nu=ssi LU.KUR zahhiya menahhanda namma UL kuiski mazzasta "No enemy dared any longer (to go) against him in battle." (KBo 5.6 i 7-8) manahhanda[(=ya=sa)n k(urakki)] tapuwas ZAG-ni GUB-li nu kuwapiya QATAMMA 4 wallu[s dai] "Opposite the pillar, alongside, on the right, on the left-- everywhere in the same way [he deposits] four wallus." (KBo 4.1 rev. 3-4) nu=smas=za ziqqa assus es tuqq=at ICI-an-da assawes asandu "You be good to them, and let them be good toward you." (KBo 12.30 ii 10-11) 1 (LU) DAM.GAR-ma=kan LUGAL-i menahhanda arta "One merchant stands before/facing the king." (KUB 57.95 iv 5-6) mahhan=ma=mu=kan LU.MES (URU) Duqqamma menahhanda awer "When the men of D. saw me coming" (KBo 4.4 iv 18-19) kuedani=wa=za menahhanda ishamiskesi "To whom are you singing?" (KUB 36.12 ii 9) nu=mu MUNUS-TUM kuit menahhanda uet n=as=mu GIR.MES-as kattan haliyattat "Because the woman came to meet me, and prostrated herself at my feet" (KUB 14.15 iv 28-29)
The word menahhanda has traditionally been compared with menali- n. (pl. tant.), mena-c. 'face, cheek", and this comparison is hard to deny. (2) The second part of menahhanda is, however, problematic. The word has been parsed into mena and hant-. The latter is a frequent Hittite word meaning 'forehead, front' and the usual assumption has been that menahhanda is a compound of two nouns in allative case, 'face' and 'forehead'. (3)
Such segmentation appears questionable on several counts; first of all, this analysis fails to provide a principled explanation of the meaning: it is a priori not clear how a compound 'face-forehead' came to mean 'facing'. Since hant- (c. and n.) never means 'face', but only 'forehead' or 'front", (4) English "face-to-face" and French "vis-a-vis" are not real parallels.
The nature of the relationship between the two members of this alleged compound is unclear, too. Hittite has a few endocentric determinative compounds, tatpurusaa and karmadharayas (e.g., pappaneknes 'brothers having the same father' from pappa 'father' + negna- 'brother"; tuzziyasessar 'settlement of an army' from tuzzi 'army' + asessar 'settlement' (5)), but even under the assumption that hant- (as nomen regens) is used in its lexical meaning 'forehead, front', the meaning 'into the forehead/front of the face' simply does not make a lot of sense. Neither does menahhanda easily lend itself to an analysis in terms of a copulative compound 'into the face and into the front". Although Hittite has a few compounds of this type (e.g., hassahanzassa- 'grand- and great-grandsons'), (6) one has a hard time perceiving virtual (*) menahhand- as a partes-pro-toto synecdoche (so HED 6: 147), since the original meaning of menali- is already 'face'! In fact, Hittite itself provides an example of how a name for a body part can be construed through a synecdochical combination of two parts, namely, a copulative compound sakuissa- that likely means 'face' and is formed from saku- 'eye' and ass-liss- 'mouth'. (7)
A different solution involving hant- has been proposed: it has been maintained that hant-or, rather handa, is used here not in the meaning 'front', but rather in its adverbialized locative meaning 'in front of (so prominent among other descendants of Indo-European *[h.sub.2]ent-). (8) However, this theory does not solve the problem at hand either. While Hittite hanti 'opposite, against' has a good chance of being an inherited adverb (cf. Greek [alpha]v[tau]i 'in front of", Latin ante 'before', Sanskrit anti 'id.' (9)), there is no reason or comparative evidence that would allow us to make the same assumption in the case of other adverbial offshoots of hant -'forehead', namely, handas, hanza(n), hantaz, or handa, all of which are best accounted for as later lexicalizations of inflected forms of the base noun hant-. The adverb handa is attested from MH/MS on and the word normally means 'for the sake of, in view of' (a meaning of course incompatible with the meaning of menahhanda). (10) It would therefore be methodologically unsound to assign to Hittite handa a meaning 'against' or 'in front of' based on the root etymology alone and claim that this etymological meaning of handa has only been preserved in menahhanda.
An alternative analysis is thus desirable. My own proposal builds on the idea of Duchesne-Guillemin (1947: 75), who argued in passing that the second part of the word menahhanda is the well-known Hittite postposition anda 'into'.
It is worth noting that there is a piece of Anatolian evidence not known to Duchesne-Guillemin that seems to support his solution: if analyzed as menahh=anda, the Hittite word is reminiscent of its near-synonym in Lycian, namely ntewe 'facing, opposite; toward', in origin a compound of *en and tewe* 'eye'. (11) Even more important is the complete match between the formal structure of Hittite menahh=anda and Lycian (x) tewe nte TL 44a,53 'facing' <*'into the eye', (12) where nte shows a Lycian correspondence of Hittite anda used as postposition to a designation of a part of the face.
Nevertheless, at the time when Duchesne-Guillemin proposed his solution, his case was very weak, since he had to leave open the question of the morphology of the first part, menahh-; for this reason his suggestion has been largely neglected in later scholarship. It therefore behooves us to say a few words about the origin and morphological history of the stem menali- 'face, cheek' first.
The following forms of this word are attested: nom.-acc.sg. neut. meni (3x; e.g., me-e-ni-i=m-mi-it KBo 3.22 rev. 52 [OS]) and mena, loc. sg. meni, and ace. pl. comm. menus. (13) This allomorphy is best explained with E. Rieken (1994: 51; 1999: 56-58), who traced the stem-final -i- to an old athematic dual ending *-i[h.sub.1]) (of the type we find in Homeric [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]: from the root noun *[h.sub.3][ek.sup.w]-'eye'); indeed, a dual form must have been quite frequent with a word one of whose meanings is 'cheek'. The pre-Hittite paradigm of this word would therefore include an animate root noun *men- (14) and a dual *meni the thematic stem mena- (acc.pl.c. me-nu-us) is easily explainable as an innovation whose starting point would be the reinterpretation of ace. sg. *menan as a thematic form.
There is an important consequence of this morphological analysis for our purposes. If the thematic stem mena- is an inner-Hittite innovation, the adverb menahhanda (OS+) would be unlikely to contain this stem as its first member. (15) This means that if menahhanda is to be segmented as menahh=anda, its first part has to be an allomorph made from an athematic stem *men-.
The problem of menah can now be revisited: in my opinion, menah is an archaic allative form meaning 'to the face'. The resulting meaning of univerbated menahh=anda is then 'into the face', which is effectively what the word means. (16) However, as is well known, the Hittite allative has an ending -a, not -ah; therefore in order to explain how the new solution is going to work, a brief excursus into the origin of this case ending is required.
The allative case (17) (also known as directive, Richtungskasus, or Terminativ) was identified at the very beginning of Hittite studies. (18) Well attested in Old and Middle Hittite, it marks the goal towards (or into) which the movement is directed; aside from a few frozen archaisms, this case was lost in New Hittite and its functions were taken over by the dative-locative. (19)
This case has no direct correspondences in the morphological systems of other ancient Indo-European languages, but it is not isolated within the Anatolian family: locatives in -a are attested in Palaic, (20) and Luvian also shows occasional locatives in -a beside usual dative-locative singular forms in -i. (21) Further, in Luvian we find infinitives in -una (e.g., aduna 'to eat', karsuna 'to cut') and a similar formation is known in Lycian (tebana 'to conquer', zxxana 'to fight', xlaina 'to dominate'); (22) as C. Melchert has shown, both formations go back to allative forms of verbal abstract nouns. (23) (Compare Hittite infinitives in -anna that likewise originated in the allative of -tarl-tn- nouns.) The ending -a can in theory continue *o or *-a from an earlier sequence of vowel plus laryngeal; since in Proto-Anatolian laryngeals were lost in word-final position, it is impossible to determine whether the allative forms in question go back to *-[h.sub.2]e or *-e[h.sub.2](or even *-[h.sub.3]e or *-e[h.sub.3]). (24) The Proto-Indo-European shape of this ending is thus uncertain. (25)
Recently an important argument in favor of a reconstruction *-e[h.sub.2] was independently put forth by M. Furlan (2001) and M. Peters (1997 : 122), who drew attention to Lithuanian zmogus 'man'. (26) The -gu- part has long been compared to the Indo-European root *[g.sup.w]e[h.sub.2]- 'to go' (Old Indic aor. agat, Greek [member of][beta][eta], LIV" 205), but the allomorph zmo- has resisted interpretation, since no *-e[h.sub.2] stem (*[d.sup.h][g.sup.h]me[h.sub.2] vel sim.) is found in any Indo-European language beside the well-known stem *[d.sup.h]e[g.sup.h]-om, gen.sg. *[d.sup.h][d.sup.h]-m-es and the existence of such a derivative from an m-stem is not very likely. A reconstruction *([d.sup.h])([g.sup.h])me[h.sub.2]-[g.sup.w]u-'walking on the earth' (27) with an allative form used as the first compound member eliminates this problem. (28)
The reconstruction *-e[h.sub.2] is compatible with other material that has figured in the discussion of the Indo-European directive. Greek [chi][alpha][mu][alpha]i 'on the ground' (possibly identical with Celtiberian tamai Botorrita 1 A 3 (29)) can be traced back to a preform *([d.sup.h])[g.sup.h]m-e[h.sub.3]-i: the directive form *([d.sup.h])[g.sup.h]m-e[h.sub.2] (before it was amplified by a locatival *-i) would have regularly had a Lindeman variant *([d.sup.h])[g.sup.h]m-e[h.sub.2] beside it, and the expected outcome of the latter is precisely a Proto-Greek *[k.sup.h][partial derivative]ma. (30) "Directional" *-a (< *-e[h.sub.2]) appears in other places in the family as well, for instance, in Greek u[pi][alpha]i (31) [delta]/[DELTA]i[alpha]i-, and infinitives in -[alpha]i. (32)
There are thus several reasons to believe that the ending of the Indo-European allative (directive) case should be reconstructed as *-e[h.sub.2] (and not as *-[h.sub.2]e, *-o or plain *-a). We can now return to the main thesis of this paper according to which menahhanda should be analyzed as menahh=anda, where anda is a postposition 'into', while menah(h) is an allative form from *men- 'face'.
The phonological aspect of the proposed solution is unproblematic: we know that the second laryngeal was lost word-finally in Proto-Anatolian (as were other laryngeals), (33) but it was retained word-medially between vowels or between a vowel and a resonant (e.g., sahhan 'feudal service' ^lt; *se[h.sub.2]-om; tuhha(i)- 'to gasp' < *[d.sup.h]e[h.sub.2]-e[h.sub.2]ielo-, or *miyahwant- 'old' (34) from * mi[h.sub.113] e[h.sub.2]-uent- 'having ripeness'). (35) Therefore one should expect that a final laryngeal in an allative form (*)menah would have been preserved if the addition of postpositional material (anda) predates the Proto-Anatolian stage. The question is now whether or not anda could have been construed with (*)menah early enough in order to allow for the laryngeal to be preserved.
It seems worthwhile, then, to explore the syntactic aspect of the problem. As is well known, Hittite anda is regularly used as postposition to the governed noun, e.g., kissari=mi anda KBo 3.23 rev. 6; importantly, one notices that this particular syntactic pattern is likely to be inherited, as the following remarkable fact from Italic seems to indicate. Although Archaic (and archaizing) Latin endo is mostly used as a preposition, (36) one of the oldest Latin inscriptions, namely, the Duenos-inscription, (37) shows a different syntax: the second half of the first line (the interpretation of which is almost universally agreed upon) reads NEITEDENDOCOSMISUIRCOSIED, where TED ENDO has been traditionally (and no doubt correctly) understood as "in te'. (38) This unique example of Latin endo used as postposition is matched by other Italic languages where a similar syntactic construction with *en underlies the creation of an innovative locative form (Umbrian ocrem 'on the mount' TI 6a, 46; South Picene mefun 'in medial' MC 1; and Oscan hurtin 'in the garden' SA 1, A2).39 Further support comes from the oldest attested Celtic language, namely Celtiberian, where we find tokoitei eni (Botorrita I A 4). Lastly, postpositional use of * en is well known from en-locatives such as * g[g.sup.h]eimen 'in the winter'. All this supports the antiquity of the pattern attested in Hittite. (40)
The question naturally arises as to how probable is the assumption that a postposition 'into' was used with an allative case form that already had the meaning 'into' inherent in it. But in fact, use of pre- or postpositions reinforcing the meaning of local cases is not unheard of, and Finnish provides a welcome typological parallel. (41) Within Indo-European, Sabellic shows a regular use of en with locative forms. (42) Therefore it seems reasonable to speculate that in Proto-Indo-European a local case could be construed with a postposed adverbial element and the proposed reconstruction * men-[eh.sub.2] * ([h.sub.1]) endo [h.sub.2] does not deviate from our expectations about syntactic structures in the proto-language.
The proposed scenario is open to one further objection: since Anatolian is the only branch of the family where the inherited allative case was preserved as a part of a declensional paradigm, one would expect to see the syntactic pattern "allative with postposition" likewise preserved, which, on the surface, does not seem to be the case. In Hittite the allative is generally used without postposition. In fact, however, Hittite seems to provide examples of allative forms construed with local adverbs, but their interpretation is hindered by a well-known conundrum. In this language it is often difficult to decide whether a local adverb such as anda (or Sara, para, katta, etc.) is used as a postposition to a noun in the allative or the dative-locative, or as a preverb conjoined with a verb that follows. (43) A notorious case is anda parna pai "goes into the house":
anda=sa[n parna nawi paizzi)] "He has not yet entered the house." (KBo 6.2 iv 37 + KBo 6.3 iv 35-36)
Since several other instances of anda pai without a governed noun are attested, the status of this combination "preverb+verb" is secured. However, not all of the examples can be dealt with in this way. Consider the following example where nothing stands in the way of analyzing anda as an adposition to a (fronted) noun in allative case:
[.sup.[DU]G.GIR.KIS]-ya=an kuit anda war["that which [...] into the GIR.KIS-vesse]" (44) (KBo 17.25 [rev.!] 3)
There is another group of problematic examples that display the pattern "local adverb--noun in allative/dative-locative--verb" (these examples were assembled by Starke 1977: 150-52). (45) Again, not all of them can easily be explained away as verb-preverb complexes, although the fact that what seems to be an adposition precedes the noun instead of following it is very troubling:
nu=za=pa utniyaza humanza iski (s)=smet [anda.sup.URU] Hattusa lagan hardu "The entire land shall lean its back against Hattusa." (KUB 36.110 rev. 9-10; OS)
An assumption that an allative form was construed with a postposition in Indo-European and in Proto-Anatolian thus finds support in comparative data and does not violate the laws of Hittite grammar (although several questions remain in regards to the examples cited above). Nothing therefore stands in the way of reconstructing a postpositional phrase * men-[eh.sub.2] * en(do) "into the face", which gives Hittite menahhanda.
Carruba, O. 1966. Das Beschworungsritual fur die Gottin Wisurijanza. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
CHD = The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. H. G. Guter-bock. H. A. Hoffner, and Th. P. J. van den Hour. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980-.
CIL = Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. 1862-.
Dressel, E. 1880. Di una antiquissima iserizione latina graffita sopra vaso votivo rinvenuto in Roma. Annali dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica 52: 158-95.
Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 1947. Etudes Hittites. Transactions of the Philological Society 1946: 73-91.
Dunkel, G. E. 1994. The IE Directive. In Fruth-, Mittel-, Spatindogermanisch (Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Zurich 1992), ed. G. E. Dunkel, G. Meyer, S. Scarlata, and Chr. Seidl. Pp. 17-36. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Eichner, H. 1973. Die Etymologic von heth. mehur. Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 53-107.
__. 1985. Malwa, eine hieroglyphenluvisch-sidetische Wortgleiehung. Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45: 5-21.
__. 1988-90. Reklamejamben aus Roms Konigszeit. Die Sprache 34: 207-38.
Forrer, E. 1928. Ein siebenter Kasus im Altindischen. In Altorientalische Studien Bruno Meissner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag am 25. April 1928 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schuiern. Pp. 30-35. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Friedrich, J. 1952. Kurzgefa[beta]tes hethitisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Furlan, M. 2001. Hethitische Direktivendung -a und indoeuropaische Quellen. In Anatolisch und Indo-germanisch. Anatolico e indoeuropeo (Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.-25. September 1998), ed. O. Carruba and W. Meid. Pp. 92-118. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissensehaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
Garcia-Ramon, J. L. 1997. Lat. prae, gr. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] und Verwandtes: idg. * [prh.sub.2]- und * pr- 'vorn dane-ben, vor' gegenuber * pro([h.sub.1]) 'vor(n), vorwarts'. In Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in Honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the Occasion of His 60th birthday, ed. A. Lubotsky. Pp. 47-62. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Goetze. A. 1963. Postposition and Preverb in Hittite. Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 17: 98-101. Hajnal. I. 1992. Griechisch [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]--ein Problem der Rekonstruktion? In Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie (Akten der 8. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Leiden 1987), ed. R. S. P. Beekes, A. Lubotsky, and J. Weitenberg. Pp. 207-20. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
HEP) = Puhvel, J. 1984-. Hittite Etymological Dictionary, vols. 1-5. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hoffner, H., and H. C. Melehert. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Jasanoff. J. II. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[LIV.sup.2] = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, ed. H. Rix et al., 2nd ed. 2001. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Livingston. I. 2004. A Linguistic Commentary on Livius Andronicus. London: Routledge.
Karlsson, F 1999. Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.
Kimball, S. 1999, Hittite Historical Phonology. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
Kloekhorst, A. 2005. Review of Anatolisch und Indogermanisch, ed. O Carruba and W. Meid. Bihlio-theca Orientalis 62: 90-94.
__. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited. Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Matzinger, J. 2008. Nominale Wortbildung des Hethitischen in Grundzugen: Die Wortbildungsmuster des sekundaren Lexikons. In Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzugen: Die Wortbildungsmuster ausgewahlter indogertnanischer Einzelsprachen, vol. 2: Hethitisch, Altindisch, Altarmenisch, ed. R. Luhr. Pp. 1-105. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac.
Melchert, H. C. 1984. Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht.
__. 1992. Relative Chronology and Anatolian: The Vowel System. In Rckonstruktion und relative Chronologie (Akten der 8. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Leiden 1987), ed. R. S. P. Beekes, A. Lubotsky, and J. Weitenberg. Pp. 41-53. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
__. 1994. Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
__. 2003. Language. In The Luvians, ed. H. C. Melchert. Pp. 170-210. Leiden: Brill.
__. 2004. A Dictionary of the Lyecian Language. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.
__. 2008. Palaic. In The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor, ed. R. D. Woodard. Pp. 40-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neri, S. 2003. I sostantivi in -u del gotico: Morfologia e preistoria. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
__. 2007. Cadere e abbattere in indoeuropeo: Sull' etimologia di tedesco fallen, latino aboleo e greco apollumi. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
Peters, M. 1997 . Indogermanische Chronik 35. Teil 3. Die Sprache 39: 94-129.
Poetto, M. 1986. Luvio mana 'vedere': eteo meni/a- 'viso'. In O-o-pc-ro-si: Festschrift fur E. Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. A. Etter. Pp. 125-28. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Rieken, E. 1994. Der Wechsel -a-/-i- in der Stammbildung des hethitischen Nomens. Historische Sprachforschung 107: 42-53.
__. 1999. Untersuchungen zur nomitnalen Stammbildung des Hethifischen. Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz.
__. 2005. Kopulalivkomposita im Hethitischen. In Hrda manasa: Studies Presented to Professor Leonhard G. Herzenberg on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. N. N. Kazansky. Pp. 99-105. St. Petersburg: Nauka.
Ringe, D. 2006. Front Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salisbury, D. 1999. Anda and andan in Neo-Hittite. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51:61-72.
Schurr, D. 1998. Kaunos in lykischen Inschriften. Kadmos 37: 143-62.
Seidl, Chr. 1994. Gemeinsabellisch und Vulgarlateinisch: Der Vokalismus. In Fruh-, Mittel-, Spatindogermanisch (Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Zurich 1992), ed. G. E. Dunkel, G. Meyer, S. Scarlata, and Chr. Seidl. Pp. 349-70. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
Solmsen, F. 1911. Zur Gesehichte des Dativs in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung 44: 161-223.
Starke, F. 1977. Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Adverbien im Althethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Tischler, J. 1990. Hethitisches etymoiogisches Glossar. Teil II, Lieferung 5-6: L-M. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
Tjerkstra, F. A. 1999. Principles of the Relation between Local Adverb, Verb and Sentence Particle in Hittite. Groningen: Styx Publications.
Untermann, J. 1997. Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum, vol. 4: Die tartessischen, keltiberischen und lusitanischen Inschriften, ed. J. Untcrmann and D. S. Wodtko. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
Villar, F. 1993, Botorrita soz auku aresta [.] [.] tamai. In Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums: Festschrift fur Jurgen Untermann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. F. Heidermanns. H. Rix, and E. Seebold. Pp. 465-71. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.
Vine, B. 2006. An Alleged Case of "Inflectional Contamination": On the i-stem Inflection of Latin civis. Incontri Linguistici 29: 139-58.
Weiss, M. 1994. Life Everlasting: Latin iugis 'everflowing', Greek [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'healthy', Gothic ajukdups 'eternity' and Avestan yauuaeji- 'living forever'. Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55: 131-56.
Zeilfelder, S. 2001. Archaismus und Ausgliederung: Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter.
(1.) See also Rieken 1999: 56 for a partial revision of the CHD entry.
(2.) See HED 6: 147; Tischler 1990: 194-95; and Poetto 1986: 126 n. 8 for references.
(3.) Friedrich 1952: 141; Melchert 1994: 237; HED 6: 147; Kloekhorst 2008: 576.
(4.) E.g., KBo 10.23 iv 5-6: handi=ssi=ma=smas=kan armannis GUSKIN "but on the forehead they have a golden crescent." The metal ornament could only have been worn on the forehead.
(5.) See Hoffner-Melchert 2008: 63 and Matzinger 2008: 59-60.
(6.) These do not exactly correspond to dvandvas (in Sanskrit terminology), but rather seem to be recent univerbations (as is shown by the fact that often the first member appears in an inflected form). See Rieken 2005.
(7.) Attested dat.-loc. sakuissai; see Rieken 2005: 102.
(8.) This seems to he the contention of Carruba 1966; 33 (supported by Starke 1977: 192), whose evidence for a local adverb handa "vor" is, however, very doubtful and is essentially limited to mahhanda.
(9.) Eventually, of course, all these forms continue a locative of *[h.sub.2]ent-; the point to he emphasized is that in this case the adverbialization is of PIE date.
(10.) E.g., KBo 3.21 ii 12 sargawanni handa "in view of exaltedness"; KBo 1.1 iv 61 SA SES-YA nakkiyanni handa "out of regard for my brother's eminence"; KUB 31.4 16 kuit handa "for the sake of what?"
(11) Cf. tawa TL 106, 2 (see Eichner 1985: 19 n. 26: Melchert 2004: 46).
(12) Credit for this reading is due to Schurr 1998: 153 (whose solution is accepted by Melchert 2004: 64); however, note that this (very compelling) analysis is based on the emendation of actually written tewet to tewete (which in fact can also be a 3 pl. pret. verbal form).
(13) See CHD L-N: 289 and Rieken 1999: 56-58.
(14) Possibly IE *men-s, acc. sg. *men-m, gen.sg. *mn-es, to give a Hittite paradigm with alternating accent (gen. *ma-na-a-as?), but since no oblique forms of this word are known, the question has to remain open. As far as the etymology of menali- is concerned, two solutions have been proposed: Melchert (1984: 88 n. 17) compared the Hittite forms with the family of Latin mentum 'chin' (and mons 'mountain'), Welsh mant 'mouth', and Gothic munps id.', which is possibly further related to the verbal root *men- 'to protrude' (Latin -minere, see Vine [2006: 154-55], who reconstructs an adjectival *mn-to- 'projecting' as the derivational basis of the nominal forms cited above). Less likely is a connection with CLuv. mana- 'to see' and the IE root *men- 'watch: wait' ([LIV.sup.2] 2. *men-), suggested by Rieken (1999: 58), or the comparison to Indo-Iranian *naima- 'half advocated by Eichner 1973: 79.
(15) Despite Eichner 1973: 79.
(16) An alternative solution would be to assume that menahh=anda is a univerbation of the postposition anda with nom.-acc. pl. menah, used as an accusative of direction (menah would go back to a neuter plural [collective] stem *men-e[h.sub.2]). However, despite Rieken (1999: 56-57), I do not think that the form mena vouchsafes the existence of a neuter plural made from men- 'face, cheek' or a reconstruction of a neuter plural (collective) allomorph *men-e[h.sub.2]: the form is attested once (KBo 14.98 i 8 OH/NS) and could in any event have been generated by the speakers on the model of alpas - alpes - alpa 'cloud(s)', etc.
(17.) A distinct allative form was available only in the singular.
(18.) Already by Forrer 1928.
(19.) For a synchronic description see Hoffner-Melchert 2008: 76, 262-64; Starke 1977.
(20.) E.g., ulanna 'on the meadow", wattana 'in(to) the water'.
(21.) E.g., in Cuneiform Luvian [sup.URU.Hattusaya, hal-li-ya 'to a day', li-i-la 'in conciliation", (u-)wa-a-ni-ya 'on the cliff, etc.; in Hieroglyphic Luvian (DEVS)Kar-hu-ha-ya.
(22.) The Lycian infinitives in -ne (e.g., ttane 'to put', lasan[e] 'to kill") likely go back to *-atno with a thematic ending *-o from *-o-(e)[h.sub.2], see Melchert 1992: 46-47 n. 15 and Peters 1997 : 122 (note the interchange between (t)tane/tane and ttana 58,4).
(23.) See Melchert 1994: 325.
(24.) In general, a reconstruction *-e[h.sub.2] offers an easier explanation for all Anatolian facts (under this theory that the absence, of *-aha [from alleged *-o-[h.sub.2]e] in the declension of a-stems is unproblematic and requires no additional assumptions); nevertheless, it would still be possible to propose a scenario based on the reconstruction *-[h.sub.2]e that would account for all the forms (for instance, by invoking an apocope of the final unstressed vowel in PIE sequences of the type -[VHV.sup.#]; see Jasanoff 2003: 61-62).
(25.) While Dunkel 1994 argued for unitary *-o, the reconstruction *-e[h.sub.2] seems to have gained some acceptance in the last two decades, see Melchert 1994: 51 (*-e[h.sub.2] and thematic *-o[h.sub.2]), Hajnal 1992: 213 (who, however, does not reconstruct an ending *-e[h.sub.2] for the proto-language, assuming instead that in origin "directival" forms in *-e[h.sub.2] were locatives of *[h.sub.2] stems), and Ringe 2006: 23. The reconstruction *-[h.sub.2]e is defended by Weiss 1994: 147 n. 44 and is mentioned as a possibility by Melchert 2008: 43. Furlan 2001 has argued that "directival" forms in *-a can he explained as outcomes of the same *-e[h.sub.2] by virtue of Kuiper's Law (see the critical appraisal by Neri 2003: 11 n. 11 and Kloekhorst 2005: 91 92). Garcia-Ramon 1997 traces the Anatolian allative to the Indo-European instrumental in * -e[h.sub.1] but see the objections of Zeilfelder (2001: 130-32; on the semantics of instrumental > perlative > locative see Neri 2007: 75 n. 199). Furlan 2001 gives a useful overview of forms and problems involved and should be consulted for references.
(26.) In the modern literary language (albeit not in the dialects) zmogus has completely replaced the word zmuo, which is probably a ported match to Latin homo (if both go hack to *([d.sup.h])[g.sup.h]-(m)m-on- 'he who is on the earth'; see Livingston 2004: 33-36).
(27.) A verbal governing compound with a "participial" *-[g.sup.w]([h.sub.2])u as a second member should (according to J. Schindler) he seen as a result of a reinterpretation of a bahuvrihi formed from an abstract noun *[g.sup.w]o/e[h.sub.2]u -; therefore the original meaning was 'having (his/her) going on the earth". For this compound type compare Old Indie vanargu- 'going in the woods' or Greek [pi][rho][member of][sigma]o[beta][chi]. 'old man. ambassador' < *'going in the front' (cf. Old indie purogava- 'leader').
(28.) It may be argued that it the compound *([d.sup.h][g.sup.h][g.sup.w]u- contained an allative ease form as its first member, the expected meaning should he 'walking towards the earth", which does not make a lot of sense for a designation of a human being (Neri 2003: 247 n. 793). However, this objection is not necessarily valid and the gloss 'walking' on the earth'.' adopted in the text above is not merely an attempt to circumvent this difficulty. The reasons behind this gloss are summarized below. (The ideas presented here owe much to C. Melchert and S. Yen. personal communication; the problem merits a more thorough study.) Scattered forms attested in Indo-European languages other than Anatolian that, seem to show a reflex of an "allalival" * e[h.sub.2] (as reconstructed in this paper) in fact do not always have an "allalival" or, more broadly, directival meaning: rather, their meaning is often locatival in the proper sense (e.g., Greek [CHI][alpha][mu]i on the ground'). Moreover, in Anatolian languages other than Hittite, the forms in -a can have a locatival meaning. Despite the dearth of securely interpret able forms, ibis is likely to be true for Palaie: For instance, in the beginning of the Palaie mythological text nr. 1 the form ulanna 'on the meadow' is constructed with ki-i-[ta-ar] 'lies' (KUB 32.18 i 1); a locatival sense is likewise likely for tasura 'sacrificial table' (KUB 35.165 obv. 7), although the surrounding words are not quite clear, and the same is true for wattana (KUB 35.164 iii 7) which is a form of 'water'. (The lexical meaning of other forms in -a [halpuda and kuwalima] is unknown.) In Luvian (where a distinct dative-locative in -i is available), forms in -a can be true locatives, too: e.g.. n=an=kan INA [.sup.URU.Samuha] SAH GIM-an humma EGIR-po istappas "she shut him up at Samuha like a pig in a sty," in a Hittile context KBo 3.6 iii 56-57.
Based on these observations, two different hypotheses can be suggested. On the one hand one may assume that in Proto-Indo-European *~e[h.sub.2] was one of the locatival suffixes, together with *er, * -en, and * -i (all of which may originally have had slightly different meanings, but these semantic nuances can no longer be discerned). This situation was inherited by Proio-Anatolian and it was an innovation of Hittile to have relegated -a (from * -e[h.sub.2]) to specifically allalival use. On the other hand, it is equally possible I hat the affix *-e[h.sub2] originally had the meaning of an allative (and this meaning was preserved in several pronominal adverbs); however, eventually allative case forms developed a second, locatival meaning. Both hypotheses will account for the locatival meaning of * (d.sup.h])[g.sup.h]me[h.sub.2]- in the compound * ([d.sup.h)[g.sup.h]me[h.sub.2]-[g.sup.w]u-.
(29.) See Villar 1993. In view of Villar's plausible suggestion that the verb arista[.][.] in the same sentence goes back to a virtual * pari-ste[h.sub.2]-, this identification of tamai seems very attractive. For other proposals see Wodtko in Untermann 1997: 524.
(30.) Similarly on the phonology of [CHI][alpha][mu][alpha]i Hajnal 1992: 213-14, whose morphological solution is however, different (an endingless locative of a stem in * -e[h.sub.2] this solution has been accepted by Neri 2003: 35 n. 80).
(31.) On Greek adverbial formations in -[alpha]1 see Solmsen 1911: 165-67.
(32.) Interestingly, an allatival * e[h.sub.2] possibly appears in another adverb, whose meaning is identical with that of Hittite menahhanda, namely Latin coram 'face to face' (pl, +): coram is traditionally thought to go back to an univerbation of co(m) and os, oris 'mouth'. Now, the final -am of coram, is inexplicable in the absence of any evidence for an a-stem '* ora ([not equal to] ora 'border: seaeoast'); one way of solving this problem would be to reconstruct an allative * [h.sub.l]es-e[h.sub.2] to the mouth' belonging to the paradigm of Indo-European * [h.sub.l]ole[h.sub.113]-s-. The final nasal of coram can be compared with the * -n that otherwise surfaces in scattered all verbs in the family, for instance, in Old Indie asmi-n (vs. Avestan ahmi), Greek [episilon]v[delta]o. Old Latin endo). vu-v, [phi][episilon][rho][sigma]i-v, Lesbian [alpha]iiv. Lycian [toa]ern 'when' (< [k.sup.w] ari + n. cf. Hieroglyphic Luvian kuwari), or Baltic * kada-n 'when' (with an acute vowel] * a * e[h.sub.2], in the final syllable: Lithuanian kuda, Latvian kad, Old Prussian <kadden>). Alternatively, coram may owe its final nasal to its antonym clam "secretly' and its near-synonym palam 'overtly'.
(33.) E.g., neuter plural sakuwa 'eyes' from collective * -e[h.sub.2] or dual *-eh).
(34.) The stem miyahwant- is attested only in Sumerographie spelling (Lu-SU.Gl-ant-), but can be securely posited on the basis, of its verbal derivatives miyah(u)wandahh- mihuntahh- 'to make old', miyahunte- 'to become old, to live lung", and miyahhuntess- "to grow old'. On the etymology of the derivational basis see Kloekhorst 2008: 569.
(35.) See Melchert 1994: 68-71, 86; Kimball 1999: 395-99.
(36.) E.g., endo dies in the Laws of the XII Tables (tab. III, 4; via Aul, Gell. XX. I) or endo suam do in Ennius (via Ausonius Technop. 14.18).
(37.) CIL [I.sup.2] 4; 575-550 B.C.E.
(38.) So already H. Dressel and F. Bucheler in their commentary in the editio princeps (Dressel 1880).
(39.) Note that the accretion of the postposition * en onto the inherited locative suffixes took place before the loss of intervocalic yod: * ei (locative in o- and i stem declension) + *-en > * -een > *-en >/en/, spelled <in> (see Seidl 1994: 366-67 on the related problems of relative chronology and dialed geography).
(40.) This was rightly stressed by H. Eichner (1988-90; 224). One may note in this connection that this syntactic pattern is all but. unexpected, since Indo-European * endo is a variant of familiar *en 'in', extended by a deictic particle * del * del * dol *do.
(41.) E.g., Juna kulkee Helsinkin pain train goes.PRES Helsinki.ILLAT. towards The train is going towards Helsinki. (Karlsson 1999: 225)
(42.) E.g., Osean exaisc-en ligis "in these laws"; in Umbrian this is nearly the rule.
(43.) The situation is particularly difficult when the local adverb is situated between the complement and the verb (so-called Mittelstellung); see. e.g., Goetze 1963. For a careful recent discussion of anda and andan see Salisbury 1999.
(44.) The verb here is mutilated, but line intended meaning is clear; compare line 9' in the same text (CTH 752); [n]a-as-sa-an kat-ta [.sup.DUG.GIR.KIS]-ya la-hu-e-ni.
(45.) Starke interpreted the construction anda puma as two allatives in apposition; whether or not this theory is valid (at least, as a historical explanation) is immaterial for the purposes of the present investigation (see also Salisbury 1999; Tjerkstra 1999).
Author's note: I would like to thank Gary Beckman, Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, Sergio Neri, Martin Peters, Bridget Samuels, and Andrew Shatskov for many helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of the American Oriental Society|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2010|
|Previous Article:||"And brought in the offerings and the tithes and the dedicated things faithfully" (2 Chron. 31:12): On the meaning and function of the late Iron Age...|
|Next Article:||Are there homosexuals in Mesopotamian literature?|