*zem-

Reconstructed from personal names attested in a Sidetic name list of unknown date (cf. Nollé 2001a:642–644, cf. Zinko 2016a).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.	Zem	S9, 2
	Ubat-zem	S9, 4
gen. sg.	Zemś	S9, 2
	Ubat-zemś	S9, 4
	[…]zemś	S9, 8

The attestations follow Pérez Orozco 2007a:137 checked against the photograph in Zinko 2016a:360 Abb. 1.

[Zs.S.]

The reading of the sign N26 as <z> was established by Pérez Orozco 2003a:107 on the basis of the equivalency of the temenezaś and Τεμεριζευς in the bilingual S6 (accepted also by Zinko 2016a:361 and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:422; but not by Schürr 2016b:149, without explanation). Its precise phonetic value requires further research.

[Zs.S.]

Melchert apud Pérez Orozco 2007a:129 and Melchert 2013c:47 (followed by Pérez Orozco 2007a:128 and Zinko 2016a:371) cautiously suggests that we are dealing with the Sidetic form of the Luwian participle azamma/i- ‘favoured’ (see s.v.). This implies, on the one hand, an Umlaut of the stem vowel due to the /i/ or a sound change a > e. It requires, on the other hand, the aphaeresis of the first vowel, for which, however, there is no evidence in native Sidetic duly emphasized by Melchert. Considering the extreme fragmentary transmission of Sidetic, these implied phonological requirements cannot be demonstrated or excluded, which is aptly illustrated by the a-aphaeresis, for which there is no clear evidence or counter-evidence: the aphaeretic Greek personal names θandor (S4, S9), θanpij (S1, S8, S9), polonij (S2), and pordor (S2) in the Sidetic inscriptions can also be explained as the Sidetic transcription of Pamphylian name forms (Θανάδωρυς, Πελόνιιυς, Πελάδωρυς, Pérez Orozco 2007a:126). Although, as it is visible, Pamphylian Greek shows a-aphaeresis and it is usually attributed to Sidetic (e.g. Brixhe 1976a:43–45, Brixhe 2018a:163; García Ramón 2000b:219), any connection with Sidetic requires first the demonstration of a-aphaeresis in Sidetic, which is still missing. The lack of Sidetic a-aphaeresis is also supported by the preserved vowel in the PN Artmon (S1, S5, S7, S9) and in the words aba- ‘dem. pron.’, a- ‘to do, to make’ and especially in the loanword anaθemataś (S3, S4). One can, however, dismiss this evidence pointing out that the meaning of the Sidetic words is unknown (s.vv.), the Greek word can be a recent loanword after the aphaeresis was no more active, and in case of Artmon the aphaeresis was blocked, since it would have resulted in a presumably illicit initial consonant cluster.

More helpful is the circumstance that the element *zem- is widely attested in 1st millennium names (Pérez Orozco 2007a:129, cf. already Pérez Orozco 2003a:107; “möglich” according to Zinko 2016a:370) across entire Anatolia in impeccable Luwic compound names: Ια-ζημις in Cappadocia, Caria, and perhaps in the Southern Phrygian-Pisidian border area (Zgusta 1964a:190 §448-3) and Μοα-ζημις in the Pisidian-Lycaonian border area (Zgusta 1964a:321 §940-6), implying that ζημι- must be a Luwic word. The a > e Umlaut due to the following /i/ is indeed attested in Carian (Adiego 2007a:259) and Pisidian (Simon 2017a:32, 38), but due to the lack of investigations it can be hardly decided whether the lack of this Umlaut in Cappadocian *ari- ‘companion vel sim.’ (Simon 2016-2017a:262f.) is relevant. However, a-aphaeresis is not attested in these languages. Nevertheless, the personal names in later transmission are ambiguous, since they can equally regularly be analysed as Ια-αζημις and Μοα-αζημις, i.e. without aphaeresis. Thus, there are two possibilities: a Luwic (Sidetic, “Pisidian”, “Carian”, “Cappadocian”) stem *zemi- without any connection to Luwian azamma/i- or a “Carian – Pisidian – Cappadocian” azemi- / Sidetic zem-, a direct cognate of Luwian azamma/i- (the quotation marks refer to the fact that their linguistic classification is not entirely assured, only inferred from the find spot of the inscription, thus not necessary reflecting the origin of the person). Two phonological remarks are in order at this juncture regarding possible counter-arguments of the latter derivation: First, the alphabetic equivalent of Luwian <z> is not the sigma, as previously held, but the zeta (Schürr 2017a:1–3; Simon 2019c). Second, azamma/i- seems to contain *k̑ etymologically (Rieken 1999a:459): while no data for Pisidian is available, its Sidetic reflex is <ś>, but all known examples are in initial position (Pérez Orozco 2007a:133), and thus, one cannot exclude that the internal reflex was different. The problem is identical in Carian, where its reflex is /s/, but only initial examples are known (Adiego 2007a:259).

To sum up, while there is no argument that would necessarily exclude the cognacy of Luwian azamma/i-, there are some problems that rather tip the scale in favour of a Luwic word *zemi- of unknown meaning and origin, which (thus) requires no additional phonological assumptions.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 25 October 2020