*an(n)o- (or *éno-/óno-)

The pronoun occurs in a broad range of genres, viz. a lexical list, a festival and a ritual text, as well as letters and a verdict. Further attestations of the adverb annaz(a) are listed HW 2nd ed. A:81.

[E.R.]

The putative attestation of an-n[i-i]š= at ABoT 1.60 rev. 8 is less than certain (Hoffner 2009a:178 reads ⸢an-ni⸣=, HW 2nd ed. A:94 reads anni[ša]n), but the other attestations ensure the existence of the lexeme in Hittite (see HW 2nd ed. A, E, I:51, Melchert 2009a:151, Goedegebuure 2014a:211-219; contra HW 2nd ed. A:81, Kloekhorst 2008a:173, Patri 2010a:71 n. 8). – Goedegebuure 2014a:219 lists anni at KBo 30.39 rev. 6 as nom./acc. pl. n., see also ibid. 213f.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

According to Scheucher 2012a:524f., the form anniš translates Sum. gú-r[e-a] and homophonous Akk. an-ni-iš ‘hither’ in the lexical list Izi Boğazköy A. Thus, the Hittite translation could have been influenced by the homophony, or even been created for the purpose of translating the Akkadian entry (thus HW 2nd ed. A:81). However, Goedegebuure 2014a:211 claims that Woods 2001a:143 (unpubl. diss., non vidi) was able to show that anniš translates the Akkadian distal pronoun ullû ‘that yonder’, and she adduces further evidence for its linguistic reality (listed above under Forms) by other attestations (see under Forms), among them a letter from Maşat (maḫḫan=š(a)maš kāš tuppianza anda wemiezzi nu annin 1 lim 7 me 60 érin.meš ^URUIšḫupitta liliwaḫḫuanzi ninikten ‘When this tablet reaches you, mobilize in a hurry those 1760 troops of Išḫupitta’, HKM 20, 4-9; modified from Melchert 2009a:152). Following Melchert and Goedegebuure, the passage cited for the Maşat letter and Wood’s assignment of anni- to Akk. ullû ‘that yonder’ confirm Hrozný’s (Hrozný 1917a:135; followed in HW:21, Forrer 1922a:208, implicit Friedrich 1926a:152; still undecided Goedegebuure 2002-2003a:1) original identification as a distal pronoun, although his reasoning had been purely etymological and has to be looked at in more detail (see under Reconstruction, following Melchert 2009a:155).

The petrified ablative annaz ‘formerly, once upon a time’ shows a specified meaning vis-à-vis the general distal function of the pronoun (since Hrozný 1917a:135 n. 2 and Friedrich 1926a:152). It is shared by the derivative annalla/i- ‘old, former’. The semantic restriction may be explained as the attempt to establish a complementary distribution with the competing distal pronoun aši (see Goedegebuure 2014a:218).

[E.R.]

Taking together the evidence from the nom. and acc. forms in -iš and -in and the petrified adverbial ablative annaz, the pronoun must have followed the expected pattern of i-mutation (different from Luw. zā- and apā-); see Melchert 2009a:151 and Goedegebuure 2014a:218; for the connection see also Pedersen 1938a:63 n.

[E.R.]

1. annalla/i-

2. annišan

3. ānnunn(i)-

EDHIL:173f. follows HW 2nd ed. A:81 in claiming that anna/i- represents a loan word. More precisely, Melchert 2009a:152 and Goedegebuure 2014a:219 argue that the i-mutation-like alternation between anna- and anni- point to Luwian as the donor language (contra HED A, E, I:53). Further evidence comes from the use of the Luwian suffix -alla/i- in the derivative annalla/i- ‘old, former, ancient’. However, the simplex must have been borrowed much earlier, possibly as early as OH (the composition period of CTH 752), while annalla/i- was used productively only in NS texts (see under Lemma).

[E.R.]

Attested in a funerary inscription of unknown date from Kemer, in the neighbourhood of Tralles (Caria).

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:352 (the inscription is lost and no photos are available, for drawings see Adiego 2007a:131 with refs.). Its segmentation seems assured due to the following word, siδi (see s.v. si-). Adiego (also in Adiego 1996a:161), Duhoux 2008a:60 n. 40 and Melchert 2010f:182 add ann of C.Ka 3 as well, but they cannot be the same on syntactical-contextual grounds, see s.v. and under Meaning. Furthermore, Adiego 1996a:162 would cautiously add an in ankβuš of E.Bu 1–2 as well, which is improbable, see s.v. (his other addition, añ of C.Si 2a, 5 was later retracted, see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

There was a general agreement that an is a demonstrative pronoun preceding the word siδi ‘tomb vel sim.’ (Hajnal 1995b:20 [deriving it from *eno- with double question mark and followed by Duhoux 2008a:60 n. 40 without question mark], Adiego 1996a:161f., Adiego 2007a:290, 320, 352; Duhoux 2008a:60 with n. 40 [cautiously]; Melchert 2010f:180 [from *é/ónod]). The precise meaning was problematic already at this step, since one would expect ‘this’, which is, however, san in Carian (see s.v.). Hajnal’s solution (‘jene’) was hardly fitting semantically (it was changed into ‘dieses’ in Hajnal & Zipser 2017a:277 n. 5, without elaborating the problem of san).

Nevertheless, Kloekhorst 2008a:139–141 convincingly argued on contextual and formal grounds that the inscription C.Tr 2, an siδi artmi pauś parŋaq (on the reading of the last word see s.v. =q), means ‘here/underneath lie Artmi, (son) of Pau, and Parŋa’ (ignoring Kloekhorst’s investigation, Hajnal & Zipser 2017a:277 n. 5 maintained the translation as a demonstrative pronoun), i.e. siδi is a verb and, therefore, an cannot be a demonstrative pronoun. Since the inscription was found in a vineyard, nothing is known about the original structure of the tomb and, accordingly, the more general meaning ‘here’ seems better fitting at the moment.

[Zs.S.]

The words ãnaš and ãš are found in inscriptions that have not been dated accurately.

[D.S.]

Considering the ending -aš, a nom. pl. c. is the only plausible option (thus also Schürr 1997a:202 n. 3 and cf. Sasseville 2017a on nom. pl. c. -iš vs.  acc. pl. c. -is; contra Melchert 1991a:137, who translates ãnaš as acc. pl. c.), although too many uncertainties remain with the other lexical items of the clause to be provable. It is tempting to regard ãna- as a demonstrative pronoun. comparable to Hitt. anna-. referring to something in the vicinity of the stele (thus also Melchert 1991a:137 and Melchert 1994e:303, though withdrawn in Melchert 2009a:154). Furthermore, this would mean that all other attestations like ãn, ãnad and ãns could be taken as case forms of the same demonstrative pronouns, but cf. under Lyd. ãn for a different approach. The word ãš adduced here could be a syncopated form of ãnaš and be the subject of the sentence with its abbreviated predicate kim(…).

[D.S.]

Meriggi 1935a:102 suggests that if isas is not a personal name, then ãnaš would have to be one, which is by no means cogent. Nonetheless, Tischler (HEG U-W:392) translates ãnaš as a personal name (likewise Gérard 2005a:82). Outdated is the hypothesis that ãnaš is related to wãnas ‘grave’ (contra Vetter 1959a:36, Gusmani 1961a:190 n. 50; see Gusmani 1964a:73). For the more promising suggestion, viz. an analyis as a demonstrative pronoun, see under Forms.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found in a festival text for the Palaic pantheon.

[D.S.]

The sequence a-an-ni-i is interpreted as a=annī with the tonic sentence introductory particle a. Melchert 1984b:31f. (following Watkins 1982a:256) analyzes the form as nominative/accusative plural neuter, which would be in agreement with the following word wa-šu-u-ḫa analyzed as a substantive in the nominative/accusative collective. This grammatical analysis is due to the lack of consideration for the whole context and is thus rejected here; see below.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[D.S.]

Based on the context, an identification of a-an-ni-i with Pal. anna- c. ‘mother’ or aniye/a-^(ti) ‘to do, accomplish’ was rightly discarded by Kammenhuber 1959a:38. Instead, she suggested a connection with the Hittite demonstrative pronoun anna/i- with a far-deictic sense (accepted by Carruba 1970a:50, Melchert 1984b:32).

The Palaic demonstrative pronoun is found in a context, where the Tabarna is addressed. Preceding this passage, it is said that drinking cups have been filled for Zaparwa. Afterwards, the attention is turned to the tabarna, where he is asked to perform the same gesture towards the god.

                [a]=an marḫīnant(a) mān=aš marḫanz(a) a=annī wašūḫ=a [tab]arna ti=kuar šūna a=du pīša (KUB 35.165 rev. 23’-24’)

                ‘They invited him (scil. Zaparwa) as a guest. If he has come as a guest, be good to him as well, tabarna, pour (him) yourself (the cups) and give him!

Therefore, the demonstrative pronoun refers to the god Zaparwa previously mentioned. Although there must be a deictic difference between the Palaic pronouns =apa- and =annī, it cannot be verified due to the lack of attestations of the latter (pace Melchert 2009a:152). For the syntax of this passage cf. KUB 35.135 obv. 7-8 and see under the lemma wašūḫ-.

[D.S.]

HW 2nd ed. A:81, HEG A:29f., see lemma under Luwian in Hittite Transmission.