duyanalli-

Attested in the Hittite protocol for the Royal Body Guard (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	LÚdu-ia-na-al-li-iš	IBoT 1.36 i 39	(CTH 262, MS)
dat.-loc. sg.	LÚdu-ia-na-al-li	IBoT 1.36 i 38	(CTH 262, MS)

Attestations following EDHIL:895f. (cf. also HEG T,D:422; Ünal 2007a:746, Ünal 2016a:556) checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

Against earlier research that assigned a meaning ‘fourth’ (proposed by Sommer 1944a, accepted by numerous scholars, for an extensive list of references see HEG T,D:423) and which was refuted on contextual and formal grounds (Kronasser 1969a:615–618; HEG T,D:423), Güterbock 1957b:2f. demonstrated on the same contextual grounds, in which a soldier’s request for permission runs through a chain of commanders of growing rank, that this word means ‘man of second rank’ (followed by van Brock 1962a:111; Kronasser 1966a:145; Berman 1972a:132; Weitenberg 1984a:208; Güterbock & van den Hout 1991a:9, 86; Eichner 1992a:61; HEG T,D:422; Tischler 2008a:202, Tischler 2016a:385 [i.e. “stellvertretender Kommandant”]; McMahon 2003a:226; Ünal 2016a:556 [with question mark]; EDHIL:842, 896; Bauer 2009a:6; Miller 2013a:105), more precisely, since we are dealing with a command chain, ‘second-in-command’ (Friedrich 1961b:25; Puhvel 1978a:99; Melchert 2005a:449; Ünal 2007a:747 [but with question mark in the German (still adding “der Vierte” in parentheses and with a question mark) and Turkish versions]; Singer 2005a:448; Yakubovich 2010d:264). It is also this context that shows that we are dealing here with a substantivized adjective in a specific meaning and not with an adjectival phrase.

[Zs.S.]

This word is generally and rightly supposed to be Luwian (Eichner 1992a:61; Singer 2005a:448f.; Melchert 2005a:449; EDHIL:896; [4447] Yakubovich 2010d:264, although it does not appear in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a) based on the perfect morphological match with tarriyanalli- ‘third-in-command’ (see esp. Eichner 1992a:61 and EDHIL:896; cf. also already Kronasser 1966a:365), which is clearly a Luwian form (see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]