witantalliya-

Attested in Luwian ritual fragments (in NS, perhaps already in MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n.	ú-i-ta-an-ta-al-li-[an]	KUB 35.43 ii 1	(CTH 761, NS)
	ú-i-ta-an-ta-al-li-ia-an-za	KUB 35.43 ii 9	(CTH 761, NS)
	ú-i-ta-an-tal-li-ia-˹an˺-[za]	KUB 32.81 + KUB 32.10, 4’	(CTH 761, MS?)
	[ú-i]-ta-an-tal-li-ia-an-za	KUB 32.81 + KUB 32.10, 3’	(CTH 761, MS?)
abl.-instr.	[ú-i]-˹ta-an-tal˺-li-ia-ti	KUB 32.81 + KUB 32.10,8’	(CTH 761, MS?)

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:112 and CLL:271 checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz with [ú-i]-ta-an-tal-li-ya-an-za in KUB 32.81 + KUB 32.10, 3’ added (I. Yakubovich, pers. comm., his restoration). Further restorations (made on contextual grounds) follow Starke 1985b:162.

[Zs.S.]

Laroche 1959a:112 assigned no meaning to this word (nor did Ünal 2016a:976), but since then there have been some proposals. Meriggi 1957b:69f. suggested ‘old’ and Carruba 1982a:46f. suggested ‘jährlich’ on contextual grounds (this was received positively in HEG U-Z:435, 572f., although Tischler pointed out that the underlying assumption of the connection with Hitt. witt- ‘year’ is phonologically not fitting). CLL:271 proposed ‘of the water(s)’ (with double question mark), but he himself emphasized that this is “mere guess based on shape & context” and “far from assured!” (still followed by Tischler 2008a:228, Tischler 2016a:443 with question mark [but cf. above and below] and Marcuson 2016a:291 [without any question mark]). HEG U-Z:573 characterized this proposal as semantically unfitting. Finally, Yakubovich (pers. comm.) suggested ‘of the afflicted’ (with question mark).

The only helpful passage is KUB 35.43 ii 1ff., where pairs of adjectives appear (of the dead / of the living; of the past / of the present; of the mother / of the father; etc.). However, since the order of the pairs does not seem to follow any logic (the quoted list shows the pairs after witantalliya-) and the pair of witantalliya- is broken ([…a]ntalliyan), there is no clue regarding the meaning of witantalliya-. CLL:64 cautiously restored [ḫata]ntalliyan ‘of the dry land’ (“mere possibility”, nevertheless followed by Marcuson 2016a:291 without any question mark), but there is no evidence neither for this restoration nor for the existence of this Luwian word, since both alleged forms are mere restorations (see s.v.). The same applies to the restoration [tiwata]ntalliyan ‘täglich’ of Carruba 1982a:46f. (followed by HEG U-Z:572), too.

The word witantalliya- is obviously a derivative of a stem *wit(a)-. But due to the above mentioned fragmentary context it must be left open whether this stem is identical with Luwian wita- ‘a topographic feature, steppe^?’ or with the Glossenkeilwort wita- ‘water or wave’.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 28 April 2020