annāšš(a)-

Hapax in a Hittite ritual in NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom. pl. c.

an-na-a-aš-˹še˺-[eš]

KBo 9.146 obv. 29’

(CTH 440, NS)

The attestation follows Melchert 1993g:12 (here misprinted as KBo 9.141 obv. 15 following the mistake in Laroche 1959a:27), HW 2nd ed.A:79, and Ünal 2007a:28, Ünal 2016a:63, checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[Zs.S.]

While some scholars do not assign any meaning (HW 2nd ed. A:79; Melchert 1993g:12; Ünal 2007a:28, Ünal 2016a:63; Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’), others define it as ‘maternal’ based on the Luwian word for ‘mother’, ānna/i- (Otten 1976a:104; Tischler 2008a:17, Tischler 2016a:12). Starke 1985b:403 n. 61 argues that any connection to the ‘mother’ word is “fraglich” due to the derivational base, which is an -ā-stem. This is a valid point, although one must be careful with a single attestation, which does not allow excluding other explanations either (e.g., accent). Also Melchert 1993g:12 argues against the connection with the word for ‘mother’, since it is “predicated of gods”.

The context, KBo 9.146 obv. 29’, shows the following (Starke 1985b:403, Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’):

[a]n-ni-ia-ti ta[-ti-ia-]ti GEMÉ-ia-ti ÌR-ia-ti an-na-a-aš-še-eš [a-š]a-an-du (…)

‘they shall be a. by/with the maternal (and) by the paternal maidservant (and) servants’

The text refers to the gods, as pointed out already by Melchert 1993g:12, and the most probable restoration of the verb is [a-š]a-an-du instead of [š]a-an-du ‘sie sollen zürnen’ in HW 2nd ed.:79 due to semantic reasons, supported by the identical verb of the previous line, too (with Otten 1976a:104). It is important to note furthermore that anniya- and tatiya- do not mean ‘mother’ and ‘father’, resp. (contra HW 2nd ed.:79 and Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’, see Melchert 1993g:s.vv. and here s.vv.), but rather ‘maternal’ and ‘paternal’, resp., thus we are dealing with two adjectival phrases and not with four substantives (contra HW 2nd ed.:79 and Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’). The phrases are in Luwian and appear in ablative-instrumental. Most of the meanings of this case (cf. Melchert 2003b:203) do not fit (‘from’, ‘to(wards)’, ‘for/on somebody’s part’), but the accompaniment and the agentive meaning do (with HW 2nd ed.:79, contra Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’): ‘(the gods) shall be a. by/with the maternal and paternal maidservants and servants’. A more precise meaning is not possible, since it depends on whether the sentence refers to the gods as agents (doing something together with the servants) or patients (something done to them by the servants), which is unclear due to the fragmentary text. A meaning ‘maternal’ does not fit to any of these cases.

[Zs.S.]

Melchert 1993g:12 classified it as Hittite, Otten 1976a:104, Starke 1985b:403 n. 61, Tischler 2008a:17, Tischler 2016a:12, and Fuscagni 2011-2016a:§5’ saw a Luwian word in it (the stance of Laroche 1959a:27 is unclear), but it is not included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2006a. Synchronically speaking it is clearly a Hittite word due to its ending. A Luwian etymology based on the Luwian word for ‘mother’ is not possible, see under Meaning. Since it does not contain any Luwian suffix (not even -ašša/i-) and its meaning and thus etymology are unclear, there is currently no evidence for a Luwian loanword.

[Zs.S.]