xumala-

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.]

nom. sg. (?)

xumala

TL 44d.65 (Xanthos)

The word has been parsed instead as nom./acc. pl. (DLL:136), but see under Meaning.

[D.S.]

The xumala has been compared to Lyc. A kuma- especially in kumalihe and, thus, an emendation to k^!umala has been suggested; cf. Neumann 2007a:139, 175, DLL:133. However, considering the fact that the context is obscure and that the word is only attested once, it would be very unwise to emend. It is not impossible that the word xumala contains a different root with an actual word-initial x- (cf. Lyc. A xumetijeh (PN) (TL 120.2)). Formally xumala can be interpreted as nom./acc. pl. neuter of an adjective xumele/i- (thus DLL:133) or as an agent noun xumala- c. (thus Shevoroshkin 2002a:231, Sasseville 2014-2015a:112). However, since the direct object of the sentence is surely masxxm̃, the role of the subject becomes more likely for xumala, whence an agent noun would appear to be more appropriate. Shevoroshkin (ibid.) suggests that xumala- refers to a priestly title of high rank, which is possible, but tentative until further elucidation of the context. Contra Neumann 2007a:139, since the particle =de is restricted to the Wacknagel’s position, xumala must be the first word of the sentence and cannot agree with asãnãmla, the last word of the previous sentence. The other option of not interpreting xumalade as two words, i.e. xumala=de, but as one dat./loc. pl word, is possible considering the existence of the suffix -ad(i)- in Lycian, but is less attractive in view of the other indirect object of the sentence tije ‘for the penalties’ (borrowed from Lycian A).

[D.S.]