†annalla/i-

Starke 1987a:260 with n. 66 (cf. also Starke 1990a:306) claims that nom.-acc. pl. n. an-na-al-la in KBo 26.65+KUB 33.106+ rev. iii 50’ does not mean ‘old, ancient, early’ as usual (cf. HW 2nd ed. A:74), but ‘maternal’ (followed by Melchert 1993g:14; accepted also by EDHIL:174). The context, however, clearly requires a meaning ‘old, ancient’ and it is indeed the way as it is normally translated (Güterbock 1952a:29; HW 2nd ed. A:74; HED A & E/I:54; García Trabazo 2002a:243; van den Hout 2006a:340; Rieken et al. 2009d:§24’’’’; Del Monte 2010a:148):

EGIR-pa=at ḫēšten annalla attalla ḫūḫadalla É ^NA4KIŠIB^ḪI.A nu karūiliyaš addaš ^NA4KIŠIB udandu

‘Öffnet sie wieder, die alten, väterlichen und großväterlichen Siegelhäuser. Man soll das Siegel der uralten Väter bringen’ (KBo 26.65+ rev. iii 50’f., Rieken et al. 2009d:§24’’’’)

Similarly, the claim that this word was secondarily, folk-etymologically attached to the word ‘mother’ (HW 2nd ed. A:74; HED A & E/I:54; HEG A-K:25, Tischler 2008a:15, Tischler 2016a:11) does not make sense contextually. Accordingly, also the claim that we are dealing with a Luwian loanword (Melchert 1993g:14, Melchert 2005a:452; Tischler 2008a:15, Tischler 2016a:11; Ünal 2016a:950, but not in van den Hout 2006a) does not hold water.

[Zs.S.]