/wanatti(ya)-/

This lexeme is found in Iron Age Luwian inscriptions. Its earliest attestation is in Babylon 1 dated to the late 10th or early 9th century BCE.

[D.S.]

The personal determinative in front of the word attested in BABYLON 1, §3 is hereby removed, because a personal name is syntactically inappropriate following the possessive pronoun /amin/ ‘my’ (pace Stefanini 1974a:603).

 [D.S.]

The attestation in BABYLON 1 “mi-i-na-´ FEMINA-ti-i-na BONUS-mi-i-na INFANS-ní-i-na” poses some difficulties on the semantic side. There are two possibilities for the translation, either as ‘the dear child of my wife’ or ‘my dear female child’. In case of the former, it might refer to a child, whom his wife already had, when he married her. In case of the latter, it would specify the gender of the child in question, who is given away to the Storm-god. The former option is more likely on graphic grounds, since the word for “female” is always written longer with the additional suffix /-ad(i)-/, see /wanattiyad(i)-/. Moreover, it is expected from a syntactic perspective that the possessor is placed as leftward as possible (Bauer pers. comm.). However, due to the lack of comparative data for this type of construction, any interpretation must be considered tentative; cf. Bauer 2014a:228, Hawkins 2000a:393.

[D.S.]

1. /wanattiyad(i)-/
2. /wanattiyadiya-/

Attested several times, but only in a single NS Luwian ritual fragment.

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. CLL:255 books these forms under wanatt(i)- ‘woman’ (similarly Starke 1980b:75 and EDHIL:501; not mentioned as a separate entry in the other lexica either [Tischler 2008a:218, Tischler 2016a:420; Ünal 2016a:975]), which is, however, contradicted by MUNUS-at-ti-˹ya˺[ in KUB 35.125, 6’. Since the context of MUNUS-at-˹ti˺-[ in KUB 35.125, 7’ and ˹MUNUS-at˺-[ti- in KUB 35.125, 8’ is fully identical (a-du-ur MUNUS-at-°[, Starke 1985b:252), the same morphological analysis must apply, despite their fragmentary form. The practically identical context warrants the same for the formally ambiguous MUNUS-at-ti-in-za in KUB 35.125, 5’ (a-a-du MUNUS-at-ti-in-za [, Starke 1985b:252).

[Zs.S.]

The meaning follows the pers. comm. of I. Yakubovich, which is based on the transparent morphology of the word (an -iya-suffixed form of wanatt(i)- ‘woman’).

[Zs.S.]

Hapax in a Hittite ritual text from Kizzuwatna (LNS).

[Zs.S.]

Attestation following HED N:11 checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

Most of the dictionaries did not include this word (Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a, HEG; Ünal 2007a, Ünal 2016a; EDHIL), CHD L-N:343 left untranslated and only HED N:11 tried to give at least a general sense to the only phrase where it is attested: he translates wanatiyaza naḫšarataza as ‘from fear of wanati-’ with question mark (and with ref. to similar constructions). Nevertheless, he compares wanatiyaza with Cuneiform Luwian wanatiyatiya-, which is based on the adjective *wanatiya- ‘female, of woman’ (cf. also Cuneiform Luwian *wanattiya- ‘female, of woman’), which would rather lead to a translation ‘by / through / with female fear’. Since the context is fragmentary, it cannot be decided whether this translation makes any sense.

[Zs.S.]

HED N:11 compared this word with Cuneiform Luwian wanatiyatiya- (with question mark), whose meaning was not clear at that time, but in the meanwhile it could have been defined as ‘female genitals’ (see s.v.). Luwian wanatiyatiya- is surely based on *wanatiya- ‘of woman, female’, which is formally fitting and thus we would deal with a Luwianism in a Hittite text (not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a). Nevertheless, this could be proven only by the context, but this is not possible due to its fragmentary nature (cf. above). Thus its Luwian origin remains a currently unprovable possibility.

[Zs.S.]

For the derivational base see Luw. wanatt(i)-.