*en-h₁ih₁-i̯e/o-

This lexeme is found mainly in the ritual incantations of the Kuwattalla tradition as well as in the festival text for the Storm-god of the sky and the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 665).

[D.S.]

Melchert (CLL:17) suggests that a-ni-e-ia-an-t[i is a lexicalized participial form in -nt(i)- instead, which is formally possible, but difficult to prove, whereas Starke 1990a:158f. assigns this form to a different lexeme (rejected by Melchert ibid.). The interpretation as a finite form is preferred by Sasseville 2021a:321. If the two forms a-ni-e-ia-an-t[i and a-ni-ia really belong here, it requires a defective spelling of the geminate -nn- to be assumed. Pace Yakubovich 2010b:378 n. 6, the lack of contraction in a-ni-ia is not a dialectal issue, for which see Sasseville 2021a:319-335. Pace van den Hout 2006a:250, there is no need to assume that an-ni-i-t[i] (HT 82, 5’) is found in a Hittite context, especially considering the Luwian pronoun za-a occurring before.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv). For the spelling of the initial a-a-, see Simon 2010b.

[D.S.]

The Luwian verb anni(ya)-^(di) has been etymologically equated to Hitt. aniye/a-^(mi) ‘to carry out, treat’ and translated accordingly, which is contextually supported (DLL:27 with further literature, Oettinger 1979a:535, Melchert (CLL:18), Yakubovich 2010b, Sasseville 2021a:321f.).

[D.S.]

For the verbal stem class, see Melchert 1997b:132f. and Sasseville 2021a:321f., and for its analysis as a univerbation, see Yakubovich 2010b (see also under Reconstruction).

[D.S.]

This verbal stem is found in two inscriptions, both coming from the Sardis cemetery. The inscription in prose LW 2 can be dated to the second half of the 4^th century BCE, while the poetic inscription LW 15 is datable only approximately, to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

The assumption that the two verbs listed above reflect the same stem goes back to Carruba 1959a:29 n. 28. For the segmentation of prefixes, cf. further Yakubovich 2005b:77.

[I.Y.]

The variant ani- must be regarded as the more archaic one. For the tendency of ν to appear in lieu of n next to i in Lydian texts, see Gérard 2005a:62.

[I.Y.]

The meaning ‘to erect’, offered for f-ẽn-anil in Sayce 1925a:36, was accepted in Gusmani 1964a:124 and Gusmani 1980a:55. The same meaning is proposed for kat-aνil in Gusmani 1964a:146 based on the comparison with f-ẽn-anil.  In both cases the context indeed leaves little doubt that the respective predicates refer to some construction activity. Cf. also the derivative aνi-, which appears to mean ‘installation’ based on context.

It is, however, important to observe that at least in LW 2 the predicate under discussion does not seem to denotate the basic act of constructing a tomb. The object of kat-aνil is neither a tomb nor a stele, but rather an additional installation pλašo-. Therefore one can tentatively propose the contextual meaning ‘to add, attach’, which is compatible with the occurrence of f-ẽn-anil in the second clause of the fragmentary inscription LW 15. It is likely that the semantic nuances of these two forms correlate with their respective prefixes.

[I.Y.]

The stem ani- was compared with Hitt. aniye/a-^(mi) ‘to do’ in Carruba 1963a:397 n. 22. It is, however, probable that the Hittite verb ultimately represents a result of fusion between the historical prefix an- and iye/a-^(mi) ‘to do, make’ (Yakubovich 2010b). The same explanation, mutatis mutandis, is also available for Lyd. ani-. If one assumes that the prefix ẽn- was attached to the verb i- in Pre-Lydian and the stress fell on the root of the new stem, then the change *ẽní- > /aní-/ can be described as a phonetically regular process. Naturally, once the original segmentation could no longer be felt, the stem ani- could be combined again with the synchronic prefixes. For another assured instance of the reduction *ẽ > a in unstressed position in Lydian, cf. caqrla-. For the preservation of the transitive character of Lyd. i- in prefixed formations, cf. fa-d-i-.

[I.Y.]

1. aνi-

This lexeme is mostly attested within the festival incantations for the Palaic pantheon.

[D.S.]

Carruba 1970a:50 interprets a-ni-e-a/eḫ-ḫ[a as a 1^st singular preterit. Since the word might not be complete after the sign ḫ[a (Carruba 1972a:39), it could also represent a medio-passive form. However, the second attestation in the following line, recovered by the join, brings evidence that the verbal form is complete.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[D.S.]

Kammenhuber 1959a:27 equates the Palaic verb aniye/a-^(ti) with Hittite aniye/a-^(mi) and translates it as ‘Germ. wirken’; cf. Oettinger 1979a:535 ‘Germ. leisten’. These semantics are perfectly adequate for the context, since it refers to an action previously mentioned. The verb is used intransitively in all clear attestations, whence the meaning ‘to do, accomplish, perform’ is adequate (thus Melchert 1984b:35f., Melchert 1994a:198, Sasseville 2019a:25). Yakubovich 2010b:378 translates it with ‘to provide’, which is a little more embellished.

[D.S.]

The verb inflects according to the unlenited mi-conjugation.

[D.S.]

HW² A:81-88.