*émmu=ge
‘me’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- pron
- ID
- 3398
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/ammu/, á-mu
‘I’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested approx. 160 times across the entire corpus, dating from second half of the 13th to the early 7th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
The above table offers a representative selection, omitting broken attestations.
At KARKAMIŠ A15b, §24, it is uncertain in which order the two signs occur. The drawing only differentiates the inside of the sign as regards the presence of an eye, but shows no internal stroke with either; the photo is of too poor quality to judge.
The writing found at ÇALAPVERDİ 2, §1 may have to be read 〈á-(CAPUT)-mu〉 instead, see Payne 2016a:285.
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word is reasonably secure. Its spelling in HLuw. is well-attested and shows little in the way of variation beyond the fact that the syllabic signs can be partly or wholly replaced by the logogram EGO (sign *1).Fully syllabic spellings usually occur later in the text, while the logographic spelling is typical for the beginning of inscriptions, cf. e.g. Payne 2016a:284 n. 15. The quality of the medial nasal is likely geminate, cf. its cognate Hittite ūk, ammuk ‘I’ (see e.g. EDHIL:912).
As one of the words almost consistently spelt with 〈á〉 (sign *19) rather than 〈a〉 (*450),Except for when spelt with initial-a-final, cf. Hawkins 2003b:159-161. the present word has been subject to much debate concerning the precise quality of its initial vowel, not least because 〈á〉 appears to be limited to word-initial position by and large. Kloekhorst 2004a (again Kloekhorst 2006a) argues that 〈á〉 represents a different sound than 〈a〉, viz. a vowel preceded by a glottal stop, i.e. /ʔa/. Differently, Rasmussen 2007a:165 assumes that 〈á〉 is used to reflect /e/, which is unlikelySee Simon 2013a:9f. for a comprehensive critique. since it is generally agreed that Luwian has a three-vowel system /i, a, u/ and distinguishes for length (cf. e.g. Melchert 2003b:185). Yet another hypothesis is put forward by Poetto 2010a: 272, who suggests (following up on an earlier note in Poetto & Salvatori 1981a:19) that 〈á〉 might stand for /ya/, although he can draw on only tenuous onomastic evidence. Examining word-initial plene spellings across Luwian, Simon 2010b:263f. sees 〈á〉 in the role of representing long /ā/ as well as /ʔa/. Melchert 2010a:153 notes that 〈á〉 and 〈a〉 are no longer complementarily distributed from the middle of the 9th century BCE onwards, arguing against 〈á〉 representing a glottal stop. This view is met with hesitation by Weeden 2011a:67f. in his review of Kloekhorst’s EDHIL. Reviewing the data yet again, Simon 2013a reaches the conclusion that it does represent /ʔa/ after all. No position is taken here.
Regarding positioning in the sentence, the orthotonic allomorph /ammu/ occurs in complementary distribution with the enclitic allomorph /=mu, =mi/ ‘me, myself’. The latter is limited to particle chains usually at the beginning of clauses, whereas orthotonic /ammu/ can occur elsewhere in the clause or host clitic chains, some of which contain the enclitic allomorph besides (e.g. at KULULU 2, §1). Such behaviour is common among pronouns in Anatolian.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this word has been largely clear for a long time, as already Sayce 1876a:23f. deduced that it most likely stood for the 1sg. personal pronoun; see Laroche 1960c:1f. for a summary of the subsequent scholarly debate.For a recent discussion of the logogram and its iconographic usage, see Payne 2016a. The pronoun, represented by the iconic logogram EGO, constitutes the first word of most HLuw. inscriptions. EGO consists of a human head and arm and depicts a person pointing at their own face.A similar sign (*2) shows an entire person from head to foot executing the same action and is interpreted as EGO2, although the differentiation is likely a modern one, see Payne 2016a:282.
In many instances, the orthotonic pronoun /ammu/ is followed by the enclitic dative reflexive /=mi/, either directly or with another clitic intervening. The intended effect is likely one of added focus in the sense of ‘I myself’ at first, later probably weakened to topicalisation. A typical example is BEIRUT, §1: EGO-mi-i i-ia-sá (DEUS)sà-ta-sa AMPLECTI-mi-sa SERVUS-la/i, approx. /ammu=mi Iyas Santas azzammis hudarlis/, meaning ‘(lit.) Me, I (am) Iya, the beloved servant of (the god) Santa’ (cf. Payne 2016a:559).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The HLuw. form of the orthotonic 1sg. personal pronoun is indeclinable, cf. Yakubovich 2015b:6.4, or at least no oblique forms are attested. Whenever an oblique form of the 1sg. pronoun is required, HLuw. resorts to the enclitic allomorph /=mu/.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Lycian A
ẽmu
‘I, me’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested on various inscriptions throughout Lycia. TL 44 is the pillar of Xanthos, dated stylistically to around 400 BCE and contextually to shortly after the ascension of the Persian emperor Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.). TL 128 is a funerary inscription of Limyra mentioning the dynast Trbbẽnimi, whose reign ended around 390-380 BCE (Wagner 2011a:150f.). TL 29 is a sarcophagus dated to ca. 330 BCE (Bryce 1986a:49).
[O.B.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. | amu | TL 128.2 (Limyra) |
| emu | TL 44c.3 (Xanthos) | |
| ẽmu | TL 29.8 (Tlos) | |
| dat. | emu | TL 44b.38 (Xanthos) |
| TL 44b.39 (Xanthos) |
The initial a- in amu is the result of back umlaut, caused by the -u in the following syllable (Melchert 1992b:44f., Hajnal 1995a:80, Kloekhorst 2006a:104 n. 69).
[O.B.]
1.2.3Meaning
Lycian ẽmu is securely established as the 1st person personal pronoun of the language since Torp 1901c and Bugge 1901a:79 (cf. also Meriggi 1936b:268f., Shevoroshkin 1969a:257, HEG A-K:25, Hajnal 1995a:104 n. 82, DLL:20, Neumann 2007a:57, EDHIL:912, Schürr 2012a:115). The nominative forms clearly agree with finite verbs in the 1sg. The attestation on TL 44b:39 can hardly function as anything but the recipient in the dative. Comparative evidence for ẽmu as an object pronoun is also available in Hitt. ammuk ‘me’ (cf. Meriggi 1936b:269, HEG A-K:25, EDHIL:912).
[O.B.]
1.2.4Derivatives
1.3 Lycian B
ẽmu
‘I, me’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested on both Lycian B inscriptions, i.e., TL 44, the pillar of Xanthos, dated stylistically to around 400 BCE and contextually to shortly after the ascension of the Persian emperor Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.), and TL 55, the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated stylistically to shortly after 400 BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).
[O.B.]
1.3.2Forms
| nom. | ẽmu | TL 55.2 (Antiphellos) |
| dat. | ẽmu | TL 44d.55 (Xanthos) |
Note that Melchert (DLL: 116) extracts an elided form mu from the sequence : muni : on TL 44d.27. For this form, see Lyc. B muni and also Lyc. B =mu.
[O.B.]
1.3.3Meaning
Lyc. B ẽmu is identical to the Lyc. A form; see Meaning under the corresponding Lycian A lemma (cf. also DLL:116, Schürr 2005a:138f.). For a translation of the passages TL 55.2 and TL 44d.55, see Sasseville 2021a:50 and 308 respectively.
[O.B.]
1.3.4Derivatives
1.4 Lydian
amu
‘I, me’1.4.1Transmission
This pronoun is attested in several inscriptions of various genres found at the cemetery and in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis, all of which can be broadly dated to 5th - 4th century BCE.
[I.Y.]
1.4.2Forms
1.4.3Graphic Features
1.4.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The pronoun amu was not a clitic in the ordinary sense, because it is normally written as a separate phonetic word. Presumably, its stress fell on the final vowel, otherwise one would have encountered nasalization in the initial syllable. This stress, however, must have been weak because the pronoun was capable of forming a phonetic unit with the following postposition =dãν (see LW 24.4).
[I.Y.]
1.4.4Meaning
The correct meaning was proposed in Sayce 1925a:33 and Sturtevant 1925a:73, based on etymological considerations, and confirmed in Meriggi 1935a:71f. through combinatory analysis. As is the case in Luwian and Lycian, the Lydian pronoun amu is not declined for case and can mean both ‘I’ and ‘me’, so the distinction between nominative and oblique forms is introduced only for functional reasons. Pace Gusmani 1964a:58, there is every reason to assume that that the postposition =dãν was attached to the oblique forms.
[I.Y.]
1.4.5Derivatives
1.4.5.1Uncertain Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘me’
Hittite ammuk, HLuw. /ammu/, Lyc. ẽmu and Lyd. amu all go back to an orthotonic Proto-Anatolian pronoun with a gemination of the middle nasal and an attached emphatic particle *=ge, which underwent apocopeThe final voiced consonant =g was lost by regular sound law in Luwic., i.e. *emmu=g(e) (cf. HEG A-K:23, LIPP II:508). For the Proto-Anatolian dating of the geminated nasal, see Melchert 1994e:298, but note that Luwian and Lycian remain silent in this respect. For the initial vowel *e-, contaminated by *ég̑h2, see also Melchert 1994e:299, Dunkel (LIPP II:508); contra Kloekhorst (EDHIL:113), who reconstructs an initial *h1, which would have vocalized (further defended by Simon 2012a; against the reconstruction of an initial laryngeal for PIE, see LIPP II:508). The reconstruction with a vowel *e- (instead of *a-) is supported by the Lycian form ẽmu, if it is the one that was not affected by the vowel harmony or analogy (see below and cf. Kloekhorst 2006a:104 n. 69 for a different, albeit unprovable, phonological scenario). Concerning Lydian, the form amu is probably accented on the second syllable synchronically, since it would otherwise be expected to look like *ẽmu or even *ãmu, if the pre-form was not geminated (cf. ẽmi(n)- ‘my’, pace Simon 2012a:488), but for some counterexamples to this rule of nasalization, see Lyd. tam-. However, one should be careful with the vocalism of pronouns, since these be can easily be subject to sporadic sound changes.
Considering the geminate -mm-, Melchert 1994e:300 tries to attribute it to a limited version of Čop’s Law that would have occurred in Proto-Anatolian (followed by LIPP II:508), although, since this is a personal pronoun of the 1st singular, the gemination of -mm- is much more likely to be due to emphasis. One can also compare the tendency of synchronically geminating the -m- of the 1st person singular ending -mi (i.e. -mmi) in Hittite verbs. Again, no general sound law is required here.
[D.S.]