zīdan(a/i)- (?)

Hapax in a NS Luwian ritual fragment.

[Zs.S.]

unknown

zi-i-da-ni-in-˹x?˺[(-)

KBo 29.28, 8

(CTH 765, MS?)

Attestation following CLL:284 checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz, who reads only zi-i-da-ni-in and identifies this form as acc. sg. c. (also Tischler 2008a:235, Tischler 2016a:459). However, as the photograph shows (and supported by the hand copy), the table is immediately broken off after ‹in› (contra Starke 1985b:257) and thus it is not assured that these signs represent the entire word. Moreover, the photo shows a small impression above the tip of ‹in› (hinted at also in the hand copy), which, if it is part of a sign, can belong only to the next sign: this would effectively prove that we are not dealing with the end of the word, unless it belongs to a particle. Since the context is fragmentary and not understood, it cannot provide any evidence in this problem.

[Zs.S.]

CLL:284, while registering this word with unknown meaning (also Tischler 2008a:235, Tischler 2016a:459; not included in Ünal 2016a; unpublished at the time of Laroche 1959a), claims that “zīdani-” is “probably derivative of zida/i-”, i.e. of the Luwian word for ‘man’, without providing details. Since no “-(a)ni-” suffix is known (similar suffixes are spelled with a geminated nasal) and the -na- suffix does not show i-mutation, the remaining possibility is an -iya- derivative of a na-suffixed form from zida/i- (-na- derives nouns from nouns, for all these suffixes see Melchert 2003b:195–197; Yakubovich [pers. comm.] also assumes an -iya-stem here). Since, however, the context is fragmentary and not understood, this meaning must remain unproven (the plene spelled ‹in› is not a problem, for zita/i- appears also plene spelled in personal names, cf. Laroche 1966b:212 No. 1561). Note furthermore that perhaps we are not dealing with the end of the word at all (as per above) and this would require a different morphological analysis.

[Zs.S.]