†=n / ñ

Van den Hout suggested identifying this pronoun in two cases. First (van den Hout 1999a:38), he segmented the sequence [-]rsbak̑mnnartnyrobsmns[ in C.Ka 2, 2 as [-]r sba=k̑=m=n (…), with an alleged by-form of sb ‘and’ (see s.v.), with =k̑ ‘and’ (see s.v.), with =m ‘adversative particle’ (see s.v.), and with =n, a third person enclitic pronoun in acc. sg. c. However, this analysis can be excluded. First, the text is completely opaque (cf. Adiego 2007a:350) and thus, there is no evidence for this segmentation and, accordingly, there are multiple other possibilities (e.g. [-]r sb ak̑mn nartn yrobsmns[ with ak̑mn as a noun or adjective, perhaps in accusative in congruence with nartn). Second, it does not make sense to assume a particle ‘and’ following a conjunction meaning ‘and’, unless this conjunction is already a meaningless sentence initial particle, but there is no evidence for this in case of sb (see s.v.). Third, there is no evidence for any of the assumed particles (sba, =k̑, =m, see s.vv.).

Second (van den Hout 1999a:38f.), he segmented the sequence ]sbañmsñsimδa in C.Si 2, 5 as ]sba=ñ msñsimδa with sba, the above mentioned alleged by-form of sb ‘and’ and =ñ, a third person enclitic pronoun in acc. sg. c. Although separating ]sbañ and msñsimδa is probably correct and supported by ‹ñ› pointing (at least etymologically) to a word-final nasal (Simon 2019e, see esp. 290f.), it is impossible to decide due to the missing preceding letters if ]sbañ is only the end of a word or an entire word. But even if it is a full word, there is no evidence for a by-form “sba” of sb, as per above. It must remain open whether it can be analysed as sb=añ, i.e. ‘and’ with a third person enclitic pronoun in acc. sg. c., but since sb behaves proclitically (Simon forthcoming), it seems problematic to assume that it can host clitics. Finally, assuming that it is a full word, it may also simply be the acc. sg. c. of a substantive or adjective *sb(a).

Finally, Adiego 2000a:140, Adiego 2007a:324, Adiego 2010b:173 suggested analysing mδane of E.Sa 1, E.xx 7, and C.xx 2 as a sequence of particles: m=δ= ‘introductory particles’ + 3rd sg. enclitic pronoun(s), either =n= (acc.) + =e (dat.) (Adiego 1994:54f.) or =ne (acc.), the latter being “perhaps more plausible” (Adiego 2007a:324). However, as discussed in detail by Simon 2020d (esp. 400–404), Adiego’s suggestion is undermined by the word order with too many frontings before the alleged sentence initial particle chains (and it leads to unlikely verbal forms and endings in other inscriptions) and a verbal interpretation of mδane is more likely.

[Zs.S.]