*us-

This lexeme is attested five times in inscriptions from Assur and Karkamiš dating from the late 9^th to the late 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

At ASSUR letter c, §4, the pronoun hosts a chain of clitics: 〈-wa/i-ma-za〉, approx. /=wa=mmanz/ ‘(to/for) you’ after the quotative particle.

Similarly, the attestation at KARKAMIŠ A6, §22 is followed by 〈-wa/i-ma-ta-a〉, approx. /=wa=mu=an=tta/, ‘(to) me it’, framed by the quotative particle /=wa/ and the local particle /=tta/. Because the particle chain begins with a consonant, it obscures the presence of the word-final /n/ of /unzassan/, the regular dat./loc. sg. of a form with the suffix /-assa/i-/.

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

The meaning of this pronoun remained unclear for some time due to the erroneous reading of several signs, cf. e.g. the entirely off interpretation by Hrozný 1933b:217, 221, 224 and the analysis as 3pl. by Bossert 1951b:128. The correct analysis was accomplished by Morpurgo Davies 1980b:89f. based on grammatical agreement with the verbs and/or enclitic pronouns found in many of the relevant clauses. Thus, ASSUR letter e, §6 reads: wa/i-ma-za u-za₅-za ha-tu-ra+a a-sa-ta-ni, approx. /wa=mmanz unzanz hattura astani/, meaning ‘As for you, you (pl.) are in health’ (see Waal 2021a:276, cf. also Hawkins 2000a:535). The analysis is further supported by the cognate link with CLuw. /unza-/ ‘you (pl.)’.

[AH.B.]

The word represents the 2pl. pronoun and inflects as an a-stem. The derived form /unzassa/i-/ can be viewed as the regularly built possessive adjective in /-assa/i-/; similarly to a number of like possessive derivations, /unzassa/i-/ is rivalled by the synonymous /unzi(ya)-/.

[AH.B.]

1. /unzi(ya)-/
2. /unzadi/

The word is attested several times in different rituals, including the kizzuwatnean Zarpiya ritual, the dupaduparša- ritual, and the songs of Ištanuwa.

[E.R.]

 For the possible readings of CHDS 5.118 iv 5’, see below under Graphic Features.

Just as the 1st person plural pronoun ānza-, the 2nd person plural presents scholars with the difficulty of a possible difference between forms with final -s and without it, which were interpreted in various ways in the literature. Melchert 2003b:189, CLL:241 and DCL:s.v. hold that the two forms are functionally distinct, whereas Starke 1990a:45 and Carruba 2002b:104 consider ūnza dative-accusative (with the accusative added only in parenthesis in the treatment by the latter scholar) and ū(n)zaš nominative; Yakubovich 2010d:65 proposes that the forms with -s are nominative or accusative, while the forms without -s mark the oblique cases.EDHIL:115 and 779 follows CLL:241 and DCL:s.v. in considering the forms with -s accusative and suspending judgement on forms without it. Until recently, it was thought that there was at least one piece of evidence that ū(n)zaš is or can be accusative, namely a passage of the Zarpiya ritual: u-ra-az-〈za-aš〉 ^DUTU-az ta-ti-in-zi DINGIR^MEŠ-in-zi ^DÉ-A-aš-ḫa pár-na-an-za-ta ku-wa-at-ti an-da ḫu-u-i-na-i-〈im〉-ma-an la-la-an-ti pa-a u-za-aš a-da-ri-ta-an (KUB 9.31 ii 30-32) is translated by Görke 2015a(following CLL:241) „Großer Sonnengott, Väter-Götter und Ea! In den Häusern, von denen sie drinnen ḫuinaman nehmen, sollt ihr euch speisen!“The old translation by Carruba 1968a:14 is less satisfactory: „O großer Sonnengott! O Väter-Götter und Ea! Sobald (wörtlich: wie) wir ins Haus hineingegangen sind, da sollte ihr für den ´Besprochenen´ (?? „dem Beschworenen“ oder „(An) der Zunge“, eine -ant-Bildung zur lali „Zunge“?) essen/speisen“. However, we cannot deem this interpretation as certain: as correctly pointed out by Kloekhorst 2024a:460, a pronoun having two different forms for accusative and dative would be odd, since Anatolian languages use only a single dative-accusative form vis-à-vis a nominative one. Additionally, the passage of the Zarpiya ritual could be interpreted differently: if the verb adāri-^(ti) is considered intransitive (so ‘to feed oneself, to eat’ rather than ‘to feed’, as its counterpart in Hieroglyphic Luwian might suggest, see under lemma), there is no need to interpret the pronoun as an accusative, since a nominative form would be quite appropriate. In the end, with Kloekhorst 2024a:460-461, we reach this tentative translation: ‘Oh, great Sungod, fatherly gods, and Ea! In the houses from where they take the ḫuinai‹m›ma‑, you must feed yourselves! / You must eat!’. Differently, all attestations of ūnza are in fragmentary or poorly intelligible contexts. Perhaps, the Ištanuwean sequence u-un-za-pí-ia-an-mi (KUB 35.142 iv^! 6-7’) may be interpreted as ūnza piyan=mi and translated as ‘(It) is given to me by you’ (thus Yakubovich 2010d:65), but this is tentative: the main problem is the attachment of the particle =mi to the second word of the clause (Yakubovich 2010d:65 considers the possibility of a fronting, Kloekhorst 2024a:463, footnote 15 of a vocative forming its own clause, ‘Hey you! Give it to me!’).In KUB 35.39 iii 8 there could be another case of dative ūnza, according to Yakubovich & Mouton 2023a:60f, but nothing prevents an interpretation of the form as an accusative: see Kloekhorst 2024a:462. Therefore, the status of the forms without -s remains unclear, although the possibility of a dative-accusative interpretation remains plausible.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The odd writing in CHDS 5.118 iv 5’ (duplicate of HT 1) still remains obscure (see DCL:s.v), but Kloekhorst 2024a:459-460 proposed the reading [u-u]n-za-aš and, since the difference between u-za-aš and [u-u]n-za-aš is puzzling and the dative apparently is always u-un-za, the possibility of emending all three cases of u-za-aš to u-<un>-za-aš (as already did Starke 1985b:53, 54 and 378) is not to be discarded for him. For the presence of the nasal see below under Phonological Interpretation.

[E.R.]

Despite early uncertaintiesDLL:104 and 140f. cites a couple of attestations without translation and does not treat personal pronouns, since they were almost entirely unknown at the time, which were also due to the fact that Hittite comparanda are missingIn Hittite, we find the stem šum- for the 2^nd person plural pronoun, whose relationship with our stem remains a matter of discussion; see the different approaches of Schmidt 1978a:215f., Melchert 1984a:26f., and Katz 1998b., and the phonological form of the Hieroglyphic Luwian pronouns were long obscured by the writing, the analysis of ūnza- as 2^nd person plural pronoun is now consensual; see already Carruba 1968a:22.

[E.R.]

CLuw. ūnza- is a pronominal stem.

[E.R.]