manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- (mannakun(i)-)
‘nose (or other facial feature)’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 2798
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- (mannakun(i)-)
‘nose (or other facial feature)’1.1.1Transmission
The lexeme is found in the Kizzuwatnean conjurations of Kuwattalla and Puriyanni as well as a text with recitations and a mythological passage, from Middle Hittite onwards.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. | ma-an-na-wa-an-ni-in | KUB 35.107 iii 20’ | CTH 764, MS |
| [ma-a]n-na-u-wa-an-ni-in | KBo 14.114, 13’ | CTH 765, MS | |
| [ma-an-n]a-ḫu-wa-an-ni-in | KUB 35.43 iii 15’ | CTH 761, NS | |
| ma-an-na-w[a-an-ni-in] | KUB 35.33 iii 3’ | CTH 762, NS | |
| abl./instr. | [ma-an-na-ḫu-un-na-t]i | KUB 35.43 ii 14 | CTH 761, NS |
| [m]a-an-na-ḫu-˹u˺-[wa-an-na-ti] | KUB 35.43 iii 15’ | CTH 761, NS | |
| ma-a-an-na-ḫu-wa-an-na-a-ti | KUB 35.43 iii 25’’ | CTH 761, NS | |
| ma-an-na-ḫ[u-wa-an-na-a-ti] | KUB 34.62, 7’ | CTH 762, NS | |
| [ma-an-na-w]a-na-ti | KBo 29.20, 7’ | CTH 762, NS | |
| ma-an[-n]a-ḫu-un-na-ti | KUB 35.24 obv. 6’ | CTH 761, MS | |
| [m]a-an-[n]a-ḫu-un-na-ti- | KUB 35.24 obv. 9’ | CTH 761, MS | |
| ma-an[-na-wa-an-na-ti] | KUB 35.33 iii 8’ | CTH 762, NS | |
| [ma-a]n-na-ḫu-un-n[a-t]i | KUB 35.20 obv. 1’ | CTH 761, MS | |
| ma-an-na-ku-na-˹a˺-ti | KUB 35.20 obv. 9’ | CTH 761, MS | |
| ma-an-na-ku-na-a-ti | KBo 29.36 l. col. 4’ | CTH 763, MS | |
| ma-an-na-ku-na-ti | KUB 35.54 iii 10 | CTH 758, MS | |
| erg. sg. | [m]a-an-na-wa-an-na-t[e-eš] | KBo 29.20, 3’ | CTH 762, NS |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Attestations largely follow Oettinger 2019a and have been checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz. Oettinger’s (Oettinger 2019a:463) reading of KUB 34.62, 7’ as mannak[unāti is not supported as the traces of the last sign with a large horizontal wedge in medial position speak clearly for ˹ḫu˺ instead of ˹ku˺, and the available space suggests a longer word, thus ma-an-na-ḫ[u-wa-an-na-a-ti]. – For the restorations of ma-an-na-w[a-an-ni-in] at KUB 35.33 iii 3’ and [m]a-an-na-wa-an-na-t[e-eš] at KBo 29.20 iii 3’, see Sasseville 2021a:557 with reference to Ilya Yakubovich. – Melchert (CLL: 136) reads [ma-an-na-ḫu-]un-na-a-ti also in KUB 35.44 rev. 9’.
[E.R.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
Regarding the relationship between manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- and mannakun(i)-, scholars take two different points of view. Either they assume the identity of the two stems and accept some kind of phonological or graphic variation (Otten 1953a:27f., Kronasser 1956a:90, Weitenberg 1984a:421 n. 219) or just a scribal mistake (Oettinger 2019a); still differently Oettinger 1986a:31), or they consider the stems to be two different lexemes. In the latter case, an etymological relationship with Hitt. maninkuwa- ‘short’ has been considered and, therefore, the meaning ‘short’ has been posited (DLL:68; Čop 1953a:36, Čop 1970a:88f. etc., HED M:56, CLL:123), or an entirely independent word that denotes a body part belonging to or close to the face (Yakubovich 2016a:76 n. 11). Meriggi 1957a:216 vs. 217, HEG L-M:123 seem to be undecided.
Whatever decision one takes, serious phonological problems remain. However, two arguments can be brought forward in favor of an identification of manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- and mannakun(i)-: (1) the switch between the two words within one text and context, where the mention of two different body parts in the same position of the list would be unexpected, (2) the lack of internal /g/ and /gw/ in Luwian (cf. Rieken 2007a:295f., but with different analysis of mannakun(i)-). This speaks clearly against the linguistic reality of a Luwian word mannakun(i)-, which would have to be interpreted as /mannagun(i)-/ or /mannagwn(i)-/. Alternatively, it can be assumed that manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- developed a labiovelar fricative /hw/ regularly and was subsequently syncopated to /mannahwnn(i)-/ as attested in ma-an[-n]a-ḫu-un-na-ti (for the syncope cf. Mittelberger 1964a:74f., Melchert 1994a:276), and finally, the complex cluster was reduced by simplification of the nasal geminate (for the co-occurrence of the syncope and the spelling with k, see Oettinger 2019a). Possibly a Hittite scribe whose phonological system included a consonant /gw/ could misinterpret the sequence /hwn/ as /gwn/. While the last assumption cannot be supported with exact parallels from Cuneiform Luwian, it fits well into the picture of the redactional history of the Luwian texts in the Hittite capital, which time and again left various traces of the linguistic interference (Melchert 2013b).
The loss of /h/ before the labial approximant /u̯/ in mannaḫuwann(i)- > mannawann(i)- is a well-known development (see, e.g., Starke 1990a:572 n. 2136, Melchert 1994a:258). Outdated Oettinger 1976a:103 with the suggestion of hypercorrection in mannaḫuwann(i)- as against mannawann(i)-.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The interpretation of manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- as word for a body part goes back as far as Otten 1953a:27. It is specified by Meriggi 1957a:216 (accepted by Starke 1990a:329) as part of the head because of its position in a list between head and pupils of the eye, and tentatively by Melchert 1988b:217 with n. 12 as ‘nose (?)’. More recently, Oettinger 2019a argues that the context of KUB 35.43 iii 25’-27’, where a sheep is supposed to take and carry away the evil with its legs, horns and mannaḫu(wa)nn(i)-, supports an interpretation as forehead rather than nose, since it is harder and thus more likely to be used for pushing. Nevertheless, the argument is not convincing because in the same passage and elsewhere (e.g., KUB 35.43 ii 10-15) heart and liver are listed as well, showing that the act of carrying away the evil is a ritual act not to be taken literally as a concrete physical movement performed by the sheep (for a recent interpretation of the passage, cf. Melchert 2017a). We are then left with some uncertainty about what facial feature we are dealing with, but ‘nose’ is not unlikely.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
The attested forms leave no doubt that manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- is a mutated stem. Following Melchert 1988b:217 n. 12 (and most recently Melchert 2019a), the lexeme lends itself to an analysis as mannaḫ- (the equivalent of Hitt. nom./acc. coll. mēna ‘face’ < *méneh2) plus the ethnic suffix -wann(i)-, thus literally ‘organ, located in the face’. This lends further support to the semantic interpretation as a facial feature.
Analyses based on comparison with Hitt. maninkuwa- ‘short’, such as Čop 1970a:88f., can no longer be upheld (see under Meaning).
[E.R.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
The comparison between CLuw. manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- ‘nose’ and Hitt. mēnaḫḫanda ‘in the face of’ and mēni- ‘face’ allows for the reconstruction of a (root) noun *mén- meaning ‘face’ with an allative *méneh2 preserved in derivatives and univerbations (Nikolaev 2010b:65 with further literature, see also Rieken 1999a:57f. n. 266). For its potential attestation in Lycian, see Lyc. A manax-ine-. The Luwian formation manna(ḫ)uwann(i)- contains not only traces of Čop’s Law in the root but also the mutated possessive suffix *-u̯én- with generalized Čop’s Law (Melchert 1994a:258, Oettinger 2019a:465).
Poetto 1986b and Rieken 1999a:57 connect Hitt. mēni- ‘face’ etymologically with CLuw. manā-(di) ‘to see, favor’ (see under lemma), which is however doubted by Nikolaev 2010b:65 n. 14 (see already Čop 1961b:59-61, Carruba 1986a).
[D.S.]