kδouś

Attested in a graffito from the Southern Temple of Buhen (Egypt) presumably c. 591 (O. Masson 1978a:7). For another alleged case see under Form.

[Zs.S.]

unknown

kδouś

E.Bu 1

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:372, checked against the published photo. Adiego 2007a:364 adds esak^?δowš (E.AS 7) as a compound noun with kδowš as its second member, but this word is to be read as esaγ^?δowš, see s.v. Adiego 2007a:372 claims that kδouś is a genitive singular, which is formally possible, but cannot be proved, since the meaning both of this word and of its context are unknown.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 1995a:19f., Adiego 2007a:264, Adiego 2019b:18f., Adiego, Debord & Varinlioğlu 2005a:617f. compared it with the Lycian word χñtawa- ‘to rule’ and in Adiego 2007a:372 considered the possibility if it could be the Carian word for ‘king’. Adiego 2019b:18f., 23f. even claimed that this word means ‘king’ and the identification of the Carian word kδuśo ‘reign’ (see s.v.) is the “definitive confirmation” of this meaning. This is, however, not the case.

First, since the meaning of the inscription E.Bu 1 is unclear, the meaning ‘king’ of kδouś cannot be verified (as pointed out above, esak^?δowš does not belong here, but even if it does, it does not mean ‘king’, contra the cautious suggestion of Adiego 1995a: 19f., Adiego 2007a:293f., 364 and Hajnal 1997b:146, 161, Hajnal 1998a:91, see the discussion s.v. esaγ^?δowš). Second, the morphology of the word argues against this meaning: the assured Luwic words for ‘ruler, king’ (Luwian ḫantawat(i)- and Lycian χñtawat(i)-) are derivatives of *ḫantawa- underlying kδou- (note also that the meaning ‘ruler, king’ may be a secondary and exclusively Lyco-Luwian development depending on the meaning of its Pisidian morphological counterpart, the personal name Γδεβετι- (cf. Melchert 2013c:35 [quoting it as Γδβετι-] and here s.v.), but since the meaning of the personal name is unknown, this question must remain open at the moment). kδouś is either not a derivative of *ḫantawa- but etymologically identical to it as kδou or it is a different derivative as kδou-ś (assuming in both cases that kδouś is indeed from *ḫantawa-, which is possible, but not assured). Third, assuming that kδuśo ‘reign’ is indeed a derivative of kδou(ś) (which is possible, but cannot be proved), the meaning ‘reign’ does not necessarily originate in the meaning ‘king’, as the origin can be any noun or adjective referring to ruling or simply to a foremost position, cf. German Herrschaft (strictly speaking, due to our currently limited knowledge of Carian derivational morphology, not even a deverbal derivation of kδuśo can be excluded, although a denominal or deadjectival origin is more probable on formal grounds, since the suffix -śo- may point to Luwian -ašša/i- [the derivation of Adiego 2019b:24 from *-tyā- based on Lycian B xñtawaza ‘rule’ (see s.v.) is contradicted by the ethnic suffix -si- with its Lycian cognate -ze/i (Adiego 2007a:269f.) from *-tyo- (Melchert 2002b:310) and morphologically by the circumstance that the proposed suffix builds agent nouns, not abstracts (Sasseville 2014-2015a:107)].

Since there is no synchronic evidence for the meaning of kδouś, one can only rely upon etymological speculations. Based on the Carian sound laws it can continue earlier *ḫandawa- (underlying to Pisidian Γδαβα-, Melchert 2013c:35), a derivative of *ḫant- ‘front’. If this is correct, its exact meaning depends on how one defines the precise meaning of the suffix, but the suggestions are rather similar: ‘belonging to the frontside’ (Hajnal 1994a:147 n. 33f. with 149 n. 40); ‘foremost, ruling’ (Melchert 2013c:35); and ‘having the status of the front’ (Rieken & Sasseville 2014a:308f.). How these literal meanings can be applied in the present context and especially the question whether this word still belongs to the semantic field of ‘front’ or already to that of ‘ruling’ (and in general, if this etymology is correct at all) must remain open until further evidence emerges.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 25 June 2020