*nē
‘not (prohib.)’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- neg
- ID
- 3144
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/ni/, NEG3
‘not (prohibitive)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested 25 times in inscriptions from Cilicia, Karkamiš, Tell Ahmar, Assur, Tabal and Commagene, dating from the 10th to the early 7th century.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
The HLuw. corpus features several more occurrences of /ni/ for which see /ni/ ‘or’ and cf. Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:127.
[A.P.] [AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this particle is assured, as the HLuw. spelling evidence is unequivocal. Moreover, an earlier form of the word is /nis/, with an exact cognate in CLuw. niš ‘not (prohib.)’, see Hawkins 1975a:121f., Morpurgo Davies 1975a:158 incl. n. 12, and Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:106. The logogram NEG3 (sign *322c), much more frequent with /nis/ than /ni/, was earlier taken by Laroche 1960c:175f. to represent a variant of the sign *329 (REL/kwa/i) much like NEG and NEG2, but identified as a separate sign by Hawkins 1975a:121.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
Like its predecessor /nis/, the negative particle /ni/ is used in prohibitive contexts, whereas factual negation is accomplished with /nawa/ and /na/, see Hawkins 1975a:121f, 131 and Morpurgo Davies 1975a:158. Mostly, the particle occurs paired with indicative mood verbs, although there are some instances in which an imperative verb is used instead even within the same text. Cf. e.g. the indicative verb form at SULTANHAN, §36: a-ta-pa-wa/i-na ni-i-i ma-ru-ha pa-nu-wa/i-i TONITRUS-hu-za-sa tu-wa/i+ra/i-sa, approx. /anta=ba=wa=an ni maruhha panuwai Tarhunzas tuwaris/, translating as ‘He, (the storm-god) Tarhunt of the Vineyard, shall not let him in by any means!’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:467) with the imperative verb form at SULTANHAN, §42: a-wa/i ka-ti-i-sa ni-i á-sa-tu-u-´, approx. /a=wa kattis ni astu/, meaning ‘(There) shall be no hostility!’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:467). The two examples show that the negation can occur before the verb or another element to be negated.
See Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:98-109 for an in-depth study of the different negatives in HLuw.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The present word is considered a shortening of earlier attested /nis/, cf. Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:101.
/ni/ has also been used as the basis for the disjunctive /niba/ ‘or’ (also /ni/ ‘or’), cf. Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:120f. and Morpurgo Davies 2011a:211.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Compounds
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
nī
‘not (prohibitive)’1.2.1Transmission
Hapax in a Luwian ritual in NS.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| ni-i | KBo 13.260 ii 34 | (CTH 766, NS) |
The attestation follows Starke 1990a:453 n. 1636, checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The grammatical sketches of (Cuneiform) Luwian (Melchert 2003b:206, Melchert 2004f, Melchert 2020b; Yakubovich 2015b) and most of the glossaries of Cuneiform Luwian (Laroche 1959a; CLL; Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a) do not take into account this form and do not refer to Starke. Only the overview of negation in Hieroglyphic Luwian (Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:98 n. 1) and Ünal’s Cuneiform Luwian glossary (Ünal 2016a:966) mention it.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘not (prohibitive)’
The meaning follows Starke 1990a:453 n. 1636, which fits the context perfectly (nī is followed by a verb in 3rd sg. imp.).
[Zs.S.]
1.3 Lycian A
ni
‘not (prohib.)’1.3.1Transmission
This negation is found across the Lycian corpus.
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
1.3.3Meaning
Using a combinatorial approach, Torp 1898a:30f. recognizes rightly two negative particles in Lycian ne and ni (followed by Bugge 1901a:39, Meriggi 1936b:276). The negation ni takes a verb in the imperative, which makes it a prohibitive negation (Thomsen apud Pedersen 1899a:1101, Houwink ten Cate 1961a:82, Neumann 2007a:243).
[D.S.]
1.3.4Compounds
1.4 Lycian B
ni
‘not (prohib.)’1.4.1Transmission
This lexeme is found on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).
[D.S.]
1.4.2Forms
| indecl. | ni | TL 44d.60 (Xanthos) |
1.4.3Graphic Features
The sequence zrppedunike is taken here as zrppeduni=ke (with Laroche 1957-58:174, DLL:111) and not as zrppedu nike (contra Schürr 2013d:265-271). The syntax of the passage is easier to explain if one assumes that zrppeduni qezm̃mi is coordinated with the previous dative, i.e. tuli!jelije trlluba qretu=pe tuli!jelije putu trlluba zrppeduni=ke qezm͂mi (TL 44d.5-6) ‘He must qre- the putu-sacrificial animal for the trlluba of the assembly and for Sarpedon, the slain(?) one.’
[D.S.]
1.4.4Meaning
Lycian B ni equates to the Lycian A negation ni (DLL:123). The only attestation is found with a verb in the imperative mood, i.e. ni=uwe lugãtu (TL 44d.60), which correspond to Lyc. A ni. The other attestations are found together with the enclitic particle =ke ‘and’; see under Lyc. B nike.
[D.S.]
1.4.5Compounds
1.5 Lydian
nid
‘not’1.5.1Transmission
This lexeme occurs in a number mostly inscriptions of various genres, but also in the Lower Hermos valley and the area between Hermos and Kaikos valleys.
[I.Y.]
1.5.2Forms
1.5.3Graphic Features
1.5.3.1Phonological Interpretation
For the deletion of the word-final final -d before =m, cf. mru=m=it (LW 14.1). The deletion of the word-final final -d before =τ in LW 13.11 would be phonologically natural, although one cannot be fully certain whether we are dealing here with the reflexive particle =τ or emphatic particle =(i)s.
[I.Y.]
1.5.4Meaning
The function of nid as a negation appears to have been proposed for the first time in Cook 1917a:229, n. 32. This is the unmarked negative particle in the Lydian language (cf. nin and nik). As justly observed in Gusmani 1964a:172, it can denote both objective (LW 3.3) and prohibitive negation (LW 11.12). Furthermore, it can be used in the meaning ‘and not’ (LW 23.15), displaying functional overlap with the particle nik. Finally, it can be deployed in word-formation, cf. LW 12.2 nid qaašlλ and LW 12.5 nid qaašliš vs. LW 12.9 niqašllλ (Gusmani 1964a:172).
[I.Y.]
1.5.5Compounds
1.6 Palaic
nī, nit
‘not’1.6.1Transmission
The form nī is found in the festival text for the Palaic pantheon, while the variant nit is found in a mythical scene of an Old Hittite ritual for the disappearing deity.
[D.S.]
1.6.2Forms
| indecl. | ni-i | KBo 19.152 i 9’ | (CTH 751, MS) |
| ni-i | KBo 19.152 i 10’ | (CTH 751, MS) | |
| ni-i | KBo 19.152 i 12’ | (CTH 751, MS) | |
| n[i-]˹i˺ | KBo 19.152 i 12’ | (CTH 751, MS) | |
| ni-i | KUB 35.166 + KBo 19.154, 9’ | (CTH 751, MS?) | |
| [ni-]˹i˺ | KUB 35.166 + KBo 19.154, 9’ | (CTH 751, MS?) | |
| ni-i | KUB 35.166 + KBo 19.154, 10’ | (CTH 751, MS?) | |
| ni-i | KUB 35.166 + KBo 19.154, 11’ | (CTH 751, MS?) | |
| ni-i | KBo 19.153 iii 5’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni-i | KBo 19.153 iii 5’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni-i | KBo 19.153 iii 6’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni-i | KBo 19.153 iii 7’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni-˹i˺ | KBo 19.153 iii 7’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni-i | KBo 19.153 iii 17’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni-˹i˺ | KBo 19.153 iii 17’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni-i | KBo 19.153 iii 19’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| ni | KUB 32.17 + KBo 40.108, 9’/5’ | (CTH 751, MS?) | |
| ni-it | KUB 35.168, 3’ | (CTH 752, OS) | |
| ni-it | KUB 32.18 i 15’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) | |
| [ni-]i(=) | KUB 35.168, 3’ | (CTH 752, OS) | |
| ni-i[(=)] | KUB 35.168, 3’ | (CTH 752, OS) | |
| ni-i[(=)] | KBo 19.159, 4’ | (CTH 752, OS) | |
| ni-i(=) | KBo 19.159, 8’ | (CTH 752, OS) | |
| ni-i(=) | KUB 32.18 i 7’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) | |
| ni-i(=) | KUB 32.18 i 7’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) | |
| [ni-]i(=) | KUB 32.18 i 9’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) | |
| ni-i(=) | KUB 32.18 i 9’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) | |
| ni-i(=) | KUB 32.18 i 12’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) | |
| ni-i(=) | KUB 32.18 i 18’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) |
1.6.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz.
[D.S.]
1.6.4Meaning
The lexeme nī and nit were correctly interpreted as negations ‘not’ (Kammenhuber 1959a:47). The extended form in -t has been posited for the sequence ni-ip-pa-, where nit-pa would have been assimilated to nip-pa (Kammenhuber loc. cit., Meriggi 1963a:8, Carruba 1970a:65). This analysis is possible, but cannot be proven yet; cf. Melchert 1994a:205. The suggestion of Melchert (loc. cit.) that the form without -t, i.e. nī, is the prohibitive one is not supported by the context, where the actions are referring to the past; e.g. ḫāpnaš=ta nī teganza ḫašīram=pi nī padamman ‘the blood (lit. river) has not flown, the blade has not fallen’.
One should also compare Pal. niwa.
[D.S.]
1.7 Hittite
lē
‘not (prohib.)’1.7.1Literature / Comments
CHD L-N:55f.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘not (prohib.)’
Comparing CLuw. nī, HLuw. /ni/, Pal. nī, nit /nid/, Lyd. nid and Hitt. lē (with dissimilation), we may reconstruct a Proto-Anatolian conjunction *nē (less likely *nei̯) (Morpurgo Davies 1975a:157 n. 4, 158, Melchert 1994a:197, 290 et passimMelchert 1994a:290 rejects the possibility of *nei̯ because of Lyd. nid, expecting Lyd. **ne-d, which is far from assured, as he admits himself on page 367.; EDHIL:523 still attributes Hitt. lē to a different root, cf. HEG L-M:51f. and HED L:76f. with further literaturePuhvel prefers for Hitt. lē a dissimilation from *mē). Palaic and Lydian both have an extension with -d and also share the fact that the negation is not restricted to the prohibitive use, but is also asseverative.
One should also compare the reconstruction fo the asseverative PAnat. negation *ne.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Morphological Reconstruction
HLuw. /ni/ (inter alia written as with plene spelling) and /nis/ are phonologically ambiguous as *nē or as *nei̯ (emphatic negation, Wackernagel 1924a:252, 279, Pokorny IEW:757, differently LIPP II:537 “*ne ih1 ‘not at all’ [‚gar nicht‘, emphat. negation]”). Proto-Anatolian *nē might descend from PIE *mē (possibly *meh1! ‘stop!’, cf. Hitt. mimma-(ḫi) ‘to refuse’). On the origin of PIE *mē, see Hackstein 2020a:20 and Plötz 2022a. The ultimate origin of PIE *mē is beyond reconstruction.
The crosslinguistic evidence for PIE *mē from five branches of Indo-European (i.e. Albanian, Greek, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Tocharian) casts doubt on the attempt by Fries 2020a to project Latin nē back into Proto-Indo-European by monosyllabic lengthening.
3.2Syntactic Reconstruction and Phraseology
The prohibitive negation scopes over the present indicative or, innovatively, over the imperative. The inherited morphosyntax of the prohibitive clause requires non-imperative morphology; for Luwian, see e.g. NEG3-sa pi-ia-i at Babylon 1, §15. In this respect, the Luwian morphosyntax of the prohibitive still resembles closely that of Tocharian (cf. Hackstein, Habata & Bross 2019a:13f.); compare, for instance, Hieroglyphic Luwian FEMINA-ti-i[a]-ti-pa-wa/i-tú (FEMINA.*462)4?-tà ni-i CAPERE-ti-i ‘Female seed, however, they shall not take to her!’ (KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §29; cf. Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:106–109) and West Tocharian mā ñiś cempaṃts rakṣatsents aiṣṣäṃ ‘He must not give me to those Rakṣas!’ (THT=B85a2). Reflexes of prohibitive clauses with non-imperative morphology are found in other Indo-European languages: cf., e.g., Homeric Greek μηδὲ … ἕλκεο (*injunctive) ‘Don’t pull!’ (Il. 1.210), OHG ni kuri, ni kurit plus infinitive ‘Don’t …!’, or Goth. ni ogs (þus) ‘Do not be afraid!’ (Ringe 2018a with lit.).
All branches of Indo-European including Anatolian exhibit a strong tendency to front the prohibitive negation into the left periphery.
A subrule allows the prohibitive negation to induce leftward fronting of constituents into the focus phrase: cf. the Hieroglyphic Luwian example cited above and Old Latin oleum ne addideris! ‘As for oil, don’t add it!’ (Cato agr. 158).
[O.H.]
4. Transmission
*mē > Proto-Anatolian *nē or *nei̯ by contamination with declarative *ne
no, nu ‘or’ < *ne-u̯e ‘or not’ (Pokorny IEW:757)
nē prohibitive, negative final
mos prohibitive (Schumacher & Matzinger 2013a:221, Hackstein 2020a:20)
μή prohibitive, negative final
mi prohibitive (EDAIL:s.v.)
mā́ prohibitive (EWAia II:343)
Tocharian A mā declarative negation, mar prohibitive, B mā declarative and prohibitive