ānna

Attested in Luwian spells in NS.

[Zs.S.]

unknown	a-an-na	KBo 13.260 ii 5	(CTH 766, NS)
	˹an˺-[na]	KBo 29.27 i 2’	(CTH 766, NS)

The attestations follow Melchert 1993g:12, checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. He adds an-na-aš-ši-in-zi in KUB 35.132 ii 6 too (followed by Tischler 2008a:17, Tischler 2016a:11), which is, however, traditionally subsumed under ānna/i- ‘mother’ (Laroche 1959a:27, HED A & E/I:57). Melchert argues that any connection with the word for ‘mother’ is dubious, since its alleged Hittitized equivalent (annāššeš, KBo 9.146 obv. 29’) is “predicated of gods”. Their equivalency, however, is dubious (see s.v. annāššeš with further discussion) and it is more economical to book an-na-aš-ši-in-zi under a formally impeccable and semantically fitting word than under a word of unknown meaning.

Melchert 1993g:12 and Tischler 2008a:16, Tischler 2016a:11 define the form of ānna as nom.-acc. pl. n., which is possible, but cannot be verified, see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

Melchert 1993g:12 does not assign any meaning to this word and, as mentioned under Form, believes that any connection with the Luwian word for ‘mother’ is dubious (Tischler 2008a:16, Tischler 2016a:11 even excludes any connection and defines it as noun of unknown meaning; Ünal 2016a does not book it). We have seen, however, that this is not the case. In both cases ānna is preceded by iyandu ‘to go’ with the chain of clause initial enclitics (and followed by a break or a fragmentary word). Probably this is the inspiration of the translation ‘at’ suggested by I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.), which could also fit in theory. Nevertheless, preposed iyandu ‘to go’ could also be the Luwian instance of the so-called serial / phrasal construction (see the discussion in van den Hout 2010a:202 and Simon 2020b:41 n. 22) and thus, it would not provide any information on ānna. All in all, no meaning can currently be assigned to this word.

[Zs.S.]