*nenosro/i-

This lexeme is attested twice in inscriptions from Maraş and the Amuq; only the latter is roughly dateable, probably to the 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The attestation in JISR EL HADID 4, §2 is followed by the connector particle 〈-ha〉, /=ha/ ‘and’. Its initial consonant obscures the /-n/ of the preceding acc. sg. ending at least on the graphemic level, cf. Melchert 2003b:182. Furthermore, the editio princeps (Dinçol, Dinçol, Hawkins & Peker 2014a:63f.) records the logographic determinative preceding the noun in question as 〈(FEMINA.MANUS.FEMINA)〉, which is essentially a part by part description of sign *45*;The additional asterisk marks the combination as FEMINA.MANUS.FEMINA rather than *45, which is put together of VIR₂.MANUS.VIR₂ and read FILIUS and FRATER or, more generally, INFANS, depending on the context. For *45*, a similar context-dependent reading as SOROR may be considered. the more usual reading FILIA is adopted here in line with what the cited authors themselves discuss.

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

Until the recent discovery of JISR EL HADID 4, the attestation in MARAŞ 6 was the only recorded evidence for the present lexeme. However, Bossert 1960c:434 was able to assign the meaning on this basis because of the CLuw. cognate nānašri(ya)- ‘of a sister, sisterly’ and the context, which replicates the well-known pairings of kinship terms, also in MARAŞ 6, l. 1:For a recent appraisal of pairs of kinship terms in Anatolian, see Martínez Rodríguez 2019b. […] á-p[a-sa^?]-za-a FRATER.LA-za (FEMINA)na-na-sa₅+ra/i-za-ha LIS-z[a]-sa (LOQUI)la+ra/i+a-ta, approx. /… appassanz …-anz nanasranz=ha salizzas laratta/, possibly meaning ‘… blessed greatly^? for his/her/their brothers and sisters’.

Despite the diverging orthographic evidence discussed above, the meaning of the word is very probably the same in JISR EL HADID 4, §2: á-mi-ha-wa/i FRATER.LA-i-na (FEMINA.MANUS.FEMINA)na-na-tara/i-ha PUGNUS-ri+i-ta, approx. /ammin=ha=wa …-in nanastrin=ha aritta/, translating as ‘And he raised my brothers and sisters’ (Dinçol et al. 2014a:63).

[AH.B.]

The noun is formed with the suffix /-sr(i)-/, which derives nouns denoting females from other nouns (see e.g. Melchert 2003b:196). In the case of HLuw., this process appears less transparent for the present noun than in CLuw., which besides nānašri(ya)- ‘of a sister’ also features nāni(ya)- ‘of a brother’, because the HLuw. word for ‘brother’ has so far not received a phonological interpretation, and the consistent use of the syllabic indicator in 〈FRATER.LA-〉 suggests that it does not to resemble CLuw. *nān(i)- ‘brother’ very closely. HLuw. /nanasr(i)-/ is therefore regarded as an older derivation when */nan(i)-/ ‘brother’ was still used.

[AH.B.]

This lexeme is found on two Lycian sepulchral inscriptions. TL 103 is dated textually to the reign of Perikle in the first half of the 4^th century BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:75).

[O.B.]

Contextually, Lyc. A nere/i- ought to denote some familiar relation, cf. TL 103.2-3 where the term occurs with tuhes- ‘nephew/niece’: hrppi nere : se tuhe ‘for the n.-s and nephews/nieces’. Previous suggestions include ‘sister’ (Torp 1901a:7, Imbert 1916a:332, Carruba 1969c:171, HED N:107, HEG N:271, Hajnal 1995a:233 n. 297, Neumann 2007a:241), ‘step-niece’ (Gusmani 1962b:80f.) and ‘brother’ (Torp 1901a:7, Laroche 1974b:132f.), etc. (see Neumann 2007a:240f. for other suggestions), and more tentatively as some term of relation in Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:79, DLL:44 and Eichner 2017a:301. On account of the close relation to tuhes- ‘nephew/niece’, ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ seem most likely, as these would be parents of said nephews/nieces. Imbert 1916a:332 and Laroche 1974b:132f. see a dissimilatory variant of nẽne/i- ‘brother’ (‘sister’ in Imbert’s analysis). Conversely, Carruba 1969c:272 compares the stem to CLuw. *nānašr(i)- ‘sister’ (cf. CLuw. nānašri(ya)- ‘of the sister, sisterly’). This comparison is not free from issues, however: the reduplication is missing in Lycian (cf. Hajnal 1995a:233 n. 297, per Carruba with syncopated initial syllable, but this is difficult on account of the plene spelling in CLuw.) and it is not clear that the sequence *-VsrV would yield -r- in Lycian, cf. CLuw. īš(ša)ra/i- vs. Lyc. A izre/i- ‘hand’ (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:79, DLL:44). Hajnal 1995a:223 n. 297 rather analyses the suffix as simply as -re/i-, according to him also found in in tidere/i- ‘collacteus’ (but cf. under lemma).

Given the Lycian B usage of the noun (see corresponding Lycian B lemma) and the lack of other possible words for daughter in Lycian, the translation ‘sister’ is favored here, but the lack of absolute consensus should be noted.

[O.B.]

Lyc. A nere/i- is an i-mutating common gender stem, as assured by the acc. sg. neri vs. the dat./loc. pl. nere.

See Meaning for previous proposals regarding stem formation.

[O.B.]

This lexeme occurs only once in Lycian B, found on the inscription TL 55 engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated stylistically to shortly after 400 BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[O.B.]

Pace Neumann 2007a:240, **nari on TL 44c.47 does not belong here, see Lyc. B ari.

[O.B.]

According to Schürr 2005a:146;160 (also Schürr 1997c:137), nere refers to the nymphs mentioned elsewhere in TL 55. If this identification is correct, it follows that nere/i- should denote a female. On account of the discussion presented in Meaning under the corresponding Lycian A lemma, a translation ‘sister’ is appropriate, which is likewise Schürr’s translation. Moreover, Schürr compares nere/i- to the female personal name Ναρις, supporting the identification of nere/i- as a female (thus also in Neumann 2007a:241, but cf. the criticism in Eichner 2017a:301).

The translation by Shevoroshkin as ‘(water) god’ (Shevoroshkin 2002a:219, Shevoroshkin 2002c:407) does not concord well with the Lycian A evidence and is best abandoned.

[O.B.]

See Stem under the corresponding Lycian A lemma.

[O.B.]

1. neri(je)-