/wanattiyadiya-/

This lexeme is found in one inscription dated to the reign of Katuwa (late 10th or early 9th c. BCE).

[D.S.]

The logogram FEMINA indicates that the lexeme FEMINA-ti-ia-ti-ia- n. refers to something pertaining to the woman. Furthermore, it is clearly a derivative of FEMINA-ti-ia-ti- /wanattiyad(i)-/ ‘female’. FEMINA-ti-ia-ti-ia- n. occurs within a curse formula, where it is the direct object of the verb /partuni-^(ti)/ ‘to severe (vel sim.)’ and where the dative pronoun /=du/ makes it clear that the object is something that belongs to the potential female offender. The meaning ‘femininity’ is suggested in Hawkins 1975a:143 and followed by Hawkins 2000a:104, Payne 2012a:72. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) suggests the translation ‘female genitals’, which expresses clearly what is to be removed.

[D.S.]

Attested in a Luwian passage of a Hittite ritual (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. pl. n.	wa-na-ti-˹ia˺-ti-ia	KBo 29.16 ii? 4’	(CTH 761, NS)
	[wa]-˹na-ti-ia-ti-ia˺	KBo 29.16 ii? 3’	(CTH 761, NS)

Attestations following CLL:255 checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. [wa]-˹na-ti-ya-ti-ya˺ in KBo 29.16 ii 3’ is practically unreadable, its restoration is based on the parallel phrase of the next lines (Starke 1985b:196). For the less probable theoretical possibility that we are dealing here with a dat.-loc. sg. see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

Its meaning is generally supposed to be unknown (Melchert 1988b:215, CLL:255; Tischler 2008a:218, Tischler 2016a:420; not included in Ünal 2016a, unpublished at the time of Laroche 1959a). Melchert (assuming a form wanatiya(n)tiya-, cf. also Hawkins 1975a:143) adds that it should mean ‘feminine’ comparing it with Hieroglyphic Luwian VIR-ti-ya-ti-ya- ‘masculine’ (implicitly following Bossert 1951a:276 n. 185 and not Hawkins 1975a:143, cf. below), cf. Cuneiform Luwian wanatt(i)- ‘woman’ (see s.v.), “but context is not favorable to this interpretation”. However, Yakubovich (pers. comm.), who translates VIR-ti-ya-ti-ya- as ‘male genitals’, suggests a meaning ‘female genitals’.

VIR-ti-ya-ti-ya- appears in a curse, and, remarkably, together with FEMINA-ti-ya-ti-ya-(KARKAMIŠ A11b+c §26-27), that seems to be the Hieroglyphic Luwian spelling of wanatiyatiya-. The context is as follows (Hawkins 2000a:104, transcription slightly modernized):

§26 *a-wa/i-tú |VIR-ti-ia-ti-ia-za-ha |(“CULTER”)pa+ra/i-tú-ní-tú-u
§27 FEMINA-ti-ia-ti-ia-za-ha-wa/i-tú-u |(“CULTER”)pa+ra/i-tú-ni-i-tú
§28 *a-wa/i-tú |VIR-ti-ia-ti-i-na |(*462)mu-wa/i-i-tà-na NEG3-sa |tà-ti-i
§29 FEMINA-ti-˹ia˺-ti-pa-wa/i-tú (FEMINA.*462)4^?-tà |ni-i |tà-ti-i

This is usually translated as follows (Hawkins 2000a:104 [for a revised version, esp. regarding the verb in §28-29 see now Hawkins 2017b, which, however, has no relevance to the present issue], similarly already Bossert 1951a:276 n. 185; Hawkins 1975a:143; Payne 2012a:72):

“§26 From him may they sever virility, §27 ((or) from her they may sever femininity), §28 to him may they not allot(?) (male) seed, §29 ((or) to her they may not allot(?) female seed)!”

This passage shows that the Luwian words for ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are VIR-ti-ia-ti- and FEMINA-ti-ia-ti- (contra CLL:225), thus VIR-ti-ia-ti-ia- and FEMINA-ti-ia-ti-ia- / wanatiyatiya- cannot be identical to them (contra Hawkins 1975a:143). Latter words are suffixed forms of the previous ones by -iya- and since no adjectives appear together with them, they must be substantivized adjectives (although it is theoretically possible that the previous ones are the regularly contracted forms of the latter ones, this is not supported by the distribution of the forms and the semantic difference). From this point of view, both the translation of Hawkins (virility / femininity) and that of Yakubovich (male / female genitals) are fitting and this passage actually allows both translations, i.e. abstract notions and concrete body parts.

Nevertheless, the cuneiform phrase (“wanatiyatiya šarri mammalḫunni”, cf. Starke 1985b:196) is different: šarri ‘above, up’ may be, first, a postposition with dat.-loc. (here in sg.). This requires the loss of the dative ending in wanatiyatiya through the sound change ai > a, which is although not unparalleled (Yakubovich 2015b), it is not widespread, thus perhaps it is better to choose the second possibility, that šarri is an independent adverb here (it can be theoretically also the preverb of the verb meaning ‘to crush, break’, although this case cannot be distinguished here from that of the adverb). The further context is broken off, thus its function cannot be defined more precisely (Melchert’s translation [Melchert 1988b:215, cf. also CLL:190] “for wanatiyatiya” is not supported by anything and contradicted by the other attestations of šarri). Both cases (i.e. when something will be broken above wanatiyatiya or the wanatiyatiya themselves will be crushed), however, require something concrete and not an abstract notion. Thus, in case of the Cuneiform Luwian word, the translation of Yakubovich (“female genitals”) is to be preferred.

[Zs.S.]