^?annā- or ^?annān

This word is attested only twice in a NS letter from Queen Puduḫepa to Ramses II.

[A.B.]

?	?an-na-⸢a-an⸣(eras)	KUB 21.38 obv. 58’	(CTH 176, NS)
	an-na-a-an	KUB 21.38 obv. 63’	(CTH 176, NS)

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:26, CLL:14, HW 2nd ed. A:76, HEG A–K:26 (cf. Rosenkranz 1950a:190; Ünal 2007a:25, 27; Ünal 2016a:61f., and van den Hout 2006a:245). The transliterations have been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The interpretation of the forms is unclear. Regarding the possibilities of the grammatical interpretation, see under Meaning.

[A.B.]

In line 58’, the entire word ^?an-na-⸢a-an⸣ seems to be written over erasure (also indicated in the hand copy). On the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, traces are visible particularly under the large double diagonal, which is assumed to be a gloss marker (other gloss markers in this text are attested in rev. 12 and 13 with the word lumpašti- and appear smaller). This setting makes a regular gloss marker at least somewhat dubious.

[A.B.]

The meaning of this word is unknown. No meaning is indicated in HW 2nd ed. A:76 (listed as “annan²”; “ohne neue Belege nicht deutbar”) and Melchert 2005a:450.

While Laroche 1959a:26 considered only cautiously that it could belong to CLuwian annan ‘below, under’, CLL:14 lists it under this lemma (which is attested as ānnan, annan and annān) as a preverb, while admitting that the meaning in the attested context is unclear. HEG A–K:26 (cf. Tischler 2008a:16 and Tischler 2016a:11) assumes an adverb with unclear meaning. Additionally, Tischler 2008a:16 (cf. Tischler 2016a:11) also lists a Luwian neuter noun annā- “Klugheit, Erfahrung”. The proposed meanings are mainly based on the contexts of attestation, cf. below for a detailed discussion of possible interpretations for this word.

The context of KUB 21.38 obv. 57’–65’ (transliteration based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, in addition the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Friedrich 1938a:180; Helck 1963a:92; Beckman 1983a:9f.; Hoffner 2009a:287; CHD L–N:258; have been taken into account) shows:

^(58’)(…) nu-za^(eras) dumu.nita^MEŠ dumu.munus^MEŠ dù-nu-un nu am-me-el ^?an-na-⸢a-an⸣^{(eras) (59’)}⸢ti⸣-iš-ša-a-an lú^{MEŠ URU}gidru-ti me-mi-iš-kán-zi šeš-ia-ia-an ša-⸢ak⸣-ti nam-ma-kán šà é-ti ku-wa-pí ú-wa-nu-un ^(60’)[dumu.mun]us^MEŠ lugal ku-i-e-eš šà é-ti ú-e-mi-ia-nu-un nu-m[u-za-ká]n šu-⸢i⸣ ḫa-a-ši-ir na-aš-za^(eras) am-mu-uk ^(61’)[šal-la-nu-nu-]⸢un ka⸣-ru-ú-ma ku-i-e-eš ḫa-aš-ša-an-te-eš [ú-e-mi-i]a-nu-un nu a-pu-u-uš-ša ^(62’)[… n]a-aš(eras) [e]n^MEŠ karaš^ḪI.A i-ia-n[u-u]n nu am-me-el-la ša sag.du-ia dingir-⸢lu4⸣ ^(63’)[… -]ad-du nu a-na šeš-ia ku-in dumu.⸢munus⸣ pé-eḫ-ḫi nu-⸢uš-ši-kán⸣ ša munus.lugal an-na-a-an ^(64’)[…] gam ḫa-ma-an-kán-du

^{(58’–61’)}(…) I myself gave birth to (lit. ‘made’) sons and daughters and the people of Hattuša keep speaking (of) my ^?annān^(eras) tiššān. My brother knows of it, too. Moreover, when I came to the heart of the house, the [prince]sses that I met inside the house, gave birth/were born into m[y own] hand and I, myself, [raise]d them. But those, that [I fou]nd, who had already been born, ^(62’)[… and] I m[ad]e them [lo]rds of the armies. And my personal deity ^{(63’–64’)}[…] shall […] to the daughter, that I will bring to my brother, (this) annān [tiššān] of the queen […] they shall link down (there)

The form appears in a collocation used by queen Puduḫepa: ^?annān tiššān. Both words are usually translated together. Since Puduḫepa points out her ability to give birth and raise children in this context, translations mainly refer to this topic: Friedrich 1938a:180 suggests a translation as “die Leute von Hatti pflegen meine Nachkommenschaft(?) zahlreich(?) zu nennen”. Götze (in Friedrich 1938a:180): “und meine Fruchtbarkeit(?) nennen die Hattileute außerordentlich”, cf. also Götze (in Helck 1963a:92) “exceptional vitality” (followed by Helck 1963a:92, Beckman 1983a:9f. and CHD L–N:258, cf. Stefanini 1964a:42f. and Pintore 1978a fn. 177 “un ‘grande spirito materno’”). Hoffner 2009a:287 translates: “experience^? and capacity for nurture^?”. Apart from this one context, however, there is no further evidence that ^?annān could mean something like ‘vitality’; ‘fertility’; ‘progeny’ or ‘maternal spirit’. Considering the long ā in ^?annān, it seems improbable that it is an accusative of the Hittite or Luwian word for ‘mother’ anna- (cf. below for other interpretations of this form). The translations including a meaning ‘much, many; exceptional’ (or sim.) are based on the proposal by Friedrich 1938a:180 that tiššān represents Hurr. tiššan ‘much, many’ (cf. Laroche 1980a:267, Richter 2012a:463) and that ^?annān might as well be a Hurrian word (or loanword), since Puduḫepa comes from a Luwian-Hurrian background and could be expected to use Hurrian in her letter. However, annān is not known from Hurrian and it is more probable that with CLL:227 tiššān is instead a Hittite participle belonging to the (originally Luwian) verb tiššā(i)- ‘to shape’ (or sim.), also attested with gloss marker (cf. under the respective lemma). In this case, tiššān would mean something like ‘shaped, prepared’ (cf. Tischler 2008a:199, who assumes an adverbial use “bereit, richtig”).

Returning to the possible interpretations for ^?annān, several options remain. The first option is that it functions as a preverb to tiššān. CLL:14 lists three different functions for Luw. ānnan/annan/annān ‘below, under’: local adverb, preposition and preverb. These functions also are also attested with formal differences regarding the plene writing of different vowels. The problem with classifying ^?annān as a preverb is that annān ‘below, under’ with plene a in the second syllable is only attested as a preposition (which does not fit syntactically in this context), but not (yet) as preverb. In once instance with a gloss marker, annan (though without plene writing) functions as a preverb: the Glossenkeilwort annan(-)kuratti- / anna kuratta- (an object, a vessel or sim.?, cut or cropped downwards or at the bottom), cf. under the respective lemma. While the attestations with different distributions of plene writing and different functions do not preclude a preverb function for ^?annān, they do make it problematic.

The second interpretation for ^?annān is that of a noun. As explained above, a connection to the word for ‘mother’ anna- is unlikely. Hence, it could only be an otherwise unknown noun *annā-.

Tischler 2008a:16 lists a Luwian noun annā- “Klugheit, Erfahrung” (cf. Tischler 2016a:11 ‘intelligence, sagesse, expérience’), which probably relates to the above-mentioned translation by Hoffner 2009a:287 as “experience? and capacity for nurture?”. But such a noun is not otherwise attested and neither is an adjective *annā- (or sim.), rendering both options unlikely.

The last option is that we are dealing with a participle, especially considering that tiššān is most likely a verbal participle (cf. above). This would require a verb *annā- (or sim.), which is also not otherwise attested. In theory, ^?annān could also be a [frozen^?] participle of such a verb only still attested in the collocation with tiššān, but there is no further evidence for this assumption. Considering that tiššān means something like ‘shaped, prepared’ and the context refers to Puduḫepa’s education of royal children, a similar and semantically suitable verb that could be connected is annanu-^zi ‘to train, educate’ (cf. HW 2nd ed. A:77, HEG A–K:27, HED A:59–61). However, two problems come up with this verb: it never appears with plene a, and it is only attested as a causative from OS (cf. EDHIL:177). In search for a base verb of annanu-^zi, HED A:61 and EDHIL:177 consider a connection to Hitt. aniye/a-^zi ‘to work, to perfom’, which is semantically possible *‘to make work’ > ‘to train, educate’, but EDHIL:177 also points out the formal difficulties due to the geminate -nn- and the a-vowel in ^?annān. Hence, a connection of ?annān to these verbs is likewise difficult to establish.

Thus, without further evidence, it remains unclear whether ^?annān is a preposition, a preverb, a noun, or a participle, each option coming with a number of problems. Considering the attestations and the collocation with Luwian tiššān, it is most probable that we are dealing with a preverb, but its meaning in this context cannot be further determined at the moment.

[A.B.]

The origin of this word is unknown. It appears in the Luwian dictionaries by Laroche 1959a:26 and CLL:14 as well as in the lists of Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a:450 and van den Hout 2006a:245. HW 2nd ed. A:76 assume either a Luwian or a Hurrian word. One of the reasons for its alleged Luwian origin is the gloss marker. Although its use does not constitute proof of a word’s Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445), the vast majority of words provided with this marker are in fact of Luwian origin. As explained under Graphic Features, the gloss marker is doubtful in this case and cannot be used to support a Luwian origin.

As explained above, the morphology of ^?annān remains unclear and does not help in determining its origin. Since it appears together with (most probably) Luwian tiššān in a collocation, it is more probable that we are dealing with a Luwian word (or loanword), maybe a Luwian preverb, but further evidence is needed.

[A.B.]