¹ For the abbreviations used see Hawkins, J. D., Davies, A. Morpurgo, Neumann, G., “Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: new evidence for the connection”, Nachrichten Ak. Wiss. Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1973, Nr. 6, pp. 143–97Google Scholar [HHL], at p. 145 note. The transliteration follows the values tabulated in An. St. 25 (1975), 53–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In preparing this paper I have been able to use Mr. Hawkins' collation of most of the Hieroglyphic texts; I am deeply indebted to him for this and for frequent and protracted discussions over all points of reading and interpretation.

² Die Sprache 9 (1963), 90 f.Google Scholar; cf. also ibid., 8 (1962), 285.

³ For the transliteration LITUUS. CAELUM-na and in general for the value of the LITUUS logogram see Hawkins, , “The logogram “LITUUS” and the verbs “to see” in Hieroglyphic Luwian”, Kadmos 19 (1980), 123 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ In KARATEPE LVIII (Ho) I have transliterated with tu ₄ the sign Laroche, HH., no. 230, since tu, tú, and tù have been reserved for Laroche, HH. nos. 89, 325 and 326 respectively and there is no clear syllabic use of Laroche HH no. 65 (Laroche's tù).

⁵ The interpretation of aza- does not rest only on the comparison with Cun. Luwian. Sentences such as CARCHEMISH A 6, 9:

á-pa-pa-wa/i-′ (DEUS)ni-ka+ra/i-wa/i-sá CANIS-ni-i-zi á-pa-si-na ∣ CAPUT-hi-na ∣ ARHA EDERE-tu

“and let the dogs of Nikarawas eat him (and) his head.”

compare well with KULULU 1, 5:

∣ à-wa/i ∣ á-pa-si-na ∣ ha-sa-mi-na ∣ pá ^? +ra/i-ta-mi-na ∣ ARHA ∣ á-za-tu á-pa-si-ha ∣ á-tara/i-i-na

“let them (viz. the AMURAS of Tuwatis and the race (?) of the dogs of Kubaba) devour his accursed (?) race and his image.”

⁶ I have argued for the meaning “we give”, rather than “we gave”, in KZ 94 (1980), 93 ffGoogle Scholar. One of the reasons is that in KULULU strip 2 we find in entirely parallel contexts pi-ia-i “he gives”, pi-ia-ti “they give”, and DARE-mi-na “we give”.

⁷ I have transcribed with ZU? the sign Laroche, HH, no. 462. This value is established for an Empire sign of similar shape, but so far we have no clear evidence for the value of the First Millennium sign.

⁸ Moreover in TOPADA itself we find (line 3) a form á-pa _x-sí-na which is the expected accusative (cf. for the reading Hawkins, , An. St., 25 (1975), 127Google Scholar).

⁹ It is worth noticing that we do have an -asi form which is certainly a Dative singular in KÖRKÜN, A 3–4:

na-na-si-pa-wa/i-ta INFANS-ni REL-sa ARHA tà-i

“who takes it away from Nanasi, (or) the child”

and ibid., B—C:

za-pa-wa/i-tu-ta (VINUM)wa/i-ni-na REL-sa ARHA la-i na-na-si INFANS-na-ni (NEPOS)ha-ma-si (NEPOS)ha-ma-su-ka-la

“who takes away this vine from her, from Nanasis, (or) the child, (or) the grandchild, (or) the greatgrandchild …”

(For the readings see A. Morpurgo Davies and J. D. Hawkins in Studia Mediterranea P. Meriggi octuagenario, forthcoming.)

Nanasis is a personal name and synchronically speaking is not a genitival adjective, even if it is likely that it originated in this manner.

¹⁰ Sometimes -i- may arise from contraction; this must be the case for instance of an-isi-adjective such as Kiyakisi- from Kiyakiya- (see above citation 27).

¹¹ There are also a few instances of -a “datives” from -i- stems, but these deserve a separate study.

¹² For TOPADA see above p. 133 and note 8.

¹³ For other examples of proportional analogy, for the history of proportions, and for some general statements see Davies, A. Morpurgo, Studies … L. R. Palmer, Innsbruck 1976, 181–97Google Scholar; Étrennes … M. Lejeune, Paris 1978, 157–66Google Scholar; Transactions of the Philological Society, 1978, 36–60Google Scholar.