nãν

The inscriptions where this particle is attested all come from Sardis. They include the archaic text LW 54 (late 6^th – early 5^th century BCE), as well as the poetic inscriptions LW 12-14 and probably LW 80. The only next that is neither poetic nor particularly archaic is the burial inscription LW 10 (dated roughly to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE).

[I.Y.]

The form nãν is analyzed as nã=ν in Gusmani 1964a:170, but in none of its two occurrences the enclitic direct object appears to be imposed by clause structure. On the other hand, the disappearance of final ν on a clitic boundary before =m or =k is a predictable process (Gérard 2005a:77). The additional allomorph nãn, if segmented correctly, confirms the proposed analysis, but with Gusmani 1980a:78 the segmentation nãn=s cannot be regarded as assured (cf. the fragmentary sequence nãṇ[ in the following line LW 80.9).

[I.Y.]

One available synchronic cue for determining the meaning of nãν is its occurrence in the pair nã=mλ … nã=k=mλ in LW 54.4-5, which suggests that we are dealing with some additive, coordinative, or disjunctive element. The same hypothesis accounts well for the compositional meaning of the indefinite pronoun nã-qi- (q.v.). To this one can add the plausible comparison between nãν and Hitt. nam-ma ‘further, again’, which was offered in a nutshell in Carruba 1959a:38 and elaborated in Melchert 1992a:37 n. 11. The occurrences of nãν and its variants outside LW 54 are all obscure, but none of them, at least, appears to contradict the additive analysis. For the earlier suggestions, see the references in Gusmani 1964a:170.       

[I.Y.]

1. nak

2. =nak

3. nã=kukod