*ob^hó-

This lexeme is attested 167 times in inscriptions from all regions, dating from the 13^th to early 7^th centuries BCE.

[A.P.]

The above table contains a representative selection, omitting most broken attestations.

In a large number of cases, the present lexeme represents the first stress-bearing word in a clause and therefore plays host to the ubiquitous clitic chains. Mostly this does not have any effect on the word itself, but the forms ending in /-n/ show the usual omission of that ending at least on the graphemic level if the first clitic begins with a consonant, cf. e.g. the acc. sg. c. forms found at KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §73 and ASSUR letter a, §6, which are both followed by /=ha/ ‘and’. The same counts for the acc. sg. c. and the dat./loc. sg. of the gen. adj. /abassa/i-/, although much more rarely, as they are usually found clause-medially instead of clause-initially.

At TOPADA, §36, the broken off sign may be 〈-[ha^?]〉.

The attestation at MEHARDE, §8 may possibly read 〈*a-pa-sa-pa-wa/i〉 instead, i.e. /abassan=ba=wa/.

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

First identified as a demonstrative pronoun by Hrozný 1933a:35, this word has since been shown to represent the distal demonstrative ‘that’ in HLuw. Besides, it is also used as the orthotonic 3^rd person pronoun sg. and pl. ‘he, she, it, they’, cf. e.g. Melchert 2003b:189f., a feature common to the Anatolian languages. As a demonstrative, the word usually precedes its head noun, cf. e.g. TELL AHMAR 6, §26: a-wa/i za-a-na EXERCITUS.LA/I/U-na-si-na (DEUS)TONITRUS-na *a-pa-ti-i (ANNUS)u-si-i (SOLIUM)i-sà-nu-wa/i-ha, approx. /a=wa zan kwalanassin Tarhunzan abatti ussi isnuwahha/, translating as ‘I set up this (storm-god) Tarhunza of the army in this year’ (cf. Hawkins 2006a:16f.). The pronominal use is frequently found in the apodoses of curse formulae, in which /apa-/ serves as the emphatic resumptive, e.g. in KÖRKÜN, §9: á-pa-ti-pa (“CAELUM”)ti-pa-sá TERRA-sá-ha LIS-la/i/u, approx. /abatti=ppa tiPas=sa taskwaris=ha salissantu/, meaning ‘(He who takes it away from Nannassi or the child,) him, heaven and earth shall oppose!’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:173).

[AH.B.]

The stem of the present lexeme inflects according to the pronominal pattern, i.e. it does not usually show i-mutation.The i-mutated nom. sg. c. /abis/ is a late feature, found at TELL TAYINAT 2 dating to the 8^th century BCE. The forms for the distal demonstrative and pronoun are identical and the usage can only be distinguished based on the context. The derived genitival adjective stem /abassa/i-/ serves as the possessive of the 3^rd person and shows i-mutation as expected for the suffix /-assa/i-/, albeit with exceptions (e.g. TOPADA, §36 and §38).

For a long time, the abl./instr. was presumed to be unattested until /apin/ was identified as the relevant form by Goedegebuure 2007a:327; it is also used in adverbial function in HLuw., see /abin/ ‘on that side’. The morphologically expected abl./inst. /abadi/ has undergone lexicalisation as an adverb, see /abadi/ ‘there’.

[AH.B.]

1. /abin/

2. /abadi/

This lexeme is well attested throughout the Luwian corpus.

[D.S.]

For the strict distinction of apātti “dat. sg.” and apādi(n) ‘adv.’, see Goedegebuure 2010b:84-88. See also Kloekhorst 2012b:259, who follows Goedegebuure, but sees possible remnants of the ablative/instrumental function in apāti(n).

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Melchert (CLL:20) suggests emending acc. sg. c. a-a-pa-an into a-pa-a^!-an, where the plene spelling would actually belong.

[D.S.]

The identification of the Luwian demonstrative pronoun apā- was facilitated by its equation with the corresponding Hitt. apā- ‘this’ (Rosenkranz 1952a:74, Otten 1953a:58, Meriggi 1957a:206 with n. 36, Laroche 1959a:28, Melchert in CLL:20, Goedegebuure 2010b:84-88) and is further supported by Hieroglyphic Luwian and Lycian. Melchert 2009a:151 points out that the deixis of the Luwian demonstrative pronoun is just like in Hittite, i.e. that of the far-deixis ‘that’ (with 2nd or 3rd person deixis).

[D.S.]

The demonstrative pronoun apā- shows a thematic inflection with the addition of some specific “pronominal endings”, such as -atti in the dative singular. The apparent “i-mutation” in the accusative plural is noteworthy; cf. the attestations in HLuw. and those of CLuw. zā-/zī- ‘this’.

[D.S.]

1. apāti(n)

The Lycian demonstrative pronoun with visual proximal deixis is well attested across the Lycian corpus.

[D.S.]

The form ebẽñnẽ (acc. sg. c.) is ubiquitous in the corpus, especially in grave inscriptions, and therefore only a short selection of attestations is given in the table here. Contra Neumann 2007a:45, ebẽ is not likely to be the nom./acc. sg. n. form; ebẽ prñnawã (acc. sg. c.), hrm̃mã ebẽ (stem and gender of hrm̃mã debated; but see under lemma). Melchert (DLL:10f.) assumes ebẽ can have both common and neuter gender. Depending on the restoration (cf. Bousquet 1992a:186), the form ebẽ[ … x]θθã (a neuter n-stem) would demonstrate that there is a probably no difference between the acc. sg. c. and the nom./acc. sg. n., but further evidence is needed. Contra Melchert 1994a:321 (DLL:11, building on Garrett 1991-1993a), the syncopated forms ebñnẽ do not represent an unemphatic version of ebẽñnẽ; rather, both can be used interchangeably. For a proper translation of TL 124 with eb{b}ehi and ebeijes, see Gehrisch 2018a:160. On the rare reverse-word order xupã ebẽñni, see Neumann 1979a:38.

On the nom./acc. pl. n. ebeija, see Pedersen 1945a:35 with further literature.

The form ebehi is simply the dat./loc. sg. despite the genitival adjective suffix, which was finally confirmed by the emergence of N 320, the Letoon inscription (thus Laroche 1979c:71, Meriggi 1980b:237; contra Laroche 1960a:181, Neumann 2007a:47, and contra Melchert (DLL:11), who takes ebehi as a separate lexeme.

The form ebette was recognized early as a form of the demonstrative pronoun (see Bugge 1901a:82f., Laroche 1960a:182, Neumann 1961a:51 comparing Hitt. apadda ‘here’ and Lyd. epad), but the discovery of the Letoon trilingual brought confirmation that it really is the dat./loc. pl. form (Laroche 1979c:7 and Meriggi 1980b:238; but see already Laroche 1960a:182 “dat. pl. (?)”; partly outdated Houwink ten Cate 1961a:66 “both nom. and dat. pl. (?)”).

The form ebẽhẽ is genitive plural (thus Meriggi 1980b:237, Melchert in DLL:11; contra Neumann 2007a:46).

The form ebẽi is taken here as nominative plural despite the nom. pl. n. or collective agreement in predicative position (see Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1984a:97, Schürr 2005a:151).

Largely outdated is the synchronic paradigm of Houwink ten Cate 1961a:66f.

[D.S.]

The elucidation of the Lycian demonstrative pronoun ebe(ñne)-, which occurs at the beginning of several grave inscriptions was facilitated not only by the bilingual inscription TL 6, where it matches Greek τοῦτο, but also by the combinatory evidence from all Greek and Lycian grave inscriptions of this type (Schmidt 1876a:7f.). Its identification has never been in doubt (see Houwink ten Cate 1961a:66f., Melchert in DLL:11, Neumann 2007a:45f.), except for the interpretation of certain forms of the paradigm, for which see the literature under Forms.

[D.S.]

The paradigm of the demonstrative pronoun ebe- is highly allomorphic, using different suffixes for the various case forms. While the nominative singular ebe is unsuffixed, the accusative singular has both a bare form ebẽ as well as an extended form with a suffix -ñne- (likewise in Lyc. B, which is why it cannot be readily equated to the ethnicon suffix -ñne/i- / Lyc. B -wñne/i-; cf. Eichner 1993b:238, Hajnal 1995a:48, Neumann 2007a:46 with further literature), i.e. ebẽñnẽ, which seems to have been secondarily mutated, i.e. ebẽñni (differently Melchert 1994a:324 “sporadic raising of final -ẽ to -i”). The dat./loc. sg. ebehi features what appears to be a genitival adjective suffix -ehe/i- in the dat./loc. sg. -i. The nom./acc. n. pl. ebeija uses the adjectival suffix -i(je)- just like the acc. pl. c. ebeijes and with i-mutation ebeis (< *ebeijis). The dat./loc. pl. has the morpheme -te, whose geminate in ebette may have secondarily been taken from the syncopated form ebtte (Hajnal 1995a:116 n. 125, Kloekhorst 2012b:261f.). Otherwise, different historical scenarios have been proposed (cf. Melchert 1994a:317, Hajnal ibid.).The geminate -tt- can hardly go back to Čop’s Law, whose geminating effects are not supposed to be retained in the alphabetic languages, just like the Proto-Anatolian geminates. The gen. pl. -ehẽ with variants -ẽhẽ and -ãhã also features a different suffix, perhaps a gen. adj. in -ehe/i- but with the gen. pl. ending -ẽ (if not to Hitt. apenzan as per Melchert 1994a:315).

[D.S.]

1. ebi(je)-

2. ebei

3. ebeila

4. ebeli

5. ebi

6. ehbi(je)-

7. epttehe/i-

This lexeme is attested in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

A full vowel harmony is possible, i.e. [ab]añnu (cf. Gusmani 1968c:17, DLL:114, Neumann 2007a:443). The letter ụ is confirmed by the autography presented in Schürr 2005a:105.

[D.S.]

A single form of the demonstrative pronoun ebe(ñne)- has been restored as the beginning of the metrical grave inscription TL 55 (Gusmani 1968c:17, Eichner and Melchert apud Schürr 1997c:137 with n. 7, Schürr 2005a:136), where it agrees with mlu and shows a secondary agreement in -a- with vowel harmony (Melchert in DLL:114), i.e. ebañnu mlu, which is not rare in Lycian poetry. For more recent tentative translations of the passage, cf. Gehrisch 2018a:108 and Sasseville 2021a:199.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is attested in a many inscription, found in different locations (Sardis, Maeonia, Middle Kaystros Valley) and belonging to a variety of genres. All the attestations can be dated to within the period of 6-4^th century BCE.  

[I.Y.]

Since the possessive forms of pil(i)- ‘his, her’ were formed according to the regular pattern of possessive adjectives derived from nouns, it seems appropriate to treat them as belonging to the same paradigm as the base pronoun (cf. the different case of amu ‘I, me’ vs. ẽmi(n)- ‘my’). For the discussion of the Lydian genitive in -l, see Gérard 2005a:84-86, but see also Sasseville 2017a:138 “nom. pl. c. and nom./acc. coll.”. The restoration of pi[lλ] in LW 10.3 follows Meriggi 1935a:98. For acc. pl. piš ‘them’, cf. Lyd. unadν.

[I.Y.]

The meaning of p(i)- as ‘he, she’ was recognized already in Littmann 1916a:37. As a free-standing pronoun, p(i)- is contrasted with the clitic pronoun =a- (Gusmani 1964a:78). It is unknown whether or not the neuter forms with the meaning ‘it’ belonged to the same paradigm or were expressed by means of a different pronoun. 

[I.Y.]

Synchronically, p(i)- is declined as a semi-vocalic stem. The similarity with the declension of the relative pronoun qi- is noteworthy.

[I.Y.]

This lexeme is found attested across the Palaic corpus.

[D.S.]

For another possible example of apa-, see under apanta.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz. The attestation KUB 35.165 obv. 8 can be read either as [a]-a-pa or as []˹e-˺pa ([3166]Carruba 1970a:14, cf. 51). The first option is preferred here in order to make sense of the syntax, as the analysis yields the required direct object, i.e. a=a-pa (thus Sasseville 2019a:27). One should compare a=an-ni-i in KUB 35.165 rev. 23’.

[D.S.]

Kammenhuber 1959a:48 equates Pal. =apa- with the Hittite demonstrative pronoun apā- and establishes that the pronoun is enclitic in Palaic (followed by Carruba 1970a:51, Melchert 1984b:29, Yakubovich 2005c:121 n. 46, Sasseville 2019a:27). Indeed, no tonic forms have be found so far, but cf. apanta. The Palaic pronoun is considered to be anaphoric (see Melchert 2009a:152).

[D.S.]

1. apani

HW 2nd ed. A:130-148