*Elii̯Enā-

This lexeme is attested in the trilingual inscription of the Letoon dated to 337 BCE (Wagner 2011a:156 with further literature).

[D.S.]

dat./loc. pl.

elijãna

N 320.40 (Xanthos)

In the trilingual inscription, elijãna is used in a curse formula and refers to Lycian deities accompanying Leto and her children, Artemis and Apollo. In the Greek version, it corresponds to Νυμφῶν ‘nymphs’ (Laroche 1979c:114, Carruba 1977a:315).  The equation is furthermore supported by the archeological context of the Letoon, which contains one temple for Leto, one for Artemis, one for Apollo, and one nymphaeum (in the form of a water fountain, see Metzger 1979a:26 and Metzger 1979b:40). The meaning is generally accepted; cf. Melchert (DLL:13), Neumann 2007a:56, Gehrisch 2018a:190.

[D.S.]

Like the noun mahã(na)- ‘god’, Lyc. elijã(na)- represents a common gender n-stem, transferred to the paradigm of the a-stems. However, the n-stem has left some morphophonological effects behind e.g. in the nominative plural; cf. mãhãi ‘the gods’ and Lyc. B lijã(na)- below.

[D.S.]

Various etymologies for Lyc. elijã(na)- have been proposed: Carruba 1977a:315 n. 78 suggests a connection with the Hittite/Palaic ^dIlāliyant-deities (personification of desire), which is morphologically and semantically difficult. Differently, Laroche 1979c:114 refers to CLuw. āla/i-, which was previously interpreted as ‘sea’ (Laroche 1959a:25, followed by Eichner 1983a:63f., with Hoffmann’s suffix ‘having water’; cf. Melchert 2003d:136). However, the semantics of the Luwian lexeme are outdated (see under lemma). Melchert 2014d:208 n. 3 tentatively retains the morphological interpretation offered by Eichner, but suggests instead different Luwian cognates such as alli- or aliya-, although neither had been fixed with a meaning at the time (CLL:10; cf. under lemma). As already emphasized by Melchert, the presence of Hoffmann’s suffix in the Lycian word for ‘nymph’ cannot be proven and the semantic argumentation advanced by Eichner 1983a:64 no longer finds any support. Therefore, no reconstruction will be offered here.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found once in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91), and 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.]

acc. pl.	lijaiz	TL 55.1 (Antiphellos)
	lijeiz	TL 44d.60 (Xanthos)

Differently, Schürr 1997c:137 takes lijaiz in TL 55.1 as a nominative plural and thus the subject of the verb welputi, whereas we take lijaiz as an accusative plural, functioning as the subject of an accusative-infinitive construction; see under Lyc. welpu-^(ti).

[D.S.]

Schürr 1997c:133 equates Lycian B lijaiz with Lyc. A elijãna and supports it morphologically as well as contextually. He recognizes the n-stem formation just as in Lyc. dat. pl. mahãna ‘gods’ beside Lyc. B nom. pl. masaiz. The main difference is that the Lycian B cognate has undergone aphaeresis, i.e. *elijã(na)- > lijã(na)-, while the Lyc. A lexeme has not. Further, he compares the expression pleliz lijaiz ‘nymphs from Phellos’ with Lyc. A wedri wehñtezi ‘naiads(?) from Phellos’ (see also Schürr 2005a:142), although the meaning of the term wedri is debated (see under lemma). Despite the uncertainty of the last example, the etymological and morphological equation with the Lycian A noun is sufficient (followed by Melchert (DLL:120), Neumann 2007a:56, 187, Shevoroshkin 2011b:144, but omitted by Gehrisch 2018a:91, 96, 107-109).

[D.S.]

The vacillation in the stem vowel lijaiz/lijeiz is strange and could be due to the vowel harmony, although the exact condition here remains difficult to understand due to the lack of data.

[D.S.]

1. lijẽnuwe/i-
2. lijẽnuwe-