esedeñnewe-

This lexeme is found mainly in grave inscriptions.

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	esedeñnewe	TL 78.2 (Tyssa)
		TL 83.13-14 (Arneai)
	eseḍeñnewe	TL 78.4 (Tyssa)
acc. sg.	esedẽñnewẽ	TL 89.2 (Myra)
	e[sedeñnewẽ]	TL 90.2 (Myra)
dat. sg.	esedeñnewi	TL 36.6 (Xanthos)
		TL 39.3 (Xanthos)
		TL 39.6 (Xanthos)
		TL 41.3 (Xanthos)
	esedeñnew[i]	TL 45b.6 (Xanthos)
	[ese]deñne[wi]	TL 108.3 (Limyra)
	esedẽ[ñ]newi	N 357.2 (Tlos)
	[es]edeñnewi	N 349.2 (Araxa)
unclear	[es]edẽñ[new]e	TL 83.10 (Arneai)

Regarding the grammatical interpretations of the forms, we agree with Melchert (DLL:18). Contra Gehrisch 2018a:125f., esedeñnewe in TL 78 is nominative singular, subject of the verb ije-^(ti) ‘to buy’.

[D.S.]

From a contextual perspective, Savelsberg 1878a:66f. interprets Lyc. A esedeñnewe- as a family term designating a collective of people corresponding to Greek διαδοχή or γενεά ‘descendants’. His interpretation is further sustained by Deecke 1887b:320 and Torp 1898a:9. Imbert 1894a:76 suggests instead the meaning ‘relatives’. Shafer 1959a:498 equates Lyc. esedeñnewe- with Greek τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ in similar passages of Greek inscriptions, which provides evidence for the meaning ‘(blood-related) descendants’ and not ‘relatives’, and is now the communis opinio, see Melchert 2012b:246f. (and DLL:18), Neumann 2007a:76, Onur & Tekoğlu 2020a:24.

[D.S.]

The word esedeñnewe- is a non-mutated common gender e-stem, for which see Sasseville 2021a:206-208. Considering the nominal stem class of the suffix -we- c., it is, contra Neumann 1996a:5, not likely to equate the Hittite suffix -war- with loss of the word-final -r.

[D.S.]

Laroche 1967a:62f. suggests analyzing esedeñnewe- as a compound made of esede and ñnewe-. He compares the second member with Luw. /nawanawa-/ ‘great-great-grandson’ and the first to CLuw. ašḫar- ‘blood’ (with a suffix -nt-). Carruba 1970b:32f. n. 10 follows him, but suggests an otherwise non-attested abstract noun *ašḫatar as first member instead. The etymological analysis by Laroche is further defended by Neumann 1996a:1-4, although he suggests as the second-member an origin in the Proto-Indo-European root *g̑enh₁- ‘to be born’, whereas Hajnal 1995a:92 uses the Proto-Indo-European word for ‘new’ (cf. Hitt. nēwa-). However, these suggestions are phonologically problematic; cf. Melchert (DLL:18) against *-nt- > Lyc. **d. The Lycian geminate -ñn- should reflect a recent assimilation and can hardly contain the consonant *g̑, which should have disappeared already in Proto-Luwic, unless the zero-grade sequence *g̑n- has a separate treatment. Even the attempt to connect the first member with an abstract noun for ‘blood’ as per Carruba does not yield what is phonologically expected; cf. Lyc. huwedre/i- (with retention of the r in the suffix -dr-). Moreover, an abstract formation in -ātar/n- derived from a heteroclitic noun for ‘blood’ (with loss of the -r/n- in the derivation) is morphologically awkward. Considering the parallel formation in the personal name esedeplẽme/i- (and the possibly related verb pla-^(di)) (also compared by Neumann 2007a:76f.), it is preferable on synchronic grounds to consider a univerbation of two preverbs, i.e. ese and de (cf. ala-de-ha-^(di)), with the verb ñne-^(ti) (+ suffix -we- c.). Unfortunately, the exact semantics of the root ñn- (possibly going back to pre-Lycian *dn-; cf. m̃m- < *dm- ← dem- ‘build’) remain unknown. Therefore, no reconstruction or Indo-European etymology will be suggested here for Lyc. esedeñnewe-.

[D.S.]

For the possible base of the derivative, see Lyc. A ñne-^(ti).