggi 1951a:32, 46-50, Laroche 1960c:161f., HHG:155, Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:159. The lexeme /zid(i)-/ can have also the meaning of ‘husband’, which is based on the passage KARKAMIŠ A1b, §2, where a woman calls her husband /amis zidis/ ‘my man’, thus ‘my husband’.

Hawkins 2000a:463 opens the possibility of seeing VIR in SUVASA C as a title comparable to CAPUT-ti-, but nevertheless translates it as ‘man’ (likewise Giusfredi 2010b:139-141).

[D.S.]

1. zidāḫid-
2. /zidi(ya)-/
3. /zidiyad(i)-/
4. /zidiyadiya-/
5. /Zidi-/, VIR-ti- (PN) (Hawkins 2000a:181, 183)

Problematic derivative:

1. zīdan(a/i)- (?)

Attested in Luwian rituals from MS until LNS.

[Zs.S.]

Sumerographic spelling:

Attestations following CLL:284 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:115; without, however, DINGIR LÚ^MEŠ-zi , since they belong to the adjectival form ‘male’, see s.v. LÚ ‘male’) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz (note that ˹zi-ti˺ in KUB 35.25, 6’ is hardly readable).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general consensus regarding the meaning of this word since the early research onwards (Götze 1928a:40 n. 1, Götze 1933a:210–212; Sommer 1932a:373 n. 1; Laroche 1949a:76, Laroche 1959a:115f., 123; Friedrich 1952a:283, 330; Güterbock 1950a:230f.; Otten 1953a:32f.; Carruba 1982a:47; Watkins 1986a:60 with n. 32; Starke 1990a:170; CLL:284; van den Hout 2001a:181; Ünal 2007a:824, Ünal 2016a:323, 610, 977; Tischler 2008a:235, Tischler 2016a:460, 522; HEG U-Z:767, 770; Weeden 2011b:557), but this is not due to the passages listed above, since they are too fragmentary to define the meaning and they do not point to the equivalency with LÚ. Instead, it is the variant spellings of LÚ with zida/i- in personal names that prove their identity and the meaning of zida/i- (paralleled and supported by the case of zita/i- and VIR in the Hieroglyphic transmission, see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

Although this word is frequently booked as an i-stem, i.e. ziti- (Laroche 1959a:115; Tischler 2008a:235, HEG U-Z:770, 776 [here assuming, however, separately an a-stem too]; Ünal 2016a:977 [although assuming another word zida- ‘?’ too]), the frequently attested personal name based on this word, i.e. Zida (for examples see Laroche 1966b:211, Laroche 1981b:51 and here s.v. in Luwian in Old Assyrian Transmission) shows that we are dealing with an a-stem (with i-mutation, so correctly CLL:284 and Starke 1990a:170).

[Zs.S.]

Hapax in a Hittite ritual (NS).

[Zs.S.]

Attestation following Laroche 1959a:115 (cf. also van den Hout 2007a:248 and CLL:284) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

There is no doubt regarding its meaning (Laroche 1959a:115 and CLL:284) due to its logographic spelling.

[Zs.S.]

The word was identified as Luwianism by Laroche 1959a:115 and thus it appears in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a:248 (but not in that of Melchert 2005a), which is clearly the case due to its Luwian ending.

[Zs.S.]

Reconstructed from a personal name attested in an Old Assyrian text.

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Yakubovich 2010d:215, the reading follows Michel & Garelli 1997a:270 (cf. also Kloekhorst 2019b:62), since neither photos nor a hand copy have been published.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning is based on the assumption that it is identical with the Luwian word zida/i- ‘man’ (see s.v.), cf. under Origin.

[Zs.S.]

Probable derivative:

1. *zidanni-

Its underlying word was identified by Yakubovich 2010d:216 [“likely”] as Luwian zida/i- ‘man’ (followed by HEG U-Z:767; rejected by Kloekhorst 2019b:62, 65 without any argument), which is probably correct, since it was indeed used also as a personal name (for Hittite period examples see Laroche 1966b:211, 212, Laroche 1981b:51). This supersedes the explicit (but at that time correct) claim of the earlier research (Goetze 1954a:75 and Laroche 1966b:324) that this name is not attested in the texts of the Old Assyrian Colony Period (interestingly enough, Neu 1987a:168 claims that personal names with zida/i- are attested already in this period, but does not provide any evidence or reference).

[Zs.S.]

This lexeme is found in an undated funerary inscription of Myra and perhaps also in a dedicatory inscription of Üsümlü.

[D.S.]

For the assignment of sidi in TL 35 to this lexeme and the emendation involved in line 17 see Neumann 2007a:324 with further literature.

[D.S.]

Gusmani 1994c argues based on the context of the inscription N 309 that the Lycian noun sidi, which represents an already established cognate of Luwian /zid(i)-/ c. ‘man’, means ‘husband’ (thus already Laroche 1987a:238).

ebẽñnẽ : xupã : m(e)=ẽ=ti prñnawatẽ : ddepñnewe : hrppi : ladi ehbi : xatm͂maje : m(e)=ene ñtepi tãti : xatm͂mã : se sidi : ehbi : kbijẽtezi : huzetẽi ‘This grave here, Ddepñnewe built it for his wife Xatm̃ma. They will place inside Xatm̃ma and her second husband Huzetẽi.’ (N 309b.1-3)

According to the persuasive contextual interpretation of Gusmani, the first husband of Xatm̃ma would have built the grave as indicated in N 309a ‘(It) belongs to Ddepeñnewe’. Then, he would have died early and, if his body was even found, buried elsewhere. Then, Xatm̃ma would have remarried and added the inscriptions N 309b-d. Eichner 1993b:239 suggests ‘offspring’, but the translation ‘her second offspring’ is quite awkward. Schürr 1999b:25 suggests for side/i- the meaning ‘son-in-law’ (followed tentatively in DLL:57), because the a daughter occurs in the later part of the inscription N 309d. However, this does not represent solid evidence for the semantic assignment. Gusmani’s hypothesis discussed above remains by far the superior one (contra Schürr 2017a:4).

[D.S.]

1. Ipresida- (PN) (cf. Melchert 2013c:38f., Schürr 2017a)

Possible derivative:

1. Śdit

Adiego 1992a:32 with n. 11, Adiego 2007a:336, 386 suggested that the Carian name Mwsat (E.Me 42) is a compound name consisting of mw, an equivalent of Luwian muwa- (see s.vv.) and sat, a cognate of Luwian zida/i- (see s.v.), i.e. the Carian form of the Luwian name Muwaziti-, allegedly attested in a form similar to Carian in Pisidian (see s.vv.) as well as in other, including Cilician, epichoric names transmitted in Greek inscriptions (for an overview see Schürr 2017a:1f. with refs.). However, Melchert 2013c:39 observed that the Carian form is phonologically irregular due to its vocalism and voiceless stop. He explained this irregularity with remodelling after Greek names, which was rejected by Schürr 2017a:3, but with insufficient arguments (Simon 2017a:33). As Simon 2017a:33 points out, the real problem with Melchert’s scenario is that it is improbable that the same remodelling happens in three non-contiguous areas (Caria, Pisidia, Cilicia). Thus he follows Schürr 2017a:3, who plausibly suggested that we are dealing with a name with the suffix -at (i.e. Mws-at), a well-attested formation among Carian names (presumably connected with the suffix -atta-, Simon 2017a:33).

[Zs.S.]

Unclear derivative:

1. Šdτat