†=k̑

van den Hout 1999a:37f. assumed a Carian particle =k̑ ‘and’, an alleged cognate of Lydian =k ‘and’ (see s.v.), in the following sequences:

1. ak̑tmsk[ (C.Ka 2, 5), ak̑t[ms]kmt (C.Ka 5, 9f.), and ak̑t[ (C.Ka 5, 11): there is a general agreement that these sequences are correctly segmented (they all follow sb ‘and’) and that they belong together (see s.v.). van den Hout 1999a:37 interpreted them as sba=k̑=t=ms=kmt, with an alleged by-form of sb ‘and’ (see s.v.), with =k̑, with =t (an alleged cognate of Lydian =(i)t, see s.v.), with =ms, the dat. pl. of the 3rd person enclitic pronoun (see s.v.), and =kmt, without explanation (sic).
2. [-]rsbak̑mnnartnyrobsmns[ (C.Ka 2, 2): van den Hout 1999a:38 segments it as [-]r sba=k̑=m=n (nartnyrobsmns[), with an alleged by-form of sb ‘and’ (see s.v.), with =k̑, with =m (an alleged cognate of Hittite =ma, see s.v.), and with =n, a third person enclitic pronoun in acc. sg. c.

The problems are common in both cases: First, there is not a single piece of evidence for van den Hout’s interpretations, since these passages are completely obscure (and accordingly, there are multiple other possibilities, for the first case see s.v. ak̑tmsk[, for the second see e.g. [-]r sb ak̑mn nartn yrobsmns[ with ak̑mn as a noun or adjective, perhaps in accusative in congruence with nartn). Second, it does not make sense to assume a particle ‘and’ following a conjunction meaning ‘and’, unless this conjunction is already a meaningless sentence initial particle, but there is no evidence for this in case of sb (see s.v.). Third, it implies a by-form “sba” of sb, but there is no independent evidence for that (see s.v.). All in all, there is no evidence for the existence of Carian =k̑ ‘and’. For the real Carian particle meaning ‘and’ see s.v. =q.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 28 April 2020