wita-

Attested in a Hittite ritual and in a prayer of Ḫattušili III and Puduḫepa (both in NS).

[Zs.S.]

dat.-loc. sg.	ú-i-ti	KBo 3.8 iii 2.19	(CTH 390, NS)
dat.-loc. pl.	wi5-ta-aš	KUB 21.19+KBo 52.17 iii 15’	(CTH 383, NS)
abl.	wi5-ta-az	KUB 21.19+KBo 52.17 iii 17’	(CTH 383, NS)

The attestations follow HEG U-Z:428f. and EDHIL:1015f. (cf. also Friedrich 1952a:255; Laroche 1959a:111; Watkins 1975a:373f.; Starke 1990a:567f.; Rieken 1999a:76f.) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that this word means ‘water’ (Friedrich 1947a:292 n. 66, Friedrich 1952a:255; Kronasser 1966a:162; Watkins 1975a:373f.; Lebrun 1980a:320; Sürenhagen 1981a:95; de Roos 1983a:230; Archi 1988a:36; Polvani 1988a:9; Masson 1991a:74, 194; Haas 1994a:595, Haas 2003a:537–539 [but cf. below]; Rieken 1999a:76f., Rieken 2004d:539; Singer 2002a:99; Oettinger 2004f:350, Oettinger 2007b:544; Ünal 2007a:796, Ünal 2016a:589; EDHIL:1015; Tischler 2008a:228, Tischler 2016a:442, HEG U-Z:428f.; Klinger 2013b:131; Hutter 2014a:146; Hoffner 2015a:67, 72; Rieken et al. 2015-2017a:§9’’; Marcuson 2016a:223f.; Fuscani 2007b:§36; Daues & Rieken 2018a:427), the exception being Starke 1990a:568 (‘naß’ and ‘Nässe’ [latter also in Haas 2006a:263]) and Torri 2003a:10; Zorman 2016a:597 (‘wet’).

KUB 21.19+KBo 52.17 iii 15’.17’, where this word appears in congruence with ḫallūwa- ‘deep’ points to a substantive (or a substantivized adjective, at best). Since it appears in plural in 15’, but we are dealing with only one pebble in the w., it must refer to a substantive that can also have a collective meaning. According to the ritual fish live in the w., which is a part of the river, and thus the meaning ‘water’ seems appropriate just like in case of the prayer, in which the desolation of the ruined city of Nerik is described as a pebble in the deep w.-s, from which the king picked up the city like a pebble. Nonetheless, these do not exclude similar meanings, especially ‘wave’. In fact, the pebble in the waves may provide a better (and definitely more poetic) description of a desolated, ruined city than a pebble in the waters.

[Zs.S.]

Rejected derivatives:

1. wida-
2. witam[
3. witantalliya-
4. witatt(a)-

[Zs.S]

Although many scholars consider this word as Hittite (e.g. Watkins 1975a:373f., CLL:270; Ünal 2007a:796, Ünal 2016a:589; Tischler 2008a:228, Tischler 2016a:442, Tischler 2016a U-Z:428f. [note, however, that the description given by Ünal and Tischler [going back to Friedrich 1947a:292 n. 66, Friedrich 1952a:255]; as “kürzerer Obliquusstamm von watar ‘Wasser’” is not comprehensible from a Hittite or Luwian grammatical point of view]) and, accordingly, it is not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a, the assumption of a Luwian origin is gaining popularity (cf. already Laroche 1959a:111):

Starke 1990a:567f: identified this word as Luwian, since it would belong to the Luwian adjective “wida(/i)- ‘feucht, naß’”, it is attested late, and it shows a gloss marker. Nevertheless, the Luwian word does not mean ‘wet’, but a topographical feature (see s.v.), late attestation obviously does not prove anything, and gloss markers do not necessarily mean Luwian origin (Melchert 2005a:445, cf. already Schwartz 1938a:75, 78; note that there is no reason to see a taboo word in ‘water’ or ‘wave’ [and not even in ‘wet’], contra Zorman 2016a).

The other supporter of Luwian origin, Rieken 1999a:76f. (followed by EDHIL:1016) pointed out that the required sound change *wed- > wid- is possible in Luwian, too, and since the attestation is restricted to a Cuneiform Luwian word (wida-), a Glossenkeilwort and two further examples from a text characterized as “stark luwisiert”, its Luwian origin is “sehr wahrscheinlich”. However, as we have seen, the Cuneiform Luwian form and the presence of a gloss marker are not helpful, the assumed sound change is attested in Hittite, too (and the stem wid- can also be explained in another way, e.g. as analogy to the oblique stem of the Hittite word for ‘water’, wātar / witēn-) and the presence of many Luwianisms does not necessarily mean that also this word is of Luwian origin.

All in all, there is no argument that requires a Luwian derivation of this word.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 28 April 2020