añ (?)

A hapax, attested in C.Si 2a, a bilingual decree of the satraps Idrieus and Ada (thus between 351/350 – 344/343).

[Zs.S.]

unknown

añ

C.Si 2a.5

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:352 checked against the photograph in Robert 1950a:Pl. II (original) & III (squeeze). The form is uncertain, for possible segmentations see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 2007a:352, 452 proposed to segment ]sbañmsñsimδa, the second half of the line 5 in C.Si 2a as ] sb añmsñsi mδa (with sb ‘and’ [see s.v.] and mδa [see s.v.]) and cautiously compared añmsñsi with the phrase ‘mother of the gods’ in other Luwic languages: Luw. anniš maššanaššiš and Lycian [e͂]ni mahanahi.

Although we are dealing with a bilingual decree, the relevant Greek part has unfortunately not been preserved. The segmentation of sb is definitely a possibility, just like the connection of msñ° with the Luwic words for ‘god’ (see s.v.), the correct segmentation of msñsimδa (msñ simδa / msñs imδa / msñsi mδa) depends basically on the interpretation of °mδa, which is currently unclear (see s.v.). As pointed out in Simon 2019e:290 with n. 16, the problem with Adiego’s proposal is añ itself: the Carian word ‘mother’ is surely attested as en with umlaut due to the i-mutation (see s.v.). In other words, añ cannot be directly equated with the word for ‘mother’. It can be connected with the Carian word for ‘mother’ only if it can be explained from an oblique case, i.e. from a case which was not influenced by i-mutation. Since in the proposal ‘mother of the gods’ ‘mother’ must be in nominative, a lexicalised phrase cannot solve the problem (note that the Luwian anniš maššanaššiš cited by Adiego, although grammatically fully regular, is not attested yet). Another possibility would be a compound: although we know very few about Carian compounds, in analogical Hittite cases the word for ‘mother’ occupies the second position in the compound, see esp. ^MUNUSšiunzanna- / šiwanzanna- ‘a priestess < AMA.DINGIR ‘mother.god’’ (Brosch 2010a:268f.), which argues against this assumption. All in all, añ cannot be connected to the Carian word for ‘mother’ on formal grounds.

An alternative hypothesis was developed by van den Hout 1999a:33f., 38f., who proposed to segment ]sbañmsñsimδa as ]sba=ñ msñsimδa, i.e. a longer form of sb ‘and’ with an enclitic pronoun (3rd sg. acc. c.). While the existence of a longer form is sb is not assured, this assumption is not crucial (one could equally segment sb=añ). The obvious problem is that there is no independent evidence for this segmentation and meaning (note that the meaning of the entire line is opaque), especially since it is not even clear, if ]sb° is indeed the beginning of a new word or the end of another one.

The only aspect that seems to be relatively assured is the segmentation ]sbañ msñsimδa, supported by the assonance with msn ‘god’ and partly by the spelling with ñ since it seems to reflect an earlier word final *n (see esp. Simon 2019e, cf. also Adiego 2007a:249f. and Schürr 2010c:202f.). Accordingly, ]sbañ is the end of the preceding word (perhaps in acc. sg.), but it remains unknown if it contains more than one word or any clitics.

[Zs.S.]