ñnaha- (señnaha)

This lexeme is attested in a grave inscription.

[D.S.]

dat. pl. (?)

ñnaha

TL 106.3 (Limyra)

The words θurtta señnaha have been interpreted as dat. pl. with señnaha as the genitival adjective modifying θurtta, which is grammatically incorrect (thus Schürr 2008a:180; contra Meriggi 1936b:265, DLL:57, 75, Neumann 2007a:397 with further literature, Christiansen 2020a:250), because the dative/locative plural of stems in -e/i- can only be -e. Based on the derived adjective señnahi(je)-, we can deduce that the base has to be a substantive. Therefore, it is preferable to assume a substantive in -aha- c. (see Sasseville 2018a:313), either standing in apposition to θurtta or coordinated with it by the conjunction se ‘and’, i.e. θurtta se=ñnaha (see under Graphic Features).

The solution by Schürr 2008a:180 to assume a collective θurtta and a genitival adjective in the nom./acc. pl. n. señnaha is formally flawless, but is not supported by the derivative señnahi(je)-, which preserves traces of the suffix -aha-; otherwise **señnehi(je)- would be expected (for the same critique regarding other suffixes, see Sasseville 2014-2015a:111f.).

[D.S.]

The lexeme has so far been labelled señnahe/i- without further question, although it is entirely possible to divide it into se=ñnaha (cf. Lyc. ñne-^(ti) and ñnaza-). Both the context of θurtta señnaha and ]ã : θurttã : señnahijẽ : setuhedi [θurtt]adi : señnahijedi contain a series of nouns that may or may not be coordinated with se. In comparison with the already established root ñn-, this must result from a recent assimilation, and we divide the words here accordingly, i.e. θurtta se=ñnaha and ]ã : θurttã : se=ñnahijẽ : se=tuhedi [θurtt]adi : se=ñnahijedi (see under Derivative).

[D.S.]

Based on the suffix -asa- c. (Sasseville 2018a:313), we may deduce that ñnaha- refers to an official comparable to the θurtta-. However, the semantics remain obscure. For the root, see ñne-^(ti).

Regarding the literature now considered to be outdated, Meriggi 1936b:265 (Meriggi 1978c:254, Neumann 2007a:318f.) translates the word as ‘aged’, suggesting a connection between señnaha and Lyc. A *sñne-, which is phonologically untenable, because the gemination of the -ñn- is caused in this case by the consonant cluster and is, therefore, not expected to occur between vowels (cf. Carruba 1978b:169, who called the phonological shape of señnaha unclear). The connection by Shevoroshkin 1977a:136f. with the Anatolian word for ‘blood’ is also phonologically impossible. For an attempt to connect the word (se)ñnaha with the PIE root *g̑enh₁- ‘to be born’, which also fails to convince, see Schürr 2008a:182f.

[D.S.]

1. ñnahi(je)-

No reconstruction is offered here; for the potential lemma head, see ñne-^(ti).

[D.S.]