qmoλ

Attested in stelae with name lists of priests from Hyllarima, the Carian heading of which is dated to 320 or 320/319 (Adiego 2019b:20–22), and from Mylasa of unknown date (Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:138).

[Zs.S.]

nom. / acc. pl. c.	qmoλš	C.Hy 1, 2
		C.My 1, 2

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:384 checked against the photographs in Laumonier 1934a:347 Fig. 26 and Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:132 (on the reading of C.My 1, 2 see also Adiego 2019b:33 n. 12). The word was identified earlier as “moλ”, for the correction see Adiego 2019b:33 (which eliminates the etymological speculations in Adiego 2007a:307 n. 33). The precise grammatical definition of the attested forms is unclear, since they can formally be both nominative and accusative plural and their context is still not understood well enough to make a decision (Adiego 2002a:17, Adiego 2007a:307, 384, Adiego 2019b:34f.; Melchert 2010f:178; but only nom. pl. according to Hajnal 1995b:14 n. 7).

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of this word has convincingly been established on contextual grounds already by Hajnal 1995b:14 and Adiego 2002a:17, Adiego 2005b:92f., Adiego 2007a:306–308, 384 (accepted also by Melchert 2010f:185). This is further corroborated now by the corrected form qmoλ, which allows a connection to the well attested group of Luwic words meaning ‘pure, sacred’ and similar from the root kumma- via *kumalla/i- or perhaps *kumayalla/i- (Adiego 2019b:33f., the former one is assured, the latter one is only a theoretical possibility [there is no evidence that Cuneiform Luwian kumayalla/i- means ‘priest’, contra Adiego 2019b:34, see s.v., ]; on the Carian sound law *k > q/_u see Simon 2011b:544f., Simon 2017f:387).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 27 July 2020