†=ni

CLL:157 very cautiously (“very dubious”) suggests that it is an enclitic particle if ku-i-pa-ku-ni-i̯a-aš in KUB 35.133 ii 3’ (CTH 665) is to be interpreted as /kwi=pa=ku=ni=as/ with a particle =ni= (adding that “but alternatives are also problematic”, without any details).

Melchert’s grammatical analysis is problematic: Although the segmentation of the relative pronoun /k^wi/ (presumably connected with the following /k^wi/ [cf. below] in the meaning ‘whatever’), the adversative particle /=pa/ and the enclitic personal pronoun /=as/ is entirely possible, the remaining sequence, °kuni(i̯a)° remains unexplained, especially since no suitable particles are known. But even if one accepts the analysis of =ku= as a particle (for which, however, there is no independent evidence, Simon 2020b:39) and, accordingly, the assumption of a particle =ni=, one problem remains: prohibitive particles are not used in the sentence-initial particle chain either in Luwian or in the Anatolian languages in general and they are not used as postclitics in general in these languages.

Moreover, the proposal of Melchert implies that he analyses this sequence as a sentence-initial particle chain. However, the context is fragmentary, thus this implication cannot be assured: The end of the previous line and almost the entire remaining part of this line (ku-i-pa-ku-ni-i̯a-aš is followed by ku-i a[-) are broken (cf. Starke 1985b:279), and the presence of the relative pronoun ku-i is not enough to assure its status as the sentence-initial enclitic chain, since it can be preceded by (a) right-dislocated element(s) (cf. Simon 2020b:39). If ku-i-pa-ku-ni-i̯a-aš is not a sentence-initial particle chain, formally speaking it can be a noun or adjective in nom. sg. or a noun or adjective with an enclitic particle =aš (cf. Simon 2020b:39).

All these problems could be solved by the reading ku-i-pa-ku-i^!-i̯a-aš proposed by Mouton & Yakubovich 2021a:42 n. 32, since this would lead to a grammatically analysable sequence (followed now by Melchert as well, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, their idea is not supported by the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[Zs.S.]