adm̃ma-

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

abl./instr.	[a]dm̃medi	TL 44b.6 (Xanthos)
gen. adj.	adm̃mahi	TL 44b.9 (Xanthos)

The case, number and gender of the genitival adjective are unknown.

[D.S.]

The meaning of adm̃ma-, which occurs twice within the same passage, is unknown. Eichner 2005a:26 suggests the meaning ‘name’, following a tentative suggestion by Melchert (DLL:1), although the word for ‘name’ is now commonly read as aḷãma and not as aḍãma, which essentially eliminates the comparison. Moreover, the meaning ‘name’ for adm̃ma- is not easy to fit into the context, which lists a series of Lycian towns supported by the Lycian king; cf. Eichner 2005a:26-28. Meriggi 1980a:280 equates Lyc. adm̃ma- to CLuw. adamma/i- ‘eaten’,  although he fails to provide a contextual analysis. Gehrisch 2018a:69f. follows Meriggi and translates it together with pzzidezes as Germ. ‘Speiseopfergaben’, which finds no contextual support whatsoever. Furthermore, adm̃mahi cannot agree grammatically with pzzidezes, which is clearly accusative plural, whereas adm̃mahi cannot be accusative plural. In sum, none of semantic assignments mentioned above can be accepted here.

[D.S.]

The assumption of a substantivized participle in -me/i- is refuted by the genitival adjective in -ahe/i-. The stem underlying adm̃medi and adm̃mahi must be a consonantal neuter stem in -ma- (< *-mn̥), which would be the only way of understanding the genitival adjective in -ahe/i- instead of -ehe/i- beside the ablative/instrumental in -edi; see Sasseville 2018a:314-316 for the distribution of the Lycian genitival adjectives.

[D.S.]

No etymology possible.

[D.S.]