*énVN

This lexeme is attested 18 times in inscriptions from Karkamiš, Tell Ahmar, Cilicia, and Tabal, dating between the 10^th and early 7^th centuries BCE.

[A.P.]

indecl.	/annan/	INFRA-na-a-na-’	ALEPPO 3, §4 (Karkamiš?)
		INFRA-na-na-’	BOR, §9 (Tabal)
		INFRA-na-na	KARKAMIŠ A11a, §6 (Karkamiš)
			KARKAMIŠ A31+, §5 (Karkamiš)
			KARATEPE 1 Hu., § 21 (Cilicia)
			KARATEPE 1 Ho., § 21 (Cilicia)
			KARATEPE 1 Hu., § 22 (Cilicia)
			KARATEPE 1 Ho., § 22 (Cilicia)
			EREĞLİ 2, §2 (Tabal)
			SULTANHAN, §9 (Tabal)
			TELL AHMAR 1, §11 (Tell Ahmar)
			TELL AHMAR 1, §17 (Tell Ahmar)
			BOROWSKI 3, §6 (Tell Ahmar)
			KULULU 4, §5 (Tabal)
		INFRA-na	KARKAMIŠ A1a, §13 (Karkamiš)
		INFRA-na-na[…]	KARKAMIŠ A13d, §3 (Karkamiš)
		[INF]RA-na-na	TÜNP 1, §3 (Karkamiš)
		[INFRA-]˹na˺-na	ALEPPO 3, §2 (Karkamiš?)

Possibly, the form 〈INFRA-n[i]-na〉 from KULULU 1, §10 also belongs to the present lexeme, although the spelling would be unusual; Yakubovich (pers. comm.) analyses it instead as a noun of mainly unclear phonology, but meaning ‘foot of the mountain’ vel sim.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The meaning of this adverb was realised at an early stage, see Laroche 1960c:36f. with references. The sense becomes obvious e.g. in KARATEPE 1 Hu. and Ho., §21 and §22 (cf. Bossert 1949a:113f); Hu. §22 runs: á-mu-pa-wá/í-ma-tà (LITUUS)á-za-ti-wa/i+ra/i-sá (“PES”)pa-tà-za INFRA-na-na PONERE-há, approx. /ammu=ba=wa=mu=ada Azzattiwaras padanz(a) annan tuwahha/, meaning ‘But I, Azzatiwata, put them under my feet’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:51).

It also became clear early on that, like most adverbs, /annan/ serves not only as an adverb, but also as a postposition governing the dat./loc. (Hrozný 1933a:218f. n. 5),Note that Hrozný 1933a’s semantic interpretation is still off (“à, pour”) at that point. and as a preverb altering the meaning of the respective verb (e.g. Oshiro 1995a:217-219). The latter can be observed e.g. in KARKAMIŠ A31+, §5: kar-ka-mi-sà-pa-wa/i(URBS) CASTRUM pi-na-tà-wa/i-na(URBS) INFRA-na-na i-zi-i-ha, approx. /Karkamisa=ba=wa harnissa Pinadawanna annan izziha/, translating as ‘I subjected (lit.: made/did under) the Pinadaean fortresses to Karkamiš’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:142).

[AH.B.]

Indeclinable, the word shows the morpheme /-(a)n/, which is found in a number of other adverbs, e.g. /appan/ ‘behind’, see Yakubovich 2010b:381 n. 12.

[AH.B.]

1. /annant(ar)ra/i-/

The word is attested in all extant Cuneiform Luwian text types (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

indecl.	a-an-na-an	KUB 35.107 iii 4’, iii 23’	(CTH 764, MS)
		KBo 32.3 obv. 12’	(CTH 773, NS)
	a-an-na-an	KBo 7.68 ii 4’	(CTH 764, NS)
	an-na-an	KBo 29.25 iii 13’, iii 14’	(CTH 764, MS)
		KBo 32.3 obv. 9’	(CTH 773, NS)
	an-na!-a-an	KUB 9.6 iii 29’’	(CTH 759, LNS)
	⸢an-na⸣-a-an	KBo 4.11 rev. 44	(CTH 772, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

Laroche 1958b:180f. suggested the meaning ‘under’ of the local particle based on a=du[w=a]n annān pātanza dūwandu “they shall place it below at the feet” at KUB 9.6 iii 29’’ (repeated in DLL:26 and accepted in HW:423, Čop 1970a:97f., Starke 1990a:365, CLL:14, Neumann 2007a:83f., HHw:15, Boroday & Yakubovich 2018a:14; skeptical Meriggi 1960a:105f., HEG A-K:26). CLuw. ānnan/annān is attested not only in adverbial function (e.g., in the passage just cited, in which annān has the same position as anda ‘inside’ in OH t=an anda ... zeriya allappaḫḫanzi “they spit ... inside into the cup” at KBo 17.1 iv 34f.; different CLL:14), but also in the position between a dat./loc. and the verb, which is ambiguous between the functions as postposition and preverb (]x-anza=pa=kuwa annan apparaind[u] “but under/among^? [the ...] let them place (it/him) in the rear!” at KBo 29.25 iii 14’).

[E.R.]

Following Boroday & Yakubovich 2018a:14, CLuw. ānnan/annān is most likely built on Luwian /an(ni)/ (as attested in Hieroglyphic Luwian, see under Lemma) by analogy with andan ‘inside’ and āppan ‘behind’ (contra Melchert 1994a:247 and Simon 2010b:251: *én-em with particle).

[E.R.]

This adverb is well attested in various kinds of inscriptions.

[D.S.]

indecl.	ẽnẽ	TL 29.12 (Tlos)
		TL 43.2 (Xanthos)
		TL 44b.12 (Xanthos)
		TL 44b.48 (Xanthos)
		TL 61.2 (Phellos)
		TL 77.3 (Ҫindam)
	ẽnẹ̃	TL 29.4 (Tlos)
	ẹ̃ṇẹ̃[	TL 29.14 (Tlos)
	(ẽ)nẽ	TL 29.11 (Tlos)
	ẽṇẽ	TL 67.2 (Timiusa)

Only a representative number of examples are given in the table. The word ẽn͂ne (TL 44a.32) is not likely to belong here (pace Laroche 1958b:182, Gusmani 1963a:285, and Neumann 2007a:83).

[D.S.]

The adverb ẽnẽ is often used as a preposition within the formula ‘under the rule of X’, and sometimes as a preverb modifying the verb sm͂ma-^(ti) ‘to bind, obligate’ and ha-^(di) ‘to release’ (in this case postposed; see TL 44b.47-48). Laroche 1958b:182 adequately compares Lyc. ẽnẽ with Luw. /annan/ ‘under’ (likewise Gusmani 1963a:284-289, who also elucidates the formula ‘under the rule of’). This lexical and semantic assignment has been widely accepted (Carruba 1979b:82, Cau 2003b:52 n. 2, Melchert in DLL:20, Neumann 2007a:83f., Daues 2009a:61f., Boroday & Yakubovich 2018a:14). For a list of outdated hypotheses, see Neumann 2007a:83.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.) as well as in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

indecl.	ẽnẽ	TL 44d.2 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.62 (Xanthos)
		TL 55.5 (Antiphellos)
	(ẽ)nẽ	TL 44c.43 (Xanthos)

In Lycian B, ẽnẽ is mainly found as a preverb accompanying the verb sla-^(ti) and its doublet sla(i)­^(di) ‘to offer in sacrifice’ and slãma-^(ti) ‘to make into an offering’. The basic sense ‘under’, which cannot be seen in these cases, is drawn from the Lycian A data (Gusmani 1963a:285, Schürr 2005a:139, pace Shevoroshkin 1971a: 214, 216, who tries to express the meaning ‘under(neath)’ in his translations).

[D.S.]

The only attestation of this lexeme stems from a long fragmentary inscription found in the Lower Hermos valley and broadly datable to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE. 

[I.Y.]

indecl.

ẽnν

LW 44a.15 (Manisa)

The sequence ẽnν appears at the beginning of the line, while the end of the preceding line is lost. Therefore one can speculate that it represents the end of a longer word. Such an interpretation is, however, unlikely given that the separation of Lydian word forms by the end of the line is generally a rare phenomenon (Gusmani 1964a:75f.), and it is particularly unlikely in the instance of a poetic text, such as LW 44 (Gusmani 1964a:22).  

[I.Y.]

The form ẽnν represents an impeccable formal counterpart of Luw. /annan/ and Lyc. ẽnẽ ‘under’. From the derivational perspective, it can be compared with the Lydian postposition ẽn. The suffix -ν is generally typical of Lycian local adverbs, cf. e.g. wicν and šawν. Therefore, although the fragmentary context is not conducive to a positive confirmation of this analysis, it is provisionally accepted here as the best available alternative.

Differently Gusmani 1964a:105, where ẽn=ν is analyzed as a combination of the preposition ẽn and the pronominal clitic =ν. There are, however, no assured cases of the syncope =aν > =ν, and all the alleged instances of the clitic =ν collected in Gusmani 1964a:177 are amenable to different explanations (cf. under the respective forms in the corpus). Yet another solution is offered in Melchert 1991a:139 n.17 and repeated many times in Melchert 1994a.According to this alternative, ẽnν and ẽna=t (LW 13.8) contain forms of a demonstrative pronoun *ẽn(a)-, an alleged cognate of Hitt. anna- ‘that’. The expected form of the a-stem acc. sg. would be, however, **ẽnaν, not ẽnν, and the word that follows ẽnν is anything but the accusative singular of a common gender noun.

[I.Y.]