/nis/
‘not (prohib.)’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Grammar
- neg
- ID
- 3146
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/nis/, NEG3-sa
‘not (prohib.)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested 16 times in inscriptions from Maraş, Malatya, Emirgazi, Aleppo, Karkamiš and Tell Ahmar, dating from the second half of the 13th to the late 9th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
In some cases, the spelling 〈NEG3-sa〉 is followed by 〈-pa〉 (and often further particles) and judged to belong to /nisba/ ‘or’. Contra Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:114, TELL AHMAR 6, §34 is included in the present lexeme, because the string of signs is analysed differently as 〈NEG3-sa a-pa〉, approx. /nis appa/ following Yakubovich 2017e.
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word is secure. Besides some fully syllabic spellings, the proposed shape receives support from the exact cognate CLuw. niš ‘not (prohib.)’, see Hawkins 1975a:121f., cf. also Morpurgo Davies 1975a:158 incl. n. 12. The form /nis/ is found mainly in older inscriptions from the 2nd millennium and the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE; later texts rely mostly on the shorter form /ni/ (Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:106), which was first fixed with this shape upon the reinterpretation of many signs by Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:47f.At the time, the authors erroneously assumed /ni/ to represent the only negation in HLuw. The frequently used logogram NEG3 (sign *322c) was – like NEG and NEG2 – earlier taken to represent a variant of the sign *329 (REL/kwa/i) by Laroche 1960c:175f., but then identified as a separate sign by Hawkins 1975a:121.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
This particle represents the prohibitive negative, as opposed to the factual negative /nawa/ and later /na/. /nis/ (and later /ni/) were at first taken to constitute the only negative in HLuw. (thus erroneously Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:47f.), but then correctly identified by Hawkins 1975a:121f, 131 and Morpurgo Davies 1975a:158.
The present negation is a mainstay in prohibitive clauses as frequently found in curse formulae. As is common in the Anatolian languages, the prohibitive negation is combined not with an imperative, but with an indicative verb form (see Morpurgo Davies 2011a:209f.). Thus e.g. TELL AHMAR 6, §§33-34, where it occurs in consecutive clauses denying divine benevolence to anyone violating the inscriptions: *a-wa/i-tú-ta LOCUS-la/i-wa/i-za NEG3-sa CUM u-sa-la-li-ti á-na(REGIO)-i-ta-pa-wa/i NEG3-sa a-pa (PES2)i-ti za-a-na (DEUS)TONITRUS-na Iha-mi-ia-ta-si-i-na wa/i+ra/i-ARMA-na, approx. /a=wa=du=tta alawanz nis anni usalalitti Anaitta=pa=wa nis appa idi zan Tarhuntan Hamiyattassin warpuna?/, translating as ‘He (scil. the storm-god Tarhunt of the Army) shall not be benevolent to his household members, nor shall he go back to the Land of Ana to imprison (?) this (storm-god) Tarhunt of Hamiyatta’ (see Yakubovich 2019a:554, 556 and Hawkins 2006a:16f., 30).
For a detailed study of the different negatives, see Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:98-109.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The particle consists of the prohibitive negative /ni/ and a strengthening element /-s/.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Compounds
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
nīš
‘not (prohib.)’1.2.1Transmission
This negation is well attested throughout the Luwian corpus and particularly frequent in ritual incantations.
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| indecl. | ni-i-iš | KUB 32.7 r.col. 10´ | (CTH 762, NS) |
| KUB 35.13, 17´ | (CTH 762, NS) | ||
| KUB 35.66 iv 5´ | (CTH 760, MS) | ||
| KUB 9.7 iii 5´ | (CTH 767, MS) | ||
| ni-˹i˺[-iš] | KBo 61.31 obv. 6´ | (CTH 763, MS) | |
| ni-i[-iš] | KBo 29.14, 5´ | (CTH 763, NS) | |
| [ni-i-]š(=) | KBo 13.262, 5´ | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| ni-iš | KUB 35.45 iii 11´ | (CTH 760, NS) | |
| KUB 35.65 iii 15´ | (CTH 763, MS) | ||
| KUB 32.5, 9´ | (CTH 759, NS) | ||
| KUB 35.48 iii 11´ | (CTH 760, NS) | ||
| KUB 35.113, 5´ | (CTH 754, NS) | ||
| KUB 35.54 ii 45´ | (CTH 758, MS) | ||
| KUB 35.54 iii 7 | (CTH 758, MS) | ||
| KUB 35.54 iii 24 | (CTH 758, MS) | ||
| KUB 9.31 ii 26, 28 | (CTH 757, NS) | ||
| HT 1 ii 4´ | (CTH 394, NS) | ||
| ni-i[š] | KUB 35.58 ii 8´ | (CTH 759, NS) | |
| KBo 60.32, 10´ | (CTH 758, NS) | ||
| KUB 35.87, 6´ | (CTH 765, MS) | ||
| KUB 35.87, 7´ | (CTH 765, MS) | ||
| ˹ni˺-i[š] | KUB 35.108, 25´ | (CTH 765, MS) | |
| n[i-iš] | KUB 35.54 ii 40´ | (CTH 758, MS) | |
| n[i-i]š? | KUB 35.48 iii 12´ | (CTH 760, NS) | |
| ne-iš | KBo 29.49, 4´ | (CTH 756, NS) | |
| [ne-i]š | KBo 29.49, 5´ | (CTH 756, NS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
On contextual and syntactic grounds, Otten 1953a:46f. equates CLuw. nīš with Hitt. lē ‘not (prohib.)’, using especially the incantations in the Luwian ritual of Zarpiya. It has also been noticed that the use of the prohibitive negation nīš (just like Hitt. lē) in imperative clauses causes the imperative verb to indicative mood. The lexical identification is supported by all attestations and widely accepted (Friedrich 1955a:44, Kronasser 1956a:161, Laroche 1959a:75, Starke 1990a:453 n. 1636, Melchert 1993g:159, Oettinger 1994a:310, Melchert 2003b:206).
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
CLuw. nīš (and HLuw. /nis/) can formally go back to *nē or *nei̯ (see CLuw. nī) but with an s-extension (Oettinger 1994a:310). The reconstruction *nē-s is preferred by Melchert 1994a:236.
For the non-extended pronoun *nē, see under lemma.
[D.S.]