*endom

This lexeme is attested four times in inscriptions from Karkamiš and Tell Ahmar, dating between the 10^th or early 9^th and the mid 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

[A.P.]

While the basic meaning of the adverb has been clear via its obvious cognate link with /anta/ ‘in(to)’ for some time, Oshiro 1995a:215 still judged the textual evidence too scanty to assess in how far the meaning of /antan/ differs from /anta/. However, since then, at least one attestation has become clearer in its meaning, rendering the assessment easier. KARKAMIŠ A31+, §8 runs: wa/i-tú REX-zi GRAVIS-wa/i-zi-ha DOMINUS-zi “ADORARE”-su-na a-ta-na PES₂.PES₂-ti, approx. /wa=du hantawattinzi kwanzuwinzi=ha nanninzi …-suna antan …-danti/, probably meaning ‘To her (scil. the goddess Kubaba) kings and important (lit. weighty) masters walk inside to worship’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:142).

Boroday & Yakubovich 2018a:15f. observe that the contexts of /antan/ appear to put it with the directional adverbs rather than the strictly local ones, although the latter would be expected based on its form.

The word is twice attested in two TELL AHMAR inscriptions in the participial phrase /antan tarzamma/i-/ ‘turning inside’, which appears to modify the name of the sun-god /Tiwad-/. Boroday & Yakubovich 2018a:15 hypothesise that it may mean ‘benevolently inclined’.

[AH.B.]

The semantic difference between the forms /anta/ and /antan/ is not always fully transparent, cf. Boroday & Yakubovich 2018a for a detailed discussion.

[AH.B.]

1. /anta/

It is found in a tiny ritual fragment from the Tauriša tradition as well as in closely related song incipits from the Ištanuwa festival.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The existence of an-da-an (KBo 13.263, 4’) as cited in CLL:18 must be regarded as unassured, since there is no clear space between the preceding aš-ru-la (see under CLuw. ašrul(i)-) and an-da-an. However, a reading as aš-ru-la-an-da-an is equally difficult, because one would expect a noun or adjective in the acc. sg. c. to show i-mutation, i.e., to appear as *ašrulantin.

[E.R.]

If Starke’s (Starke 1985b:256) reading is correct, the word can be hardly anything else but the adverb andan ‘inside’ (cf. HLuw. /antan/), as suggested in CLL:18 and followed in HHw:17, EDHIL:185, Torri & Barsacchi 2018a:298, as well as here. The two other items that contain enclitic =antan (KUB 35.139 iv 6, 8) are al-la-ti-ma=an-⸢ta⸣-[an] ‘in an area in a distance(?), in a distant area(?)’, and tu-u-wa-al-la-na-ti-ma=an-ta-a[n] ‘in an area in a distance (?), in a distant area (?)’. In both cases, a noun with the locational suffix -ima- ‘area of X’ precedes the enclitic postposition (cf. also likely altannima appa “behind/at the area of the well, behind/at the sacred spring basin” with a parallel construction). The analysis as suggested also permits a segmentation of the exceedingly long form tūwallanatimantan, which would otherwise feature six suffixes. In view of the cognate in Hieroglyphic Luwian, viz. á-ta-na adverb ‘inside’, there can be no doubt that the meaning of =antan is identical.

[E.R.]

Synchronically, the word is analyzable as anda plus locatival -an (cf. āppa vs. āppan), although andan has a different origin; see under Reconstruction.

[E.R.]

1. anda

Hapax in a bilingual Greek-Sidetic inscription from Side, c. 2nd c. BC (Nollé 1993a:277).

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:136, checked against the photographs in Paribeni & Romanelli 1914a:cols. 129f. Fig. 25 and Nollé 1988a:Taf. I. The segmentation of this word from the sequence deaθono is generally accepted, since aθono is usually identified with Athena (see under Meaning). Early research segmented dea (Bossert 1950b:10; Pisani 1952a:89; Brandenstein 1958a:84; Shevoroshkin 1968a:169 n. 17, Ševoroškin 1975a:161) based on the assumption that the expected Sidetic form of the theonym should be aphaeretic (recently also Rizza 2019a:540, although he claims in the same paper that the segmentation dea θono is less convincing, Rizza 2019a:544 n. 40; Eichner 1988b:50 and Adiego 2014b:245 left the question open). However, as pointed out already by Melchert 2013c:47 and discussed in detail s.v. *zem, there is no certain case for aphaeresis in Sidetic: the aphaeretic cases are all Pamphylian Greek names and the direct loan anaθemata (see s.v.) from Greek clearly contradicts any expected aphaeresis in the name of Athena (see already Neumann 1968a:80).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that the sequence de aθono contains the name of Athena (Bossert 1950b:10; Brandenstein 1958a:84; Neumann 1968a:79f.; Eichner 1988b:49f.; Nollé 2001a:631; Pérez Orozco 2007a:137, Pérez Orozco 2020a:164, 167; Adiego 2014b:245), which provides a contextually and formally fitting solution, considering that we are dealing with a votive inscription and that aθono must contain a Greek word or name due to its ‹θ› (however, Rizza 2019a:540f., 544 with n. 41 rejects this identification because of the first ‹o› instead of the expected ‹a› [a problem noted already by Brandenstein 1958a:84 and Nollé 2001a:632] and suggests a personal name Ἄθων or [less probably] a meaning ‘thank-offering’ [based on the comparison with Lyc. θθe͂ ‘altar or construction’, which is neither formally [<*tVse-] nor semantically fitting [see s.v.] and it is not a Greek word, either]. However, a personal name instead of a theonym is hardly fitting a votive inscription, especially not a personal name which is a hapax from Imperial period Cyrene, i.e. Libya (!). Regarding ‹o›, Adiego 2014b:245 already called attention to the similar case of Carian otonos ‘Athenian’, even though the explanation of the Sidetic vocalism requires further research, cf. also Pérez Orozco 2007a:131, Pérez Orozco 2020a:153).

As for de, there are several approaches, partly combining it with aθono, partly separating.

Shevoroshkin 1968a:169 n. 17, Ševoroškin 1975a:161 suggested that “dea” as a genuine Sidetic word means ‘goddess’ (similarly Brixhe 1977a:170, without mentioning Ševoroškin). Although etymologically and contextually speaking this is possible, it is not without problems: First, if it is indeed only “de” (as argued above), one must assume a dat. sg. zero ending (or extensive contractions or syncopes to identify -e as a dative ending), which, however, cannot be excluded. Second, the generic Sidetic word for ‘god’ is probably masar (see s.v.), although strictly theoretically this does not exclude another word for ‘goddess’, for instance in a set phrase (slightly similarly, Pisani 1952a:89f. wanted to see the Greek term Δία in it, but this is based on an obsolete reading). Nollé 2001a:632 with n. 17 modified Ševoroškin’s idea and proposed that the phrase deaθono is the Sidetic spelling of the Greek phrase θεῷ Άθηνᾷ (“eine bessere lautliche Übereinstimmung (…) kenne ich nicht”), as Athena is usually called in Greek inscriptions from Side, “verschmolzen” in one word (already Brandenstein 1958a:84f. entertained this idea, but opted for an unknown adjective). This can, however, be excluded: Although the ending -o can be explained with Sidetisation and the missing -ῷ with lexicalization (nevertheless, this would be ad hoc), a Sidetisation should have led to †te°, if at all: as Sidetic anaθemata shows, ‹θ› was kept in foreign words.

Neumann 1968a:80 proposed (but only as a guess) a demonstrative pronoun meaning “haec” (cf. also Neumann 1978b:881: “dies”) referring to the medium of the inscription and was practically followed by Eichner 1988b:49f. (“dies(?)”). This is a contextually fitting solution, but there are two problems with it, which are, however, not insurmountable (setting aside that it requires that the pronoun is clitic due to the spelling, but this is not a problem, contra Nollé 2001a:631): First, as Rizza 2019a:540 pointed out, a demonstrative pronoun de “has no clear parallels” among the Anatolian languages. However, this evidently does not exclude such an interpretation. Second, this interpretation requires an accusative, preferably an accusative singular. Although this ending has not been identified yet in Sidetic, it is theoretically not impossible (on the phonological side see below, Pérez Orozco 2007a:134, 139 speculates that the ending -e attested in jewase, abase, and masarase could be an acc. sg., but it does not illuminate the passage in question, see s.vv.).

Pérez Orozco 2007a:136f. (but see below) suggested an adverb “aquí dentro” comparing Lycian ñte ‘in(side) (adverb)’, see s.v. (followed by Lebrun 2012b:356). This is formally possible (on the phonological side see below), an adverb is contextually fitting, and it even has the advantage of having Anatolian cognates. Nevertheless, the meaning ‘inside’ does not real fit to a votive inscription, even though it is not impossible.

Finally, Adiego 2014b:245 (followed by Rizza 2019a:544 [with question mark] and Pérez Orozco 2020a:155, 159, 164, 167) suggested a preposition ‘for’, citing the parallel structure δen tumn presumably meaning ‘for Atum’ in the Carian votive inscription E.Sa 1 (see s.v. δen). Contextually speaking this is again a fitting solution, well supported by the Carian parallel, and it notably fits also formally: the loss of the final nasal can be paralleled by the ending -e quoted above (usually explained as genitive plural) and by ope, if it is indeed a cognate of āppan (see s.v.), both cases providing further support also for the implied sound change *o > e. The loss of the initial nasal (de < *nde < PA *h₁n̥dom and not *h₁éndom, based on the Lycian form, cf. EDHIL:185) might be paralleled by the case of maljadaś, if it indeed reflects a form suffixed with -(V)nt- (see the discussion s.v.). Moreover, this proposal can also explain why deaθono was written in one word: as a preposition it could have been proclitic and thus, the phrase could have been treated as a phonological unit.

All in all, Adiego’s proposal represents the most fitting solution and thus, it is followed here, too.

[Zs.S.]

Hapax in a bilingual (Egyptian-Carian) reliquary from Sais from the Saito-Persian period, i.e. between 664-332 (O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:49).

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:363, checked against the photograph in O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:Pl. VI. Its segmentation is certain due to its word dividers.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 1995a:21–23, Adiego 2007a:287, 363 explained it as a preposition ‘for’ (formally comparing Hittite anda, andan, and Lycian ñte). Since the blessing of the god Atum is invoked in the Egyptian part for the owner of the inscription and δen is followed by “tumn” that looks like the acc. sg. of Atum, Adiego’s explanation is more plausible (accepted also in Yakubovich 2019c:303) than the formal possibility that δen tumn refers to the object of the deed in acc. sg. with an adjective δe-, even though this is supported by its syntactical parallelism with other inscriptions (on this possibility see Simon 2008b:461, Simon 2020d:401, 404, 410).

[Zs.S.]

The lexeme is attested in a variety of locations as a part of the dating formula. Beyond this use, its attestations are limited to Sardis. A number of inscriptions where dãν appears in the dating formulae (LW 2, 3, 41) can be precisely dated to the second half of the 4^th century BCE, for while others have less precise dating to the 4^th century or 5^th / 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

For the complex amudãν in LW 23.6 and LW 24.4, cf. under =dãν.

[I.Y.]

For a long time this lexeme has been regarded as a verbal or a nominal form (Gusmani 1964a:97), and the verbal interpretation can be found as late as Gusmani & Akkan 2004a:145 n. 12. But after the demonstration of Melchert 1997a:35-38 there remains no serious reasons to doubt that we are dealing with an adposition in most of the contexts. The starting point of Melchert’s reasoning is the analysis of the dating formulae. Two types of formulae are distinguished ‘in the Xth year (in the month of Y) King Z dãν’, and ‘X years dãν (in the month of Y)’. Furthermore, he observes that the use of dã(ν)= in clause initial position in LW 14.8 is better compatible with its status as a local adverb than with most of the alternatives that were offered before; cf. further under =dãν.

While the syntactic analysis of Melchert 1997a:35-38 clearly represents a progress, the translation ‘from, since’ accepted in the same source may be open to doubt. In particular, the interpretation of the second dating formula as ‘since X years (in the month of Y)’ is counterintuitive, since it would have been correct only once, namely precisely X years since the reference point. It seems preferable to interpret both dating formulae along the lines ‘in X years (in the month of Y) under king Z’ and ‘in X years since some memorable event (in the month of Y)’ respectively (cf. further under prwãν). The implication of this analysis is that dãν could reinforce the locative/temporal meaning with inanimate complements and have a meaning ‘in, under’ (Yakubovich 2019c:303f.).

[I.Y]

1. da-

HW 2nd ed. A:97-107