ann

Hapax in a rock-tomb inscription from Kaunos, before the mid of the 4^th c. (Roos 1972a:42).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n. ?

ann

C.Ka 3, 2

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:352, checked against the photograph of Frei & Marek 2000a:126. Its segmentation is assured on contextual grounds. Adiego (also in Adiego 1996a:161), Duhoux 2008a:60 n. 40 and Melchert 2010f:182 add an of C.Tr 2 as well, but they cannot be the same on syntactical-contextual grounds, see s.v. and under Meaning. Furthermore, Adiego 1996a:162 would cautiously add an in ankβuš of E.Bu 1–2 as well, which is improbable, see s.v[2310]. (his other addition, añ of C.Si 2a, 5 was later retracted, see s.v.[2551]). On its form cf. already Schürr 1996c:158.

[Zs.S.]

Most of the scholars translate ann as ‘this’ (Adiego 1996a:161, Adiego 2007a:290, 320, 352; Duhoux 2008a:60 n. 40; Melchert 2010f:182), while Schürr 1996c:158 prefers ‘tomb’. Based on the context (the entire inscription contains two more words, both are personal names in gen. sg., one preceding and one following ann), both solutions are theoretically possible. According to Adiego 2007a:352, a demonstrative “seems more suitable” due to an siδi ‘this tomb vel sim.’ in C.Tr 2, but in the meanwhile we know that an siδi[422] means ‘here lie (3pl. pres.) …’ (see s.vv.). Since ‘this’ is san in Carian (see s.v.[939], a problem not addressed until now regarding ann), and ‘tomb’ fits semantically better than an elliptic construction (i.e., literally, ‘PN’s tomb, (the son) of PN’ instead of ‘PN’s this (is), (the son) of PN’), the meaning ‘tomb’ is accepted here with due caution.

[Zs.S.]