*n̥s-

This lexeme is attested 6 times in inscriptions from Assur and Tabal, dating from the mid 8^th to the late 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The attestations in the ASSUR letters are followed by various strings of enclitics, always starting with 〈-ha〉, i.e. /=ha/ ‘and’.

The attestations of enclitic /=anz/ ‘us’ are not included in the above table; they are regularly spelled with the sign 〈za〉 only as part of the sentence-initial particle chain.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The meaning of the word is secure, even though its occurrences are limited to just a handful of texts. The low frequency of attestation is due to the composition of the HLuw. corpus, which provides few opportunities for a 1pl. pronoun to be used with its heroic and commemorative inscriptions from the point of view of individual authors; rarer still are 2pl. pronouns. Moreover, HLuw. is a pro-drop language and therefore uses subject pronouns at a lower rate to begin with, resulting in orthotonic pronouns being found only in certain syntactic contexts, cf. Morpurgo Davies 1980b:90f. ASSUR letter e, §8 is a case in point: wa/i-za á-pi a-za₅-za-ha ha-tu+ra/i-a, approx. /wa=anz appi anzanz=ha hattura/, likely translating as ‘As for us, we, too, (are) in health’ (see Waal 2021a:276f. esp. also regarding the interpretation of /hattura-/ ‘health’; cf. Hawkins 2000a:535).

[AH.B.]

The pronoun is orthotonic and while it is assumed to inflect, the attested shape a-za₅-a-za /anzanz/ is the only one known so far (see Morpurgo Davies 1980b:90), and its enclitic form /=anz/ (see already Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:36) has also undergone sweeping syncretism. /anza-/ represents the stem previously only found in the oblique cases and having taken over the paradigm; the previous form of the nominative is not attested in Luwian, but was presumably the exact match of Hittite wēš ‘we’, which is likewise limited to the older stages of the language (see e.g. EDHIL:1004).

The form /anzassa/i-/ at TOPADA, §26 is rightly analysed as a genitival adjective in /-assa/i-/ by Hawkins 2000a:458f. It shows that also the pronouns of the first and second person follow the general nominal pattern for possessor marking including its changes, for the corpus also holds attestation of /anzi(ya)-/ with the same meaning.

[AH.B.]

1. /anzi(ya)-/

This lexeme is attested in a festival fragment mentioning the ašušatalla-men.

[O.B.]

For the analysis of ⟨an-za-aš⟩ as a nominative form, note the appearance of ⟨an-za-aš-pa⟩ in the beginning of KUB 35.133 iv 13 (line broken off roughly in the middle), followed by the 1pl. pres. ind. act. verbal form ⟨ḫu-u-i-un-ni⟩ as the first word of the following line. The 1pl. pres. ind. act. verb ⟨ma-ar-šu-<un>-ni⟩ (emendation with Sasseville 2021a:28) also appears in the same passage (iv 11´), immediately followed by ⟨an-za-aš⟩ (cf. also Carruba 1968a:18; 22, Carruba 2002b:101, Yakubovich 2010d:65 n. 55).

The form a-an-za-ti is either abl./instr. as proposed by Hackstein 2007a:137 or ānza=ti (i.e., the dat./acc. form followed by the reflexive enclitic =ti) as in CLL:19.

[O.B.]

All forms have been checked against the photos in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[O.B.]

The analysis of CLuw. ānza- as as a 1^st person plural pronoun is consensual in the literature (e.g., Meriggi 1957b:60, Carruba 1968a:22, Starke 1990a:45, CLL:19). See Carruba 2002b:101 for contexts and translations. Additional credence to this interpretation is available in the Anatolian comparanda, i.e. HLuw. /anza-/ and the Hittite oblique stem found in, e.g., acc. anzāš, gen. anzēl (HEG W-Z:508).

[O.B.]

CLuw. ānza- is a pronominal stem.

[O.B.]

This word is attested in a dedicatory inscription, dated to the reign of Pttule, a ruler of uncertain identification.

[D.S.]

The word has mostly been interpreted as azise (DLL:7), which is formally possible, although a division azi se is equally fine; see under Meaning.

[D.S.]

Melchert 2014d:206 compares azise with azzala-, which would support the view of taking azise as a dat. sg. noun. However, the etymological connection between the two is not provable. Instead, rather than taking the phrase azise ikuwaz[i] as a dative/locative singular abstract noun followed by a dative singular agent noun, one could assume a coordination of two words in the dative designating people, i.e. azi se=ikuwaz[i] ‘to us and to the ikuwaza-official’. Thus, azi would correspond to Lyc. B ãzi ‘us’ with a sporadic loss of the nasalization before z. Attractive as this scenario is, it remains tentative due to the obscure nature of the context.

[D.S.]

1. ñzzi(je)-

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

Despite the word divider in ãzi : sse, Melchert (DLL:113) reads it as one word emending to ãzi{:}sse (already suggested by Kalinka 1901a:113 and followed by Schürr 2014a:763) and compares it to the Lycian A segment azise (TL 35.16) (likewise Meriggi 1937a:514 n. 5, who also adduces the Lyc. A noun wazzis-, undecided Schürr 2018b:66). However, the latter could likewise be read as azi se=ikuwaz[i] (cf. under Lycian A) instead and, therefore, the problem deserves further attention; see under Meaning.

[D.S.]

Sasseville 2021a:308 offers an analysis of the passage, in which he treats ãzi and sse as two words, pointing out the parallelism with the preceding ripsse ẽmu ‘to me for/in the ripsse’. Therefore, he interprets ãzi as ‘to us’, i.e. a personal pronoun of the 1^st person plural. This approach can be further supported by comparison with Lyc. A ñzzijaha and, concerning the word sse, by the identification with the noun sese/i-. Differently, Gehrisch 2018a:95 suggests that ãzi is a form of the verb es-^(ti) ‘to be’, which is phonologically impossible.

[D.S.]

EDHIL:1004, HEG U-Z:506-509