*mEssEn-

This lexeme is one of the most well-attested nouns in the HLuw. corpus. It can be found throughout the entire HLuwian period from the 12^th century to the 7^th century BCE, and in nearly all locations, stretching from Torbalı in Western Anatolia to Hama in Northern Syria.

[AH.B.]

The meaning is the appellative ‘god’ in the generic sense, as opposed to other words that denote specific gods such as Tarhunt ‘Storm-god’. With the lexeme being so frequent and occurring in a variety of contexts, the meaning, as first proposed by Otten 1953a:61-63 for CLuw., can be taken as certain also for HLuw. Hutter 2003a:218f. has compiled a list of the different DNs and PNs this lexeme is part of in the various Anatolian languages, and where they are further discussed in the literature.

[AH.B.]

/massan(i)-/ shows the suffix /-an-/ (Melchert 2003b:197) and, albeit a consonant stem, has been subsumed in the ever-growing class of the i-mutated nouns (cf. Starke 1990a:62).

[AH.B.]

1. /Massanazzamm(i)-/ (PN)

1. /massanam(i)-/
2.  /Massani(ya)-/ (PN)

Widely attested in Luwian rituals and incantations (from MS until LNS).

[Zs.S.]

Sumerographically:

Genitival adjective:

Sumerographically:

The attestations follow CLL:142f. (cf. also Laroche 1959a:69f.) checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Melchert adds ma-aš-š[a-ni-in] in KBo 29.28, 3 (with question mark) restored by him probably based on the preceding word presumably in accusative. Since the context is unclear, this is possible but cannot be proved. He also adds [ma-aš]-˹ša˺-na-aš-ši-in in KBo 29.14, 2’ following the restoration of Starke 1985b:166, but this cannot be proved either due to the tiny size of the fragment. [DINGIR^MEŠ-in-]zị in KUB 35.58 ii 7’ is also added by him following the restoration of Starke 1985b:164, but only a small trace of an unidentifiable sign is visible both on the photo and in the hand copy and the parallel passage quoted by Starke is not a literally parallel. Finally, contra Melchert, [DINGIR^MEŠ-aš-]˹ša˺-an-za-ti in KUB 35.19, 15’ is not included here, since Starke’s restoration (Starke 1985b:162) was claimed without arguments. Restorations follow Starke 1985b:69, 87, 122, 280 on contextual grounds or parallel passages. Melchert proposes (with question mark) that DINGIR^MEŠ-zi in KBo 4.11, 49 is a vocative, which is (despite the hardly understood text) probable, since it is outside of the sentence structure. Since, however, voc. pl. is formally identical to nom. pl. in Luwian, this case is not marked here separately.

[Zs.S.]

There is general and justified agreement regarding the meaning (Otten 1953a:54f., 61–63; Laroche 1959a:69; Carruba 1986b:118f.; Starke 1990a:30, 62, 86 n. 212; CLL:142; Hutter 2003a:218; Yakubovich 2010d:47; Maier 2013a:219; HEG L-S:155, Tischler 2008a:114, Tischler 2016a:216; without meaning only in Ünal 2016a:964).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 1 October 2020

1. maššanalla/i-
2. maššanāma/i-
3. maššaniya-

This lexeme is well attested across the Lycian corpus.

[D.S.]

For the reconstruction of [maha]nahi in TL 26.7-8 see Carruba 1980a:280 and Schürr 2006a:122. The reconstruction of ma[hãna] is newly suggested here. The readings of TL 58.5 follow Christiansen 2020a:236. The only instance of an accusative plural attested is muha[ and it is broken off. Since the word for ‘god’ in Lycian inflects as an a-stem, we expect the accusative plural ending -as and therefore restore tentatively muha[s^?] (< *mãhas (+ metathesis) < *mahanas); cf. under Stem. The restoration of [mãh]ãi in N 304.11 follows that of Heubeck 1989a:52.

[D.S.]

The elucidation of the Lycian word for ‘god’ occurred already in the 19th century. Savelsberg 1878a:22f. suggested for the Lycian word mãhãi the meaning ‘god’ on both contextual and etymological grounds, linking it to Old Persian baga ‘god’. Although that etymology was discarded, the semantic assignment was retained and gained support, when Laroche 1958b:190 equated the Lycian divine title ẽni mahanahi with CLuw. ānniš maššanaššiš ‘mother of the gods’ The trilingual inscription of the Letoon (N 320), in which mahãna ‘to the gods’ (line 35) is rendered with Greek τοῖς θεοῖς (line 29-30) brought additional confirmation (Laroche 1979c:107f.). There is no longer any doubt regarding the meaning; cf. DLL:36, Neumann 2007a:190 with further literature.

[D.S.]

The Lycian word for ´god´ inflects synchronically like an a-stem, which however reflects a secondary transfer from a common gender n-stem; cf. Lyc. A elijãna.

[D.S.]

1. Mahanepijẽme/i- (PN)

1. mahanahid-
2. Masase/i- (PN) (Lyc. B)
3. Masasa- (PN) (Lyc. B)
4. Masauwẽte/i- (PN) (Lyc. B)

This lexeme is found in both Lycian B inscriptions.

[D.S.]

For TL 55.5, Schürr 2005a:127, 143 reads masaw:z instead and emends to masai^!{:}z. However, the lower part of the letter, where the horizontal stroke is expected is damaged, which does not exclude a reading with ị (thus following older autographies like Schmidt 1868b:Pl. IV).

[D.S.]

The word is attested twice, in a bilingual votive inscription of Apollonios and in the so-called Longer Strategos Votive Inscription, both from Side and of unknown date (the former one was reused [Nollé 2001a:633], on the latter see the discussion s.v. śa).

[Zs.S.]

Genitival adjective:

The attestations follow Pérez Orozco 2007a:136 checked against the photos of Bossert 1950b:Lev. II (squeeze only) and Bean 1965a:Fig. 1 (S2) as well as Darga 1967a:Resim 8 (= Neumann 1968a:Tafel I = Brixhe 1969a:Planche II), and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:426 Fig. 21.5 (S3).

Masarasẹ was originally read as ‹masaras› only, although already Ševoroškin 1975a:163 reconstructed masarasẹ based on the parallel structures of “jewase abase … jewase masarasẹ” of S3. Nollé 2001a:635 claimed that there was an additional letter, which he read as ‹e› because “dieses ist auf meinem Abklatsch in seinem unteren Teil deutlich zu erkennen; die obere Hälfte ist in Umrissen auszumachen. Bei der Einmeißelung der Inschrift S4 wurde der rechte Teil dieses Buchstabens von dem Rahmen, mit dem dieser Text umzogen wurde, durchschnitten”. However, Zinko & Zinko 2019a:426 rightly pointed out that it is doubtful if the letter was crossed by the line of the framing since the putative letter stands out from the inscription formatted in a regular block-style. They also pointed out (cf. also 420 n. 3) that the traces are not clear, it could have been ‹e› or, since the sign was incised definitely less sharp than the other letters, “eine Verschränkung im Sinne von ‹X›” and the two inscriptions of the stone (S3 and S4) could have been connected by this sign (although they were commissioned by different people in different times). They referred also to the circumstance that the sign ‹s› is not attested yet in word-final position. Finally, they entertained the possibility that the letter was unintentionally omitted during the preparation of the inscription and only secondarily added.

Based on the published photos (cf. above) there are certainly traces of a sign, but they are indeed not characteristic enough for any identification. They are clearly outside of the block-style form and thus, the sign is either secondary or not even part of the inscription (I do not see any possibility for “Verschränkung” due to the lack of any connection between S3 and S4, as per above). However, in my view, the above quoted parallel structures argue for an original form masarasẹ and thus, one can assume with Zinko & Zinko that this is an attempt to correct a missing letter in the inscription.

The identification of masara as dat. pl. is generally agreed upon (Neumann 1961a:41, Neumann 1978b:880; Ševoroškin 1975a:163f.; Hajnal 1998a:92 n. 27; Pérez Orozco 2007a:135f.; Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420), since “masara tue[” probably corresponds to θεοῖς πᾶσι in the bilingual inscription. Although this is perfectly logical, due to our limited knowledge of Sidetic declension it is worth keeping in mind the idea of Bossert 1961a:116 that the Greek phrase (“to All Gods”, an actual cult name, cf. Nollé 2001a:634) could also have been expressed by a collective term in Sidetic and thus, in dative singular (also Eichner 1988b:46 n. 9 assumes dat. sg., albeit with question mark).

As for masarasẹ, for those who read it as ‹masaras›, it is either nom. pl. (Eichner 1993a:128) or acc. pl. (Hajnal 1998a:88, 91, 92f. and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420). Only Hajnal argued for this position and he recalled that the dat. pl. of this word is already known (as per above) and thus, the “Ausschlußverfahren” leads to acc. pl., which is of course not the case. Those who read it as masarasẹ defined it as gen. pl. (Ševoroškin 1975a:163f. and Pérez Orozco 2007a:133, 136, 138f.). Although the latter reading is clearly preferable, as per above, it does not define its grammatical category, since we know too little about the Sidetic declension and the Sidetic historic phonology and the meaning of the inscription is basically unclear. However, since we are probably dealing with a genitival adjective, its statistically most frequent forms are the genitives and since it cannot be a genitive singular, the most probable solution is the genitive plural.

The unexpected [r] is explained by Heubeck 1962b:376 as the trace of an earlier r/n-heteroclitic noun and by Pérez Orozco 2007a:136 with Μασαρις, a Carian epithet of Dionysus and Μασσαραβις, a Carian personal name. However, Carian forms can obviously not explain Sidetic forms, especially since a similar change is known from S6, in which the author is characterized by the term temenezaś in the Sidetic, but Τεμεριζευς in the Greek version. Thus, the most straightforward explanation is that earlier intervocalic *n underwent rhotacism in Sidetic (cf. in nuce already Neumann 1961a:42).

[Zs.S.]

There is general and justified agreement since the identification by Neumann 1961a:41, Neumann 1968a:86 (with refs. to earlier views) that the word means ‘god’ based on the above quoted phrase of the bilingual inscription (Bossert 1961a:116; Heubeck 1962b:376; Ševoroškin 1975a:163f.; Eichner 1993a:128; Hajnal 1998a:87f.; Nollé 2001a:634; Nikolaev 2017a:219f.; cf. Kronasser 1961b:103; Carruba 1965a:556 remained sceptical). Nevertheless, Schürr 2016b:149 with n. 2 is sceptical, because it is ‹ś› (‹z› in his transcription) that is the equivalent of Lycian A ‹h› in gen. sg. (from “*s”) and not ‹s› (Schürr doubts even the sibilant value of this sign). It must be noted, however, that the history of Sidetic sibilants is currently completely unclear (compare the very different descriptions of Hajnal 1998a:95, Hajnal 2003a:196–198, Pérez Orozco 2007a:133, and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420f.), and thus, it can currently hardly be used as an argument. More weight should be given to the synchronic, contextual arguments and they rather argue for a meaning ‘god’, as per above.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 1 October 2020

The stem mso is a hapax in a stele with a priest list (among others) from Hyllarima (its Carian heading is dated to 320 or 320/319, Adiego 2019b:20–22). The stem msn- is attested in tomb stelae from Memphis from between c. 660-590 (Kammerzell 1993a:169, 171). The alleged stem msñ- is attested in C.Si 2a, a bilingual decree of the satraps Idrieus and Ada (thus between 351/350 – 344/343).

[Zs.S.]

In onomastics:

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:352, 385 checked against the photographs in Laumonier 1934a:347 Fig. 26 (C.Hy), Robert 1950a:Pl. II (C.Si 2a), O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:Pl.IX and O. Masson 1978a:Pl.XXIII.2 (E.Me, on the reading see esp. Schürr 2001d:103, Schürr 2002a:166–168). The ending -τ was previously identified as genitive plural (Laumonier 1934a:350; Schürr 1992a:146; Hajnal 1995b:15 n. 9 [only as genitive]; Adiego 2002a:17, Adiego 2007a:319), but Melchert 2010f:185 argued for dative plural followed now also by Adiego 2019b:25f. Simon forthcoming, in contrast, argues for an ablative ending on semantic and formal grounds.

Msñ° is attested in ]sbañmsñsimδa, the second half of the line 5 in C.Si 2a, but the scholarly views widely diverge on the correct segmentation of this sequence and, accordingly, on the grammatical definition of msñ°: Adiego 2007a:352, 452 segments it as ] sb añmsñsi mδa (with sb ‘and’ [see s.v.] and mδa [see s.v.]) and translates añmsñsi as the ‘mother of the gods’, which is, however, not possible phonologically (Simon 2019e:290). Alternatively, van den Hout 1999a:33f., 38f. segmented it as ]sba=ñ msñsimδa (with a longer form of sb ‘and’ combined with an enclitic pronoun), but left msñsimδa without formal explanation. Setting aside the precise analysis of “]sba=ñ” (see s.v. †añ), this is a definitely possible segmentation (and supported by the spelling with ‹ñ›, see in general Simon 2019e), but the lack of understanding of the traditionally segmented “mδa” (see s.v.) does not allow a precise parsing and thus a grammatical definition of msñ° (possibilities include e.g. a nominative msñ or a genitival or appurtenance adjective in -s(i)-, Simon 2019e:291).

Msnordś is the genitive of either the personal name Μασανωραδος (Schürr 2001d:103f., Schürr 2002a:165–168, followed by Yakubovich 2010d:94; but see Adiego 2007a:385: “less probably”) or of an appurtenance adjective based on the toponym Μασανωραδα (Adiego 2007a:269f., Adiego 2010b:165 [cf. already Adiego 1990a:136 and Janda 1994a:174f.] with the “null-suffix” of appurtenance [Adiego 2007a:270], see also Hawkins 2013a:9, without arguments, cf. Zgusta 1984a:371 §782; Blümel 1998a:174). The inscriptions do not allow a decision, both solutions are perfectly fitting. In either case it is a compound consisting of *msn and *ord (see s.v.).

It is not possible to decide without further evidence if msn-/msñ- appears only petrified (e.g. in toponyms / personal names) or it is a part of the paradigm of mso. The identification of msñ°, if it is correct, may point to the latter case. Since the closely related Lycian A shows both stems within the same paradigm, the same is provisionally assumed here, too.

[Zs.S.]

The reason behind the change n > ñ is unknown, we are probably dealing with a sound change, see the detailed discussion in Simon 2019e (with criticism on the alternative solutions of Adiego 2007a:249f. and Schürr 2010c:202f.).

[Zs.S.]

Hajnal 1995b:14 and Adiego 2002a:17, Adiego 2007a:306f., 385, Adiego 2019b:18, Adiego, Debord & Varinlioğlu 2005a:618 (followed by Melchert 2010f:185) cautiously argued that mso means ‘god’ based on the Greek heading ἱερεῖες θεῶν πάντων ‘the priests of all gods’ of the priest names equating this with the last phrase of the Carian heading, qmoλš msoτ ylarmiτ and translated it as ‘the priests of the Hyllarimaean gods’. Furthermore, Hajnal connected this word with Lycian B masa- ‘god’, to which Adiego added Lycian A maha(na)- ‘dto’ and the Carian toponym / personal name msnord (which was connected with the Luwic word for ‘god’ already in Adiego 1990a:136, Adiego 1992a:36 [implicitly, followed by Schürr 2001d:103f., Schürr 2002a:168 and Yakubovich 2010d:94] and the Greek spelling of the toponym was connected with the Luwian cognate already by Neumann 1970a:56) implying that this word has two stems in Carian, too (there is a wide, although currently improvable agreement that also msñ° means ‘god’ [van den Hout 1999a:39; Adiego 2007a:352, Simon 2019e:290]). The hypothesis is contextually completely possible: mso appears in its only known context in congruence with ylarmi ‘Hyllarimaean’ and although the event to which the text refers and of which the local priests are subjects or objects (perhaps an appointment?) remains unknown, the text lists the local priests, thus we are dealing with a local sacral institution or concept. The formal match supports Adiego’s translation, although it shall be mentioned for the sake of completeness that the context allows other meanings, too, such as ‘temple’ or ‘sanctuary’.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 1 October 2020