ānninniyam(i)-

The word is found in NS fragments from vassal treaties and probably once in an oracle text.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

It was Friedrich 1930c:98 who elucidated the meaning of ^LÚ/MUNUSanninniyam(i)- ‘cousin’. His interpretation draws on a passage from the Alakšandu treaty: ⁽³⁴⁾... a-na a-bi-ia-ma-aš ^(35)mMur-ši-dingir^LIM lugal.gal lugal kur ^URUḪa-a[t-t]i dumu nin-šu a-na ⸢^Dutu⸣^ŠI-ma-aš ⁽³⁶⁾a-an-ni-in-ni-ia-mi-iš “To my father Muršili, the Great King, the king of the land of Ḫatti he (was) his sister’s son, but to the Majesty he (is) the cousin.” Friedrich 1930c also points out that, apart from the determinatives lú and munus, there is no difference between the male and female cousins. The idea that ānninniyam(i)- designates at least in origin the ‘maternal cousin’ is entirely based on etymological considerations, viz. the identification of ānn(i)- ‘mother’ in the first part of the word (only HW 2nd ed. A:94 considers phonological coincidence). With minor variations, the translation ‘cousin’ found general acceptance; cf. HW:22, DLL:16, Kammenhuber 1961c:197, Alp 1954a:458f., Eichner 1974b:185, HEG A-K:31, HED A, E, I:71f., HW 2nd ed. A:94, HHw:16, Ünal 2007a:29, EDHIL:174; similar, but implausible Watkins 1995a:358-360: ‘uterine sister’s offspring, nephew, niece’).

[E.R.]

It is now common sense that the kinship term contains as its first element the word for mother ānn(i)- and ends in the suffix -m(i)-. However, regarding the intervening elements, two alternative approaches are found in the literature. According to the first, *ānninniya- is a compound made of ānn(i)- or anniya- plus niya-, which is interpretated as the Luwian match of Hitt. neka- ‘sister’ seen also in the Hittite compound anna-neka- (cf. Eichner 1974b:185, Watkins 1995a:358-360, Brosch 2010a:268 n. 11; different HED A, E, I:71f. (suggesting a stem *anni-nani(ya)- ‘mother-brother’ plus -m(i)- with syncope in nani(ya)-) and Kammenhuber 1961c:197 (“Kompositum fremder Herkunft”).

According to the other proposal, ānninniyam(i)- shows a long chain of suffixes, which according to CLL:16 is: ānn(i)- ‘mother’ plus relational -i(ya)- (ānni(ya)- ‘related to the mother’) plus individualizing -ann(i)- (*ānninn(i)- ‘person related to the mother, maternal aunt/uncle’ with syncope of -iya-) plus relational -i(ya)- (*ānninni(ya)- ‘related to the maternal aunt/uncle’) plus -(a)-m(i)- ‘X-descendant’ (ānninniyam(i)- ‘descendant related to the maternal aunt/uncle, maternal cousin’; see already Alp 1954a:458, Kronasser 1966a:220f.; HEG A-K:31 (“mit unbekanntem Suffixkonglutinat”).

Melchert (in DCL:s.v.) argues that geminate -nn- in -nniya- precludes the composition hypothesis. While it cannot be excluded that the initial consonants of second members of compound are delenited, the first -i(ya)- suffix in ānniya- ruins the exact match with Hitt. anna-neka- and makes a semantic interpretation of such a compound difficult. Therefore, the derivational solution is preferred here.

[E.R.]

A Luwian origin is commonly assumed in the recent literature (for references see under Stem and Melchert 2005a:449f.). As Melchert (in CLL:16) points out, a clear indicator is the hyperplene spelling a-a-an- in the Ḫukkana treaty contrasting with the Hittite spelling an-na-. Further confirmation comes from the chain of Luwian suffixes (and for the followers of the compound hypothesis from the putative stem **niya- ‘sister’ with loss of the voiced velar seen in Hitt. neka- ‘sister’).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. ānn(i)-.