*mennou̯-o(/i- or -eh₂-)

The lexeme is attested once in a NS Luwian incantation.

[E.R.]

Reading checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz.

[E.R.]

The parallelism of mannawanza=pa mannu piyandu with the preceding sentences (azzuwanza=wa ḫuittan piyandu ‘let them give speed to the swift ones’ and ḫattayanza=wa ḫatta piyandu ‘let them give violence to those related to violence’) shows that mannawa/i- is not exactly identical in meaning to mannu-, but expresses someone related to mannu-. Also the formation of the stem mannawa(/i)- speaks for an analysis as a relational derivative of mannu- (see Reconstruction for formal aspects). If so, a meaning ‘(those) related to mannu-’ imposes itself, and if the semantic interpretation of mannu- as a substantivized adjective meaning ‘fertile, potent, manly’ is correct, mannawa/i- (also in substantivized use) refers to ‘persons, who are related to or possess fertility, potency, manliness’.

[E.R.]

For statistical reasons, the hapax dat./loc. pl. mannawanza belongs most likely to the class of mutated -a/i- stems, rather than -a- stems; cf. under Reconstruction.

[E.R.]

1. ^d10-manawa- (PN) (following Ilya Yakubovich, pers. comm.), ^d10-manawa (NH no. 1259) could contain mannawa(/i)- in spite of the spelling with a single nasal; differently CHD: L-N 162).

1. mannauwallaimma/i-

Amply attested on tomb and false-door stelae and on an object of unknown function from Egypt (Memphis, between c. 600 and the first third of the 5^th c., Kammerzell 1993a:212–217) as well as in funerary inscriptions from Caria (Kaunos and Euromos) of unknown date (cf. Deroy 1955a:309 and Marek 2006a:124f.). For problematic tokens see under Forms.

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following Adiego 2007a:383 (except C.Ka 5 [see below] and C.Kr 1 for which see under Meaning and s.v. sbmno) checked against the published photographs of the originals (Robert 1950a:Pl. VI.3, IX.1; O. Masson 1978a:Pl. I.2, IV.1, VII.1, XII.2, XVIII.2, XX.2, XXIII.1) or of the cast (C.Eu 1, Robert 1950a:Pl. VI.4). Restorations follow Adiego 2007a:383 (his question mark in C.Eu 1 has been omitted, since this is the only syntactically logical restoration in śas : ktais idyrik̑ś : mn[os]). Adiego very cautiously includes “mnos” from C.Ka 5, but as he correctly remarks, due to the unclear context this is “far from certain”. In fact, this sequence has been segmented from the fully obscure line 17 purmoruosmnos only due to its assonance with mnos (cf. already Hajnal 1997b:142;Frei & Marek 1998a:17 n.31, and Marek 2006a:120), but it does not substantiate this identification.

[Zs.S.]

Since the word appears in genealogies, its meaning is assumed to be ‘son’ since Meriggi 1967a:223, Meriggi 1980c:35 ([4370] Ray 1982b:184f. [who also entertains a meaning ‘descendant’]; Gusmani 1986b:63; van den Hout 1999a:34; Adiego 2007a:383). This view was challenged by Schürr 2013c:25–29, who demonstrated on contextual grounds that sbmno in C.Kr 1 is not sb ‘and’ + mno ‘son’, but a title or profession, what he analysed as a compound meaning approximately ‘Pferdeknecht’ (cf. also s.v. sbmno). This led him to assume a meaning ‘Knecht’ for mno. Although his analysis of sbmno is convincing, it is open to debate if the meanings ‘son’ and ‘servant’ exclude each other: it is clear in view of terms as ‘boot boy’ or ‘lobby boy’ that the word ‘son’ (which is not differentiated from ‘boy’ in many languages) could have been used secondarily in terms of professions.

[Zs.S.]