kumezi(je)-

This lexeme is only found in the two major inscriptions of Xanthos.

[D.S.]

nom./acc. sg. n.	kumezijẽ	N 320.7 (Xanthos)
nom./acc. pl. n.	kumezija	TL 44b.51 (Xanthos)
		TL 44b.53 (Xanthos)
		TL 44b.54 (Xanthos)
	kumezi[j]a	TL 44b.54-55 (Xanthos)

The form kumetija (TL 44b.8) has been suggested to belong here under the assumption of a scribal mistake for kumez^!ija (Deecke 1889a:193, Neumann 2007a:177). This is entirely possible, though difficult to prove due to the obscurity of context. Eichner 2005a:26 implies a separation into kume=tija, i.e. with a relative pronoun, which would however make kume a verbal form (unless we are dealing with a nominal phrase). This is not impossible, but hardly attractive.

[D.S.]

In the trilingual inscription of the Letoon (N 320), the phrase kumezijẽ θθẽ is rendered by Greek βωμόν ‘Altar’. While the Lycian word θθẽ refers to a construction (see under lemma), the adjective kumezi(je)- with its supposed derivational base kumaza- c. ‘sacrificing priest’ provides the meaning ‘pertaining to the sacrificing priest’. Therefore, the kumezijẽ θθẽ refers to a structure pertaining to the sacrificing priest and, thus, an altar. The adjective is found substantivized on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos (TL 44b.51-55) in a context where it refers to the installation of cults in various cities and, thus, probably of altars and related (Eichner 2005a:33, Schürr 2012a:128, contra DLL:34). Cau 2003b:54 n. 13 translates kumezija in this passage with sanctuaries, which is also possible in view of the context. For a summary of the outdated literature see Neumann 2007a:177.

[D.S.]

Based on the vowel -e- which appears in the suffix kum-ez-i(je)-, the derivational base of the adjective in -i(je)- would be expected to be *kumeze/i- instead of kumaza- (Sasseville 2014-2015a:111). Either one is dealing with a persisting vowel harmony or the derivational base is really a non-attested substantivized adjective *kumeze/i-.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see PAnat. *kummo-.