x(-)anzanu-

This fragmentary (probably acephalic) form is attested in a LNS letter from the Hittite king to his son Prince Ḫešni (cf. Hagenbuchner 1989a:11, Hoffner 2009a:332–334 and Tani 2001a:154).

[A.B.]

1sg. pret. ind. act.

(-)an-za-nu-uḫ-ḫa

KBo 18.48 rev. 4’

(CTH 186, LNS)

The attestation follows HW (2nd ed.) A:124, CLL:19 (not listed in Laroche 1959a, HED, HEG or EDHIL), cf. van den Hout 2007a:245; Ünal 2007a:69, Ünal 2016a:37, Hagenbuchner 1989a:11 and Hoffner 2009a:333.

The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. For a different analysis of the form, see under Origin.

[A.B.]

Based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, the alleged double gloss marker  at the beginning of the word is hardly legible. The hand copy indicates two diagonals but the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv shows that these are not similar to the other gloss markers on this tablet (e.g. above in line 2’). The lower diagonal seems to be a horizontal, and there are traces of one or more vertical(s) at the end of the sign. The sign remains illegible, but taking the sign form into account, its identification as a gloss marker is rather uncertain here.

[A.B.]

The context of KBo 18.48 rev. 3’–5’ (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as the transliterations, restorations and translations of Hagenbuchner 1989a:11 and Hoffner 2009a:333 have been taken into account) shows the following:

(rev. 3’)nu me-ek-ki sig5-in ma-a-an-ma-an-za LÚkúr-ma ⸢e?⸣[-šu?-un? ...] (rev. 4’)dutu-ši-ma-an-ši-kán di-nu x(-)an-za-nu-uḫ-ḫa ma-an-za s[ig5?-in? ...] (rev. 5’)nu-u-wa-ma-na-aš ku-⸢it-ki⸣ nam-ma an-ze-el e-eš-t[a ...]

(rev. 3’)This is very good. But if [I/you] [had] be[en] an enemy […] (rev. 4’)I, the majesty, would have x(-)anzanu-ed a lawsuit to (or against?) him. If it would have been fa[vorable? …], (rev. 5’)then he would have bee[n] somehow ours again [...]

The letter tells of a situation that had to be handled and has already been solved in favor of the king. The passage with the Glossenkeilwort just outlines an alternative scenario in which different actions would have been considered. The author of the letter speaks of a lawsuit, Akkadographic di-nu which is the direct object of the action intended by the author. This action is expressed with the verb x(-)anzanu- of unknown meaning.

The form is frequently left untranslated. Those scholars who give a translation usually refer to the direct object di-nu ‘lawsuit’: HW (2nd ed.) A:124 “hätte ihm Recht beigebracht (o.ä.)”, Tischler 2008a:19 ‘lehren, zeigen’ (?), (cf. Tischler 2016a:16).

The sign before an-za-nu-uḫ-ḫa is damaged. As noted above, a gloss marker is rather unlikely here. Since the beginning of the word is uncertain, one has to take into account which verbs are attested in connection with Akkadographic di-nu / Hitt. hanneššar- ‘lawsuit’. Among the verbs that could be considered, one can find Hitt. arnu- ‘to bring (to trial)’, which is also attested in Luwian but it does not fit here graphically.

Another verb that appears with di-nu (and also with sig5, as in the present context in line 4’, but note that this sign is uncertain), is aššanu- ‘to arrange, to handle, to take care of (the legal process)’, but also (hence the co-occurrence with sig5) ‘to satisfy (persons involved in this process)’, cf. HW (2nd ed.) A:381. This verb would fit the context semantically, although it does not exactly match the form, either.

Alternatively, one may consider a scribal error here. Because of its frequent co-occurrence in contexts with di-nu, the scribe might have started to write aššanu- (at least a ŠA-sign is possible in the damaged area, cf. under Graphic features) and then realized that he was dealing with (or hearing in dictation?) an-za-nu-uḫ-ḫa, a form with Luwian inflection but of Hurrian origin (see under Origin). For the Hurrian lexeme anz=ann=uḫ, the following meaning is indicated in Richter 2012a:31 (with further literature): ‘to honor, to award, to declare’ (cf. Wegner 2007a:248).

If, however, there is a connection with Hitt. aššanu- (see under Origin), one could consider that the meaning ‘to honor’ attested for the Hurrian word also applies to aššanu- and this would denote what is given in HW (2nd ed.) ‘versorgen, zufriedenstellen’ as ‘to handle with integrity, honorable’.

However, in the present context, the meaning ‘to declare, to handle, to arrange’ (a lawsuit) is the best solution, but the expression is probably also used to imply that the approach of the king is an honorable one.

[A.B.]

Most authors agree that the form x(-)an-za-nu-uḫ-ḫa shows Luwian inflection, cf. HW (2nd ed.) A:124, CLL:19, Melchert 2005a:451, van den Hout 2007a:245, Tischler 2008a:19 and Tischler 2016a:16. Differently, Ünal 2007a:69, (cf. Ünal 2016a:37) interprets the form as a Hittite 1sg. pres. med., which is unlikely with regard to the tense of the context as well as the origin and meaning of the verb.

Since no other similar Hittite or Luwian lexeme or stem matches this form morphologically and semantically, it is most probably a loanword based on the Hurrian form anz=ann=uḫ (cf. Richter 2012a:31) transferred to Luwian inflection, and this would also fit the context semantically (see under Meaning).

The context allows for a link between x(-)anzanu- and Hittite aššanu-; either morphologically if aššanu- is a Hittite loanword based on the same lexeme (either the Luwian or the Hurrian word), or semantically if the homoiophonic similarity in connection with the similar context caused the scribe to begin to write aššanu- instead of anzanu- (cf. under Meaning) and later revised it.

To conclude, the form x(-)an-za-nu-uḫ-ḫa most likely represents a Hurrian loanword with Luwian inflection in a Hittite text (probably affected by scribal errors and / or revisions). Its status as Glossenkeilwort is very uncertain since the area of the alleged marker is almost illegible and the traces are suggestive of other signs.

[A.B.]