*=mu, *=mEi̯

This lexeme is attested 358 times across all regions (except Boğazköy), dating from the 13^th to the early 7^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The above table offers a representative selection, omitting broken attestations.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The general meaning of the forms as enclitics of the 1sg. have long been clear, cf. already Hrozný 1933a:51, and /=mu/ was clearly identified as covering both the acc. and the dat. (see e.g. HHG:24f.). The form /=mi/ was recognised as the reflexive by Hawkins 1969a:105f. The reflexive is frequently found paired with the orthotone 1sg. pronoun /ammu/ to /ammu=mi/Often also with an intervening quotative particle /=wa/. ‘I myself’ particularly at the beginning of inscriptions (see e.g. Laroche 1960c:1f. who analyses it pleonastic, and Melchert 2003b:203 who notes it to be a feature of nominal clauses comparable to Hittite).

The function of /=mu/ as a dative recipient can be observed e.g. in KARKAMIŠ A14a, §3: *a-wa/i-mu á-ma-za tá-ti-ia-za (LIGNUM)sà-la-ha-za pi-ia-ta-a, approx. /a=wa=mu amman=za tadiyan=za salhan=za piyanta/, meaning ‘They (scil. the gods?) gave to me my father’s greatness’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:86). The reflexive use of /=mi/ becomes apparent in MARAŞ 4, §15: wa/i-mi-i á-mi-na (“COR”)á-tara/i-i-na á-pa-ara/i BONUS-li-ia-nu-wa/i-ha, approx. /wa=mi ammin atrin appari walliyanuwahha/, translating as ‘Afterwards, I exalted my soul for myself’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:257).

[AH.B.]

The distribution of the forms with /=mu/ for acc./dat. objects and /=mi/ for the reflexive is analogous to the 2sg. and 3sg. forms /=du/ and /=di/, cf. the remarks by Melchert 2003b:204 n. 31. Within the paradigm of the 1sg., the form /=mi/ likely served the dat. and reflexive for some time, at a later stage finding itself increasingly limited to the latter function (see Yakubovich 2010d:168-171).

[AH.B.]

This pronoun is mainly attested in songs contained in Luwian festival texts, but also once in a Luwian letter.

[D.S.]

Formally, the word up-pa-am-mi can also be interpreted as a participial form in the dat. sg. However, on account of the enclitic =mi attested in the same passage, it is more likely that we are dealing with another instance of =mi here, i.e. uppa=am=mi ← *uppa=an=mi (?). The restoration of an enclitic pronoun =an in the phrase would explain the geminate -mm-, although the gemination does not necessarily result from the presence of another clitic, since the -m- of the 1^st person geminates sporadically in (New) Hittite (see CHD L-N:311 and EDHIL:584), and the same may also be the case here. It also applies to =m-mu; cf. zā-/zī- ‘this’ and Mouton 2008a:260.

[D.S.]

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

[D.S.]

Laroche 1959a:71 suggested tentatively that CLuw. =mu could be the personal pronoun of the 1sg person singular, but did not venture any further (neither did Meriggi 1980a:316), not recognizing the enclitic =mi as a form of the same personal pronoun (see Laroche 1959a:71). Melchert (CLL:147) translates both =mu and =mi with ‘for/to me’, but admits that the distinction between the two remains unclear. Their interpretation as pronouns is supported both from a perspective with the other Anatolian languages as well as by some of the contexts featuring verbal forms in the 1^st singular, and has been accepted in subsequent works (Mouton 2008a:260, Yakubovich 2010d:172f., Sasseville 2021a:410, 414). Yakubovich 2010d:171 goes further and explains that the pronoun =mu was the original form of the accusative case, which has spread to the dative at the expense of =mi.

[D.S.]

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

[D.S.]

Melchert (DLL:12) recognizes rightly that albmubẽ contains a clitic chain with the personal pronoun =mu ‘to me’, i.e. alb(a)=mu=b(e)=ẽ. However, it is not clear from the context, what aforementioned person =mu ‘to me’ might refer to. Contra Gehrisch 2018a:92, the conjunction me cannot be read into the string (allegedly alb(a)=m(e)=ubẽ), since it is a sentence introductory particle that always occupies the first slot and a dislocation of alb(a) is not likely here. No interpretation of this segment is given in Schürr 2018b:64f. For some outdated hypotheses about the whole segment, see Neumann 2007a:13.

[D.S.]

The lexeme =(u)m is found in different kinds of inscriptions, though only in 1^st person singular contexts; see below. The clitic =im is mainly found on seals and coins, mostly of uncertain provenance.

[D.S.] [I.Y.]

Although some instances are clearly in the dative singular, others might be in the accusative singular instead. This is sometimes hindered by the obscurity of the context. The different between um and m is purely phonotactic: The variant um always occurs at the end of the particle chain (ak=um, =k=um, fak=um, lẽms=um, dumν=um), whereas =m must occur whenever another particle follows (fak=m=it, kud=m=ãk, =m=it, =m=at, =m=iš, =m=aν), but may also appear in the final position of the clitic chain (nã=m, qed=m, ak=m, fa=m). Further, it is noteworthy that the final consonant of the preceding word is often dropped with =m; but not with =um; cf. nã(ν)=m, fa(k)=m vs. dumν=um, fak=um).

The clitic =im is attached to nominal forms in the genitive; in all those instances where these nouns can be interpreted, these are proper nouns.

[D.S.] [I.Y.]

In the previous literature, it was thought that there was an enclitic particle =m with variants =um and =im that could coordinate clauses with one another (Gusmani 1964a:132, 162f., 219 with further literature, Carruba 1985b:95). Progress in the decipherment of the Lydian language has changed this view radically. First, the personal pronoun of the 3^rd person singular dative =mλ was recognized (see under lemma). Then, the reflexive pronoun im (= HLuw. /=mi/) was recognized and accepted (see under lemma). Concerning the rest of the attestations of =(u)m, their occurrence solely in contexts where someone speaks in the 1^st person singular (notably LW 10 and LW 14) makes it impossible to assume a simple coordinating particle (Melchert 1991a:138 n. 14, followed by Yakubovich 2010d:179). Instead, it must be the direct reflex of the Anatolian enclitic pronoun =mu.

fak=m=it ẽnud išt katowalλ šadmẽλ fak=ms=ad amu kow ciward (LW 10.9-10)

‘According to Katowas’ seal, it is valid in writing for me. Let me proclaim it to you, the oracle response, …’

ciwν fadofidν tawsẽν ak=um nãqid kol (LW 10.11-12)

‘I consulted (vel sim.) the powerful god. Whatever he said to me, …’

kot=is famrašidν [.] qiraλ ẽnwνatoλ=k lẽms=um taadạ[=k … ] (LW 14.9-10)

‘As I famraši-ed for the property and the ẽnwνatoλ, to me the lẽms and the father....’

For the enclitic pronoun in the passage LW 10.16-17, see Yakubovich 2017b:275. For the one in LW 23.7 see Euler & Sasseville 2019a:131f.

According to Gusmani 1964a:163, LW 56 manelim represents an inflected form of the genitival adjective maneli ‘of Manes’, although its ending is unclear. This conclusion is revised in Gusmani 1971a, where the clitic =im ‘I am’ is proposed for the first time (e.g. manel=im ‘(I) am of Manes’). This conclusion is repeated in Gusmani 1980a:58, where =im is tentatively reconstructed and *esmi, and still entertained in Gérard 2005a:105, although the lack of other Lydian 1sg. verbal forms ending in -m is mentioned there as a complicating factor.

More attractive, however, is the hypothesis offered in Eichner 1973a:32, 68 and Melchert 1991a:138 n. 14, according to which the copula =im has the pronominal origin. More specifically, one can compare its use with that of the Luwian reflexive clitic /=mi/, which likewise functions as a copula in nominal sentences with first singular subjects (Yakubovich 2010d:167, 179). For example, the KARATEPE hieroglyphic inscriptions begins with the statement EGO-mi ^I(LITUUS)á-za-ti-i-wa/i-tà-sá ‘I am Azatiwada’.

[D.S.] [I.Y.]

It is assumed that the clitic =im is etymologically cognate with the Lydian clitic =(u)m, just as the clitics =mu and =mi are cognate in Luwian. The form =im as opposed to =m is not necessarily due to historical metathesis but may reflect historical reanalysis. Under this hypothesis, the phonological */manelis=m/ ‘I am of Manes’ was simplified as *maneli=m, with a regular sound change (cf. Gérard 2005a:105), and then the genitival adjective was reanalyzed as a genitive extended by the clitic =im (manel=im). Note, however, that the proposed reanalysis is optional, since the synchronic interpretation maneli=m remains a viable alternative. Consequently, one cannot rule out that some of the forms grouped under =(u)m above, whose precise meaning cannot be determined, in fact go back to *=mi rather than *=mu. In other words, the distinction between =im and =(u)m introduced here is primarily based not on the formal difference between the two clitics but on their divergent meanings.

[I.Y.]

This pronoun is found in various texts with Palaic incantations, some of which have only recently been attributed to the Palaic language.

[D.S.]

The nom. sg. =mi used with a verb in the 1^st person singular (like in HLuw.) is also called dative-reflexive, see Yakubovich 2010d:173f.

[D.S.]

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

[D.S.]

The enclitic =mu was easily recognized as a pronoun matching Hitt. =mu ‘me’ (Kammenhuber 1959a:29, Carruba 1970a:64, Meriggi 1980a:316, Melchert 1994a:213, 225, Yakubovich 2010d:173). The pronoun =mi in Palaic, however, has been found attested only recently with the newly identified fragments. Both the use of the dative with =mi (as in CLuw.) and the “nominative” or “reflexive” use are attested on those fragments.

[D.S.]

CHD L-N:310-314