*dada
‘father’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 858
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/tad(i)-/, tá-ti-
‘father’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme ranges among the most frequent nouns in the HLuw. corpus. With 42 known attestations, it is represented in inscriptions from all periods of the HLuw. era. As for its geographical distribution, it can be found throughout most of the HLuw. area save for the far-south, and it is very rare in areas relevant to Empire times in the 2nd millennium BCE, as attestations from that early period are scarce.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Graphic Features
1.1.2.1Phonological Interpretation
Due to its well-attested syllabic spelling, the phonological interpretation of the present lexeme is certain, and it finds futher support from cognates in CLuw. tāt(i)- ‘father’ and some other Anatolian languages. It is noteworthy that the initial syllabic sign of /tad(i)-/ is invariably 〈tá〉 (*29), which has led Rieken 2010a:305-307 to propose a phonetic (though not necessarily phonemic) difference to the sound value represented by sign *100 (read 〈ta〉 and ASINUS) that was consistently distinguished in spelling during the heyday of the Karkamiš tradition; later texts are much less consistent except where the present lexeme is concerned. Still, the strong association between the sign *29 and the word /tad(i)-/ may actually have led to the sign acquiring the phonetic value 〈tá〉 in the first place by way of the acrophonic principle (thus Hawkins 1995a:74).
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Meaning
The meaning ‘father’ was first suggested by Bossert 1946a:94, 99 for CLuw. (followed by Otten 1953a:52), based on the Hittite parallels to CLuw. expressions, and then in Bossert 1948a:180 for HLuw. The identification of the HLuw. word was based on the Phoenician version of the bilingual inscription from Karatepe, in which /tad(i)-/ and its derivative /tadi(ya)-/ ‘father’s, paternal’ occur several times and always correspond to the appropriate form of Phoenician ʾb. The other occurrences of the word support this interpretation. It is frequently paired with /huha-/ ‘grandfather’ (e.g. in BOHÇA, §6, and KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §8 and many others) as well as further male forebears such as /huhad(i)-/ ‘great-grandfather’ and /huhadul(i)-/ ‘forefather’; pairings with /annatt(i)-/ ‘mother’ are much more rare (only in KARATEPE 1 Hu., §3, and possibly in ÇINEKÖY, §5).
In contrast to the other Anatolian languages, HLuw. has no direct attestations for the otherwise frequent collocation of the word for ‘father’ and a deonym. Only the curse formula in ARSUZ 1 and 2 implies the paternal role usually held by the god (DEUS)BONUS, /Kumarma/, through switching it with the maternal role ususally assigned to (DEUS)VITIS, /Tipariya/ (cf. Dinçol, Dinçol, Hawkins, Peker & Öztan 2015a:68).
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Stem
The noun undergoes i-mutation, as becomes evident from the attested forms.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
tāta/i-
‘father’1.2.1Transmission
Amply attested in Luwian rituals and in a myth (from MS until NS).
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. c. | ta-a-ti-iš | KUB 35.95, 6’ | (CTH 770, MS) |
| KUB 35.103 ii 9’ | (CTH 766, MS) | ||
| KUB 35.103 ii 16’ | (CTH 766, MS) | ||
| ˹ta˺-a-ti-iš | KUB 35.68, 16’ | (CTH 770, NS) | |
| [ta]-˹a˺-ti-iš | KBo 9.141 i 19’ | (CTH 762, MS) | |
| acc. sg. c. | ta-a-ti-in | KBo 9.143 iii! 10’ | (CTH 762, MS) |
| dat.-loc. sg. | da-a-ti-i | KUB 35.107 iii 10 | (CTH 764, MS) |
| ˹da˺-a-ti | KBo 29.52, 7’ | (CTH 770, MS) |
Attestations follow CLL:221 (cf. Laroche 1959a:95f.) checked against the photos of the Konkordanz (the dating of KUB 35.95 follows the pers. comm. of J. L. Miller). Contra Melchert, Laroche, and Görke 2015a:§20 ta-ti-in-zi in KUB 9.31 ii 30 and HT 1 ii 6’ does not belong here, but to tātiya- ‘paternal’ (see s.v. with discussion). The traces of the first sign in [ta]-˹a˺-ti-iš (KBo 9.141 i 19’) are not visible anymore on the photo (the hand copy still has some, but not indicative traces), but the restoration is assured due to the context (cf. Starke 1985b:126). Melchert suggested restoring [ta-a-]ti-i in KBo 13.260 ii 33 (with question mark) and Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:217 similarly restore [ta]-a-ti-i (although the ‹a› is not there, neither in the hand copy nor on the photograph of the Konkordanz). However, this does not really fit the context (KBo 13.260 ii 32-33, Starke 1985:261):
[…]-˹x˺-ni-ia-aš DUMU-iš a-aš-du […-]ti-i-pa-aš da-i-ni-iš
Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:217 restore and translate these sentences as [a-a]n-ni-ya-aš DUMU-iš a-aš-du [ta]-a-ti-i-pa-aš da-i-ni-iš ‘Let him be a child to his mother, and oily to his father!’ (interpreting ‘oily’ as ‘gentle’, with question mark), which does not make sense.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘father’
There is a justified communis opinio regarding the meaning of this word (Laroche 1959a:95; CLL:221; Haas 1994a:378; Hutter 2003a:224; EDHIL:225; Tischler 2008a:295, Tischler 2016a:370, HEG T,D:270; Torri 2010a:378; Francia 2014a:11; Ünal 2016a:972; Steitler 2017a:393) based on its contrastive usage with ‘mother’ and ‘step-father’ in KUB 35.103 ii 16’ and KBo 9.141 i 19’ (cf. already Friedrich 1930a:371 n. 2 and Otten 1953a:52).
[Zs.S.]
1.2.4Derivatives
Last updated: 21 February 2020
1.3 Luwian in Hittite transmission
†tata/i-
‘(ghost word)’1.3.1Transmission
van den Hout 2007a:254 suggests a Luwian loanword in tata/i- of KUB 9.31 ii 30, but in fact we are dealing with a Luwian sentence and with the Luwian word tati(ya)-, see the discussion s.v. It is, accordingly, included neither in the other list of Luwianisms (Melchert 2005a) nor in Hittite dictionaries (Friedrich 1952a; Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a; Ünal 2007a, Ünal 2016a).
[Zs.S.]
Last updated: 21 February 2020
1.4 Lycian A
tede/i-
‘father’1.4.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in some grave inscriptions from Tlos and on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE. and stylistically around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).
[D.S.]
1.4.2Forms
| nom. sg. | tedi | TL 21.2 (Tlos) |
| ṭedi | N 334.6 (Tlos) | |
| gen. adj. dat. sg. c. | teθθi | TL 44a.26 (Xanthos) |
| gen. adj. | [te]θ̣θi | N 337.8 (Limyra) |
1.4.3Graphic Features
For the restoration of N 337.8 see Christiansen 2012a:12.
[D.S.]
1.4.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The genitival adjective *tedehi has undergone syncope in the medial syllable, which led to the form teθθi (Melchert 1994a:287). One can be relatively certain that the word for ‘father’ occurred in compounded personal names such as teθθiweibi (Neumann 2007a:353) and qñtbẽdde/i- (qñtbẽ + dde/i-, (contra Neumann 2007a:306). For the latter, the first member is found in Lyc. B qñtbe- (no alternative reading is necessary pace van den Hout 1995b:112 n. 25) and the second member dde/i- should go back to a syncopated and assimilated preform *tde/i- < tede/i-. The personal name ddedi (TL 103.2) was translated as ‘father’ by Laroche 1958b:191 (likewise Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:79), but it was rightly rejected in the literature (Meriggi 1980a:261, Neumann 2007a:38, DLL:62), although the initial cluster dde- could go back to a sequence *tde/i- < tede/i- (just like for the word for ‘father’ shown above) or to a reduplicated sequence instead.
[D.S.]
1.4.4Meaning
The meaning of Lyc. A tede/i- is based on the elucidation of the Lycian B corresponding lexeme tede/i- c. ‘father’ (Laroche 1958b:191, Neumann 2007a:343, DLL:62). This is contextually proven by the relationship attested between two Lycian men, i.e. ipresida… ikuweh tedi ‘Ipresida, father of Ikuwe’ (N 334) and Ikuwe… ipresidah tideimi ‘Ikuwe, son of Ipresida’ (TL 29).
[D.S.]
1.4.5Compounds
- qñtbẽdde/i- (PN)
- teθθiweibi (PN) (Neumann 2007a:353)
1.5 Lycian B
tede/i-
‘father’1.5.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in various grave inscriptions as well as on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).
[D.S.]
1.5.2Forms
| gen. adj. nom. sg. c. | tedesi | TL 44d.67 (Xanthos) |
1.5.3Meaning
The meaning of Lyc. tede/i- ‘father’ was assigned by Bossert 1948a:180, who compared CLuw. tāt(i)- c. ‘father’. The collocation of ẽnesi=ke tedesi=ke ‘of both the mother and the father’ further supports the semantic assignment, which has been generally accepted (Neumann 2007a:343, DLL:130).
[D.S.]
1.6 Carian
ted
‘father’1.6.1Transmission
Hapax in a false door-stela from Memphis from c. 500-470 (Kammerzell 1993a:162, 170f.).
[Zs.S.]
1.6.2Forms
| nom. sg. | ted | E.Me 38 |
Attestation follows Adiego 2007a:421 checked against the photo in O. Masson 1978a:Pl. XVIII/1. Adiego 2007a:421 cautiously proposes that the first member of the compound name tduśoλ (E.Me 24) is related to this word. This is definitely possible and formally speaking they can even be identical (Schürr 2003c:69 n. 1 speculates that the ‹t› is just a scribal error and we are dealing with the independently attested name dwśoλ, but nothing supports this idea, especially not its slightly smaller size, which was his starting point).
[Zs.S.]
1.6.3Meaning ‘father’
There is a justified general agreement regarding the meaning since the independent identification by Schürr 1996a:68, Schürr 1996d [1998] and by Hajnal 1997a:210, Hajnal 1997b:145, Hajnal 1998a:82, Hajnal 2003a:191, 195 (cf. also Tremblay 1998a:120 n. 12, Adiego 2007a:273, Adiego 2010b:169f.) based on the context (a genealogical description: ‘who is the ted of PN’) and on the similarity of this word to other Luwic terms for ‘father’, especially Cuneiform Luwian tāta/i- (see s.v.), which are direct cognates (with umlaut via i-mutation in Carian, see Adiego 2007a:259, 421 with refs.).
[Zs.S.]
Last updated: 24 February 2020
1.7 Lydian
tada-
‘father’1.7.1Transmission
The attestations of this lexeme all belong to the longer inscriptions emanating from Sardis. LW 80 is dated to the 4th century BCE, the other texts can be dated only more approximately, to the 5th or 4th century BCE.
[I.Y.]
1.7.2Forms
| nom. sg. | taadas | LW 14.16 (Sardis) |
| taada[s] | LW 14.10 (Sardis) | |
| dat. pl. | taada(ν) | LW 10.20 (Sardis) |
| unknown | taada[ … ] | LW 80.12 (Sardis) |
The nom. sg. interpretation offered for taada=k (LW 10.20) in Gusmani 1964a:207 is impossible in view of 1sg. pres. verb cẽnu appearing in the same clause.
[I.Y.]
1.7.3Meaning
The etymological and combinatory evidence for taada- meaning ‘father’ is laid down in Gusmani 1962b:82f. and recapitulated in Gusmani 1964a:207. The collocation LW 10.20 ẽna=k taada=k played a key role in this identification. The new grammatical identification of both nouns as plural datives, governed by the verb cẽnu ‘I designate, dedicate’, suggest that the words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’ were used in this context with reference to the deceased ancestors. Note also that the contrast between collocations LW 14.10 lẽms … taadạ[s] and LW 13.8 ẽna=t … lẽm=k, likewise supports the association between ẽna- and taada-: in the first collocation taada- appears to represent an epithet of lẽm-, in the second one ẽna- is coordinated with lẽm-. If lẽm- is a variant of lew- ‘Zeus’, then lẽms … taadạ[s] probably represents a calque of the Greek phrase Ζεὺς πατήρ. The other contexts featuring taada- are more obscure.
[I.Y.]
1.7.4Stem
The noun tada- is a synchronic a-stem, accented on the root.
[I.Y.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘father’
The comparison of CLuw. tāt(i)- (HLuw. /tad(i)-/), Lyc. tede/i-, Lyd. tada- and Car. ted leads to the reconstruction of an additional Proto-Anatolian word for ‘father’, i.e. *dada-. Hittite and Palaic, on the other hand, have generalized different words, i.e. atta- and pāpa- /baba/ respectively. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:225f.) reconstructs the Luwic word for ‘father’ as *todo-, which is not likely considering that it is a lallword. On typological grounds, the vowel -a- must be reconstructed as the original one. Furthermore, since the initial *d- of *dada would have devoiced to *t-, as in Lyc. tede/i- and Lyd. taada-, a pre-form *dada-, which is expected from the perspective of lallwords, is more likely than *tada-. In the etymological dictionaries of Hittite, all Anatolian words for ‘fathers’ are placed together because of their lallword-characters; cf. HED A:226, HEG A-H:92f. See further details on the mutated stem of Luwian, Lycian and Carian see PAnat. *atta- under Reconstruction.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Besides Core IE *ph2ter- m. ‘father’ (NIL:554-562), further lexemes denoting ‘father’ have to be reconstructed for PIE, Core IE, or PAnat., cf. PIE *at(t)a ‘daddy’ and the notes on PAnat. *baba ‘father’. Prima facie, a connection of PAnat. *dada ‘father’ and Core IE *tata ‘daddy’ might be established. However, while, e.g., PIE *at(t)a ‘daddy’ can be reconstructed on the basis of its homogenous meaning throughout the IE languages and the continuants’ sufficient phonological similarity, PAnat. *dada ought not to be traced back to the proto-language due to the phonological deviation from Core IE *tata, cf. below sub Morphological reconstruction.
Since both Core IE *tata and PAnat. *dada belong to child language, they denote the ‘father’ in a rather familiar setting, thus meaning ‘dad(dy)’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
On phonological grounds, there is no way to connect Core IE *tata ‘daddy’ and PAnat. *dada ‘id.’ Both formations show an iterated syllable consisting of primitive phonemes including /a/, which makes it likely that they belong to child language. However, these syllables differ in the anlauting dental plosive; while the non-Anatolian evidence unambiguously points to a voiceless dental Core IE *t, the Anatolian continuants suggest to reconstruct a voiced dental PAnat. *d. Since child language items are morphologically simple and may be lexicalized anywhere and anytime (cf. the Germanic data above), the equation has to be perfect (cf. similarly Pal. baba ‘father’). Therefore, neither PAnat. *dada ‘father’ nor Core IE *tata ‘daddy’ are reconstructed for PIE here but only for the respective later stages.
[C.S.] [A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. tatá- m. ‘dad(dy)’ (RV+), tātya- ‘paternal’ (RV), tatā-maha- m. ‘grandfather’ (AV+), tāta- m. ‘(address of the parents to their son) (ŚB+); father (Mbh+)’
EWAia I: 616., KEWA I:471, Grassmann 1996a:512, Böhtlingk 1855a III:202, 292.
(?)Shughni dōd ‘father, dad(dy)’, etc.
EVS:28
?Gk. Hom. voc. sg. τέττα ‘(address of Diomed to Sthenelus, his charioteer)’ (hapax, Il.4.412)
?Gk. voc. sg. τᾱτᾶ ‘daddy’ (AP 11.67), cf. also τᾱτί ‘mommy’ (Herod.5.69)
GEW II:860, DELG:1096, EDG:1455, LSJ:1760, 1783, LfgrE IV: 421Because of its late and scarce attestation, Gk. τᾱτᾶ may even be a loanword from Latin, cf. DELG:1096.
Engl. dad(e) (16th c.+), derivative daddy (16th c.+), dada (17th c.+) ‘father (colloquial)’, Germ. Bavarian Tatte ‘daddy’ (18th c.+, BWB III:1315f.), Rhenish Tata ‘id.’ (RhWB VIII:1078), etc.Due to their late attestation, these words are likely to be recent creations; cf., e.g., OED online s.vv.
PCelt. *tato- m. ‘father’, cf. MW tat, MBret. tat, OCorn. gloss. tat ‘(Lat.) pater, father’, MIr. personal name Daid, cf. also the compound OW(+) hen-dat m. ‘(Lat.) avus, grandfather’
EDPC:372f., eDIL s.v. Daid, Falileyev 2000a:82
Lith. tė̃tis m. ‘father’, Latv. tētis ‘little father’, OPr. thetis ‘(Germ.) altvater, grandfather’ (E 171)
ALEW II:1096, PKEŽ² s.v. thetis
Lith. tė́vas m. ‘father; (pl.) parents’, Latv. tȩ̃vs m. ‘father, old man; (pl.) parents’, OPr. towis ‘father’, etc.
ALEW II, LEW II:1085f., PKEŽ² s.v. towis, EDBIL:464, 566There are two possible etymologies for the Baltic words preserved in Lith. tė̃tis m. ‘father’, on the one hand, and Lith. tė́vas m. ‘father’, on the other. The first possibility is that the ‘base’ *tē- (or *tā-, as for OPr. towis) belongs with Core IE *tata ‘daddy’ and is originally a nursery term, which was secondarily incorporated into the grammatical system of Baltic, cf., e.g., LEW II:1085f., PKEŽ² s.v. towis. The second possibility is that PBalt. *tē- continues a morphonological variant of PIE *ph2tér-, viz. *ptē(r), cf. OAv. nom. sg. tā (hapax, Y.47.3) beside Av. ptā and also YAv. tūiriia- ‘father’s brother’ (ALF:94), cf., e.g., SEJL:673f.
Russ.(+) tatá m. ‘father’
EDSIL:—, Vasmer III:81
?Alb. tatë ‘dad(dy), granddad(dy); priest’
Demiraj 1997a:382 (loanword), AED: 450