/tadi(ya)-/

The HLuw. corpus holds 32 attestations for the present lexeme. While found in a great many inscriptions, it is noticeable that all attestations date to Iron Age times, i.e. the first millennium BCE, and the relevant locations therefore stretch across much of the HLuw. area in the east and south, but not the north or west.

[AH.B.]

nom. sg. c.	/tadis/	tá-ri+i-sa	KARKAMIŠ A5a, §5 (Karkamiš)
acc. sg. c.	/tadin/	tá-ti-na	KIRŞEHİR lead strip, §7 (Tabal)
nom./acc. sg. n.	/tadiyan=za/	tá-ti-ia-za	TELL AHMAR 2, §3 (Tell Ahmar)
			KARKAMIŠ A14a, §3 (Karkamiš)
			BOYBEYPINARI 2, §18 (Commagene)
			TELL AHMAR 6, §3 (Tell Ahmar)
			TELL AHMAR 6, §10 (Tell Ahmar)
			TELL AHMAR 1, §4 (Tell Ahmar)
			ANCOZ 7, §13 (Commagene)
			BOROWSKI 3, §3 (Tell Ahmar)
			KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §15 (Karkamiš)
		tá-ti-ia<-za>	KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §2 (Karkamiš)
		[t]á-ti-ia-za	KARKAMIŠ A11a, §3 (Karkamiš)
		[t]á-[ti-ia]-za	GELB, side A2§2
	/tadin=za/	tá-ti-za	ARSUZ 1, §2 (Amuq)
			ARSUZ 2, §2 (Amuq)
dat./loc. sg.	/tadiya/	tá-ti-ia	KARKAMIŠ A23, §11 (Karkamiš)
	/tadi/	tá-ti-i	MARAŞ 1, §3 (Maraş)
			KARATEPE 1 Hu., §16 (Cilicia)
			KARATEPE 1 Ho., §16 (Cilicia)
		tá-ti	KARKAMIŠ A21, §4 (Karkamiš)
			IZGIN 1, §2 (Malatya)
			JISR EL HADID 4, §7 (Amuq)
abl./instr.	/tadiyadi/	tá-ti-ia-ti	ÇINEKÖY, §2 (Cilicia)
nom. pl. c.	/tadinzi/	tá-ti-zi	KARKAMIŠ A21, §7 (Karkamiš)
			ANCOZ 8, §6 (Commagene)
			MARAŞ 1, §2 (Maraş)
acc. pl. c.	/tadinzi/	tá-ti-zi	TELL AHMAR 6, §5 (Tell Ahmar)
nom./acc. pl. n.	/tadiya/	tá-ti-ia	KARKAMIŠ A11a, §8 (Karkamiš)
dat./loc. pl.	/tadinz/	tá-ti-za	HAMA 4, §10 (Hama)
			JISR EL HADID 4, §3 (Amuq)
		˹tá˺-[...]-za	IZGIN 1, §4 (Malatya)

The meaning of this form was first elucidated by Bossert in the second instalment of his Karatepe edition (Bossert 1949a:104f.), where he notes that it must be an adjective for agreeing with the noun that follows immediately after. His interpretation is supported not only by the Phoenician version of the text, but also by the many contexts in which the adjective appears in other inscriptions, as well as the morphological structure of the form; see also the discussion of the stem below.

The adjective is frequently used in place of the genitive of the noun /tad(i)-/, as is common in HLuw. in general, cf. e.g. Melchert 2003b:186f., 202.

[AH.B.]

Derived from the noun /tad(i)-/ ‘father’, the present lexeme is an adjective in /-i(ya)-/ that has likely replaced the earlier attested hapax legomenon /tadalla/i-/ with the same meaning (cf. Bauer 2014a:164). The suffix /-i(ya)-/ is very frequent in HLuw. and used to form denominal adjectives of appurtenance and possession, an area where it competes with the suffix /-assa/i-/ (cf. e.g. Melchert 2003b:197 and Bauer 2014a:164).

[AH.B.]

Amply attested in Luwian rituals (from MS until LNS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	ta-a-ti-i-iš	KUB 35.49 iv 14	(CTH 761, MS)
	ta-ti-i-iš	KUB 35.46, 6’	(CTH 761, NS)
nom.-acc. sg. n.	ta-a-ti-i-ia-an	KUB 35.43 ii 5	(CTH 761, NS)
	ta-a-ti-ia-an	KUB 35.45 ii 2	(CTH 760, NS)
	[ta-a]-˹ti-ia-an˺	KBo 29.11, 9’	(CTH 760, N/A)
nom. pl. c.	˹da˺-a-˹ti˺-i-in-zi	KBo 29.55 i 6’	(CTH 761, NS)
	ta-ti-in-zi	KUB 9.31 ii 30	(CTH 757, NS)
		HT 1 ii 6’	(CTH 394, NS)
nom.-acc. pl. n.	[ta-a-ti]-˹e˺-ia	KUB 9.6 i 28	(CTH 759, LNS)

Attestations follow CLL:223 (cf. alsoLaroche 1959a:96f.) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz, to which ta-ti-in-zi KUB 9.31 ii 30 and HT 1 ii 6’ was added (contra CLL:221; cf. the correct translation of tatinzi DINGIR^MEŠ-inzi in Goedegebuure 2010b:86 and Yakubovich 2013b:160, contra Friedrich 1930a:371 n. 2 [“götterliche Väter”] and Görke 2015a:§20 [“Väter-Götter”]: the Hittite phrase in §17 of the same text refers to these gods as ‘gods of the father(s)’, i.e. ‘paternal gods’).

The preserved traces of [ta-a]-˹ti-ia-an˺ in KBo 29.11, 9’ are not sufficient for any reading according to the photo (contra the hand copy), but the restoration in Starke 1985b:160 is contextually supported. The restoration [ta-a-ti]-˹e˺-ia in KUB 9.6 i 28 is contextually plausible (Starke 1985b:112 reads here -ḫ]i-e-ia, but nothing has been preserved from the sign preceding ‹e› according both to the photo of the Konkordanz and to the hand copy). On /ī/ from -iya- and on the allophon [e] see Rieken 2017a:24–26, 27.

[Zs.S.]

Despite the early research assuming a meaning ‘father’ (Otten 1953a:52; Laroche 1959a:95; Kammenhuber 1986a:87), there is no doubt regarding its meaning since the investigation of Carruba 1982a, esp. 46 (CLL:223, EDHIL:225, Tischler 2008a:195, Tischler 2016a:371  Yakubovich 2010d:42; Marcuson 2016a:291; not included in Ünal 2016a), due to its context and transparent morphology (a derivative by the -iya- appurtenance suffix from tāta/i- ‘father’).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 21 February 2020

Hapax in a Hittite ritual in NS.

[Zs.S.]

abl.-instr.

ta-[ti-ia]-˹ti˺

KUB 35.92 obv. 29’

(CTH 440, NS)

Attestation follows CLL:223 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:95) checked against the photo of the Konkordanz. The restoration based on the context and a parallel passage by Starke 1985b:403 is generally accepted (cf. also Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’).

[Zs.S.]

Although earlier this word was supposed to mean ‘father’ (Laroche 1959a:95), in the meantime it has been clarified that it means ‘paternal’ (CLL:223; Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’; not included in Friedrich 1952a; Ünal 2007a, Ünal 2016a; Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a), see the discussion s.v. Cuneiform Luwian tāti(ya)-.

[Zs.S.]

There is no doubt regarding its origin due to its identity to Cuneiform Luwian tāti(ya)- ‘paternal’ and Luwian ending (Laroche 1959a:95; CLL:223), although it does not appear in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 21 February 2020

For the lemma head, see PAnat. *dada.