*ne-u̯e

This lexeme is attested at least 11 times in inscriptions from Emirgazi, Konya, Boğazköy, Malatya, Maraş and Assur, dating from the second half of the 13^th to the late 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

indecl.	/nawa/	NEG-wa/i	EMİRGAZİ 1A, §25 (Emirgazi)
			EMİRGAZİ 1B, §25 (Emirgazi)
			EMİRGAZİ 1B, §28 (Emirgazi)
			EMİRGAZİ 1B, §34 (Emirgazi)
			EMİRGAZİ 1D, §34 (Emirgazi)
			YALBURT frag. 3, §9 (Konya)
			SÜDBURG, §10b (Boğazköy)
			KARAHÖYÜK, §20 (Malatya)
		NEG[-wa/i]	EMİRGAZİ 1A, §28 (Emirgazi)
		NEG	EMİRGAZİ 2, §11 (Emirgazi)
		na-wa/i-a	ASSUR letter e, §31 (Assur)
		NEG-wa/i-x?	MARAŞ 2, §2 (Maraş)

It is not entirely certain that the attestation at ASSUR letter e, §31 belongs to the present lexeme, see Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:101. However, in the absence of definite proof, it is included in the above list. Future finds may require a reassessment.

There may be yet another attestation with a different spelling at EMİRGAZİ 2, §15, viz. 〈NEG₂-wa/i〉. However, the available photos do not permit a secure identification.

Attestations of uncomplemented NEG are commonly deemed to stand for /nawa/ in 2^nd millennium BCE texts; the later attested /na/ mostly relies on NEG₂ instead.

[A.P.]

The meaning of this word was partly clear already to Meriggi (HHG:90, comparing Hittite nuwan) and then fully elucidated by Hawkins 1975a:121f, 131 and Morpurgo Davies 1975a:158, correctly labelling it as a factual negative; for the prohibitive negative, see /nis/ and shorter /ni/.When Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:47f. erroneously took /ni/ for the only negation present in HLuw., they assumed it combined all the different negative functions found in the other Anatolian languages. The meaning can be observed e.g. in EMİRGAZİ 1B, §34, the protasis of a curse formula: kwa/i-i(a)-sa-pa-wa/i-mu LIBATIO-ha-sa₅ NEG-wa/i DARE, approx. /kwis=ba=wa=mu malhassa nawa piyai/, meaning ‘But (he) who does not give me a ritual’ (cf. Hawkins 1995a:88f.). In most instances, the factual negative particle immediately precedes the verb, although other positions in the clause are possible. For a detailed study of the different negatives, see Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:98-109.

[AH.B.]

This negation is well attested throughout the Cuneiform Luwian corpus.

[D.S.]

indecl.	na-a-ú-wa	KUB 35.21 obv. 24, 25	(CTH 761, MS)
		KUB 35.21 rev. 19’, 20’	(CTH 761, MS)
		KBo 29.9 obv. 14’	(CTH 760, NS)
		KUB 35.43 iii 7’	(CTH 761, NS)
		KUB 35.91, 2’	(CTH 767, MS?)
	˹na˺-a-ú-wa	KUB 35.70 ii 21	(CTH 762, NS)
	na-˹a˺-ú-wa	KBo 47.290, 4’	(CTH 761, NS?)
	na-a-˹ú-wa˺	KBo 29.29 obv. 6’	(CTH 765, MS?)
	na-a-wa	KUB 32.5 iv 7’	(CTH 759, NS)
		KBo 9.141 iv 6’	(CTH 761, MS)
		KUB 35.54 ii 43’	(CTH 758, MS)
		KUB 35.47 iii 4’	(CTH 758, NS)
		KUB 35.107+ iii 16’	(CTH 764, MS)
		KUB 35.133 iii 11	(CTH 665, LNS)
	na-a-w[a]	KUB 35.54 ii 44’	(CTH 758, MS)
		KUB 35.133 iii 10	(CTH 665, LNS)
		KUB 32.13 i 4	(CTH 771, MS)
	[n]a-a-wa	KBo 29.28 obv. 4	(CTH 765, MS?)
		KUB 35.106, 4’	(CTH 766, MS)
	na-ú-wa	KUB 35.24 obv. 5’	(CTH 761, MS)
	na-˹ú˺-w[a]	KUB 35.22+ obv. 41’	(CTH 761, MS)
	[n]a-˹ú˺-wa	KUB 35.22+ obv. 42’	(CTH 761, MS)
	na-wa	KUB 35.79 iv? 13’	(CTH 765, MS)

The table contains only a representative number of attestations. – Previously, certain attestations included in the above table had been interpreted as adjectives instead, for which see *nawa/i- ‘new’. – The attestation of na-u-w[a] at KBo 7.68 i 9’ suggested by Starke 1985b:361 is dubious, since the sign 〈wa〉 cannot be seen on the photo in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Archiv).

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[D.S.]

On contextual grounds, Friedrich 1955a:44 interprets CLuw. nāwa as the negation of declarative sentences, i.e. ‘not’, as opposed to nīš ‘not (prohib.)’, followed by Meriggi 1957a:203f., Laroche 1959a:74, CLL:157, Melchert 2003b:206, Sasseville 2020b:114f.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found 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 around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

Meriggi 1936b:277 interprets neu as a univerbated and apocopated form of newe (ne + we) and assumes that the double negative in TL 44c.6, i.e. neu ne, equating to Lat. nec non, results in a positive sense, i.e. also. Thus, the passage would have to be translated as follows:

se=utãna : sttati : sttala : ẽti : malijahi : pddãti ddewẽ : zxxazãi neu=ne : mẽseweh : m͂mi (TL 44c.4-6)

‘In Utãna, a stele stands within the place of Malija as a gift from the warriors, (and) also (or none the less) the house of Mẽsewe (or by the house of Mẽsewe).’

A negative translation would imply that the house is no longer there, i.e. ‘(and) no longer the house of Mẽsewe’, which is possible but less attractive from a contextual perspective.This part is left untranslated in Melchert 1993e. Untenable translation by Gehrisch 2018a:77. Schürr 2009c:100 interprets the passage differently, interpreting neune as ne=une, in an attempt to recover a word un- of obscure semantics. He fails however to fully provide a good translation of the sentence, which renders his interpretation unattractive. Moreover, the existence of neu is assured by the Lycian B attestations.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found 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 around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

The meaning and function of neu in Lycian B is more difficult to establish because of the obscurity of the contexts. Melchert (DLL:123) equates it tentatively with Lyc. A neu, thus a negation. Schürr 2016d:166 does not accept the idea that it is a negation but does not provide an adequate interpretation of the sentence either.

Sasseville 2021a:239f. interprets TL 44c.58-59 as a rhetorical question asked by a god during the assembly and translates kibe=uwe=neu as ‘Or does he not yet…?’ (translated simply as ‘not’ by Gehrisch 2018a:82). In TL 44d.28-29, neu seems to be associated with kibe ‘or’. On the other hand, it could belong together with the double negatives nike… nike… ‘neither… nor…’: me=tu=neu=prijelijed[i] kibe meredi nik(e) … nike … An exact translation of neu in this case cannot be provided as long as the meaning of the sentence is not entirely clear. No suggestion is given by Schürr 2018b:74.

Lycian neu is analysed already by Meriggi 1936b:277 as an apocopated form stemming from *ne-we.

[D.S.]

This word is found in a Palaic festival text with an incantation pertaining to the dissections of sacrificial animals and also in a mythological passage pertaining to the bull in the sky, both largely new to the Palaic literature.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv). The sequence niuwašti (pace Soysal 2017a:84 who reads two fully preserved words of the line as one entire word) is here interpreted as niuwa=aš=ti, i.e. a negation niwa followed by an enclitic pronoun in the nominative singular common gender =aš and the reflexive pronoun =ti. This is supported by the other attestation ni-wa-an-ti, i.e. niwa=an=ti (KUB 48.69), with the acc. sg. pronoun =an instead.

[D.S.]

The negation niwa can be compared etymologically to Luw. nāwa ‘not’ and Lyc. A neu ‘no longer (vel sim.)’, Lyc. B neu ‘not yet’, i.e. it would be an extension in =wa of the negation nī ‘not’. Since the Palaic sentence breaks off in CTH 753, it is impossible to verify the exact meaning or the exact function of niwa. On the other hand, the other context might speak for a meaning such as ‘not yet (?)’; see Pal. pā-.

[D.S.]