*anna-

1. /annatt(i)-/

2. /annattinn(i)-/

The word occurs in the ritual texts from the Kuwattalla tradition and in birth rituals (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

The assignment of a-an-ni (KUB 35.103 iii 5) and an-ni (KUB 35.102 iv 5) to the present lemma is unassured; cf. under Meaning. – The assignment of an-na-aš-ši-in-zi= at KUB 35.132 ii 6’ is chosen on formal grounds, but lacks support from the fragmentary context. Also, the syntax of the passage remains problematic.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The research history of the semantic interpretation is somewhat muddled because of the confusion of ānn(i)- ‘mother’ with its relational adjective ānni(ya)- ‘related to the mother’. Thus, Sommer 1947a:55 referred to anniyan (acc. sg. of ānni(ya)- ‘related to the mother’) and translated it as ‘mother’ (“matrem”). Since then, the alleged Luwian stems anni- and/or ānni(ya)- were posited and both translated as ‘mother’ (e.g., Otten 1953a:52 n. 153, HW:328, DLL:27f., Kronasser 1956a:137, Laroche 1979c:85, HW 2nd ed. A:72, HEG A-K:24, HED A, E, I:56). It was only much later that Carruba 1982a managed to distinguish between the two stems. The lexical and etymological equation of CLuw. ānn(i)- with the Hittite cognate anna- ‘mother’ has never been questioned and remains handbook knowledge (e.g., CLL:12, EDHIL:174, Adiego 2007a:352). Contexts like the following leave no doubt that this is correct: ⁽⁴⁾za-am-pa-ku-wa dumu-ni-in wa-al-li-in-du ⁽⁵⁾ša-an-na-in-du pa-wa-an-tar a-an-ni ⁽⁶⁾⸢ti⸣-i-ta-ni du-ú-wa-an-du  “they shall lift and š. the child, and place it at the mother’s breast!” (KUB 35.103 iii 4-6; parallel KUB 35.102 iv 5: an-ni); a-an-ni can be analyzed as dat./loc. sg. of ānn(i)-, i.e. ‘at the mother, at (her) breast’, or as the same form of the relational adjective ānni(ya)-, i.e. ‘at the maternal breast’.

[E.R.]

After Carruba 1982a had separated the forms of base noun ānn(i)- from those of its derivative ānni(ya)-, it became obvious that the word for ‘mother’ matches Hitt. anna- ‘mother’. At the same time and actually in the same book, the regularity of i-stem forms, i.e. the i-mutation, was recognized by Starke 1982a:408f. n. 3, which made the equation of CLuw. ānn(i)- and Hitt. anna- seamless.

[E.R.]

1. urann(i)-

1. ānnawann(i)-
2. ānni(ya)-
3. ānninniyam(i)-

Attested twice in an inventory text (NS).

[Zs.S.]

The attestations follow Melchert 1993g:12 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:27, van den Hout 2006a:254 and Ünal 2007a:29, Ünal 2016a:64), checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[Zs.S.]

There is a justified general agreement regarding the meaning based on the word’s contexts and homonymy with the Luwian word for ‘mother’ (Laroche 1959a:27, Laroche 1959b:276; Carter 1962a:61, 178; Archi 1973a:21; Popko 1978a:124; Güterbock 1983b:217; HED A:56; Melchert 1993g:12; Haas 1994a:77, 508; HEG T,D:344; Cammarosano 2018a:193, 195, 204, Cammarosano 2019b:311; Martínez Rodríguez 2019b:187; Cammarosano & Rieken 2020a:52f.; only Ünal 2007a:29, Ünal 2016a:64 left it without translation, the rejection by HW 2nd ed.:81 is based on A. Kammenhuber’s mistranslation of KBo 2.1 i 33, cf. also Güterbock 1983b:217 n. 99).

[Zs.S.]

There is a justified general agreement that this is a Luwian loanword in Hittite demonstrated by its i-mutation, contrary to the a-stem of the Hittite cognate (Laroche 1959a:27; HED A:56; Melchert 1993g:12; Haas 1994a:77; van den Hout 2006a:254; but not listed in list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a).

[Zs.S.]

This lexeme is found in different types of inscriptions from Lycia.

[D.S.]

The potential example of ẽni adduced in DLL:20 is not accepted here, because we interpret the sequence as se=te=wẽ ni seeing the particle =wẽ and the negation ni. The word for ‘mother’ would be contextually unmotivated. For the attestation of TL 112.5 [ẽ]ni, see Christiansen 2020a:242f., who suggests a dative singular. However, this grammatical case depends on the verb, which is lost in the lacuna.

[D.S.]

Neumann 2007a:84 hesitates in emending the form ẽn (TL 90.2) into ẽn, because he opens the possibility that the final -i may have been apocopated in the late stages of the language. Since this claim cannot be proven due to the lack of data, it is preferable to emend. For the reading of ẹ̃ṇị in TL 145.4 see Christiansen 2020a:214. The reading of ẽṇ^?ehi (TL 118.5) suggested by Christiansen 2020a:252 is quite plausible; for a translation of the passage, see Sasseville 2021a:306.

[D.S.]

Although it was already clear that the Lycian ẽne/i- was a family term on contextual grounds, Sturtevant 1928d:50 was the first to assign the meaning ‘mother’ basing himself on an etymological comparison with Hitt. anna- ‘mother’. Laroche 1958b:189 brings further evidence by comparing the divine Lycian title ẽni mahanahi with the Luwian putative “anniš maššanaššiš” ‘mother of the gods’ (see Schürr 2020b). The collocation of ẽnesi=ke tedesi=ke ‘of both the mother and the father’ found in Lycian B further supports the semantic assignment, which has been generally accepted (Neumann 2007a:84, DLL:20).

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found in various grave inscriptions as well as on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically around 400 BCE (Borchhardt et al. 1997-99a:19f.).

[D.S.]

For the semantic elucidation of ẽne/i- ‘mother’ see under Lycian A ẽne/i-. The collocation of ẽnesi=ke tedesi=ke ‘of both the mother and the father’ found in the poem of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos supports the attributed meaning (Neumann 2007a:83, DLL:116).

[D.S.]

Hapax in a false door-stela from Memphis from c. 550-520 (Kammerzell 1993a:159, 169, 171).

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:364, checked against the photograph in O. Masson 1978a:Pl. XV/1.

[Zs.S.]

There is a justified general agreement regarding the meaning since the independent identification by Schürr 1996a:62, Schürr 1996d [1998] and Hajnal 1995b [1997]:21f., Hajnal 1997a:210 (who follows the pers. comm. of H. C. Melchert, cf. also Adiego 2007a:273, Adiego 2010b:169f.) based on the context (a genealogical description: ‘who is the en of PN’, accepted also by Melchert 2010f:179) and on the similarity of this word to other Luwic terms for ‘mother’, especially Cuneiform Luwian anna/i- (see s.v.), which are direct cognates (with umlaut via i-mutation in Carian, see Adiego 2007a:259, 364 with refs.).

[Zs.S.]

This lexeme is mostly attested through inscriptions coming from Sardis, except for LW 42, which was found in Maeaonia. All the relevant texts are approximately datable to the 5th or 4th century BCE, except for LW 17, which can be more precisely dated to the late 5th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

The case assignment of ẽna=t in LW 13.8 remains very problematic and the function of ẽna=k in LW 17.3 is likewise not absolutely certain.

[I.Y.]

The etymological and combinatory evidence for ẽna- meaning ‘mother’ is laid down in Gusmani 1962a:82f. and recapitulated in Gusmani 1964a:106. The collocation LW 10.20 ẽna=k taada=k played a key role in this identification. The new grammatical identification of both nouns as plural datives, governed by the verb cẽnu ‘I designate, dedicate’, suggest that the words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’ were used in this this context with reference to the deceased ancestors. The fact that ‘mothers’ appear in this collocation before ‘fathers’ correlates with the apparent use of ẽnas as a stand-alone designation of ancestors in LW 10.18. In contrast, we seem to find a reference to a specific person introduced as ‘mother of Pakiwa’ in an appendix to the same inscription, apparently written later and in a different hand.  

Note also that the contrast between collocations lẽms … taadạ[s] (LW 14.10) and ẽna=t … lẽm=k (LW 13.8) likewise supports the association between ẽna- and taada-: in the first collocation taada- appears to represent an epithet of lẽm-, in the second one ẽna- is coordinated with lẽm-. If lẽm- is a variant of lew- ‘Zeus’, then ẽna- in LW 14 is likely to refer to a mother goddess, perhaps a counterpart of the Phrygian Matar. Another context where the interpretation of ẽna- as a theonym is not to be excluded is LW 17.3, where ẽnas may represent the subject of an extended curse formula, but the fragmentary context precludes definite conclusions.

[I.Y.]

The noun ẽna- is a synchronic a-stem, accented on the root, as one can infer from the nasalization of the initial vowel.  

[I.Y.]

This lexeme is found in a festival text with Palaic incantations. It is also attested as a personal name, i.e. ^fa-an-na-a ^munusšu.gi ^urupa-la-[a ... ] (KBo 17.47 obv. 1).

[D.S.]

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

[D.S.]

The occurrence of anna- and pāpa- together as well as their comparison with the Hittite words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’, i.e. anna- and atta-, led to a quick elucidation of the Palaic words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’ (Kammenhuber 1955b:366, Kammenhuber 1959a:21f., Carruba 1970a:50).

[D.S.]

1. ānnat-

HW 2nd ed. A:70-72.