ośad

Attested in the so-called Shorter and Longer Strategos Votive Inscriptions, both from Side, the latter is of unknown date (see the discussion s.v. śa) and the former is dated by Nollé 2001a:630 to the end of the 4th/beginning of the 3rd c. (see there for discussion).

[Zs.S.]

unknown	ośad	S3, 3
		S4, 3

The attestations follow Pérez Orozco 2007a:136 checked against the photographs of Darga 1967a:Res. 8 (= Neumann 1968a:Taf. I.2 = Brixhe 1969a:Planche II) and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:426 Fig. 21.5. Although both cases are attested in inscriptions written in scriptio continua, the segmentation of this word is generally accepted and seems assured: In S4 (²(...)iśtra³tag ośad woskiji ⁴anaϑemataś), it is preceded by the word iśtratag and followed by woskiji ⁴anaϑemataś, where anaϑemataś does not need any comment and woskiji is probably again one word (see s.vv.). In S3 (³pebijaseñnebarśakaśaakośadanaϑemataś), it is followed by anaϑemataś, and although the preceding sequence is unclear (see s.v. ak), its existence is probable also here because of the parallel context in S3 and S4 (cf. Neumann 1968a:91 and Nollé 2001a:639).

Pérez Orozco 2007a:135 identifies this form as ablative, but currently there is no evidence for this claim, see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

The transcription ‹ś› for the sign N14 has been introduced by Pérez Orozco 2003a:104 following the proposal of G. Neumann. This transcription was rejected by Zinko & Zinko 2019a:419–421 (cf. already Zinko 2016a:361) claiming that ‹ś› (transcribed by them as ‹s›) continues Proto-Anatolian / PIE *s and ‹s› (N15, transcribed by them as ‹s₂›) was an “Allophon (?!)” of it, without defining the circumstances. Since this is not a sufficient argumentation, the transcription of Pérez Orozco is maintained here, without any phonetic implication, which obviously requires further research.

[Zs.S.]

The proposed meanings diverge widely. Neumann 1968a:91 suggested a verb (without indicating a meaning), similarly Ševoroškin 1975a:164, who determined it as a 3rd sg. pret. with the meaning ‘verordnete, gab’ based on Lydian katoš- ‘Verordnung’ (see s.v.), and also Brixhe 1977a:169 cautiously entertained the idea of a 3rd sg. verbal form.

Eichner 1988b (cf. also Eichner 1993a:128) argued for a meaning ‘dort’ or a demonstrative pronoun ‘jenes’ (sc. anaϑemataś “als Weihgeschenk”), with an adverbial ending as the missing argument from the argument structure of the sentence (cf. below) and connected it to the Lydian demonstrative pronoun oš (see s.v.). The former meaning was evaluated by Nollé 2001a:639, cf. 646 as “sehr wahrscheinlich” and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420 present it as a fact, without any references (including Eichner) or arguments.

Also Pérez Orozco 2003a:106 identified it first as an adverb from *ośa ‘year’ as a cognate of Luwian ušš(i)- ‘year’ (see s.v.) with the meaning ‘cada año / al cabo de año’. However, he has later retracted this semantic and etymological analysis (although in somewhat confusing manner) since the Sidetic equivalent of Luwian -šš- is ‹s› (cf. masar and maššan(i)- ‘god’, see s.vv.) and proposed instead “*uša-nt” with the meaning “por los beneficios recibidos” on the basis of the Luwian words ušantalay(a)-, ušantali(ya)-, ušantaray(a)-, ušantari(ya)- ‘bringing gains, blessings’, etc. (Pérez Orozco 2007a:131, 133, 135f., 139; Lebrun 2012b:356 books it with the meaning ‘year’, one page later with the meaning ‘beneficios’).

In the case of S4 we are dealing with a short votive inscription, in which the subject is followed by three words only, viz. ośad, woskiji, and anaϑemataś. Thus, one can expect the typical components of a votive inscription, the object of the offering, the recipient of the offering, and, finally, an adverb or a verb. anaϑemataś is clearly the object, woskiji is probably the recipient (see s.v.), and thus, ośad could be an adverb or a verb (according to some scholars anaϑemataś contains a verb, too, but there are arguments against this view, see s.v.). The relevant clause of S3, śa ak ośad anaϑemataś ‘and ak ośad the votive offerings (acc. pl.)’ might be helpful at this juncture: Pérez Orozco 2003a:106, Pérez Orozco 2007a:132, 136 suggests that ak is the Sidetic cognate of Luw. aḫa, Lyc. aχa ‘I made’, which is formally and semantically fitting (see the discussion s.v.). If this is correct, then ośad cannot be a verb (contra Neumann and Ševoroškin), but rather an adverb.

Among the adverbial solutions, Eichner’s proposal (‘dort’ or ‘jenes’) is semantically problematic since one would expect a meaning ‘here’ or ‘this one’. Although his proposal could be accepted with this modification, it cannot be proved as long as there is no independent evidence for that, for which the clarification of the prehistory of ‹ś› is eminently required.

Pérez Orozco’s second proposal has phonological, morphological, and semantic problems. On the phonological side, the precise origins of Sidetic ‹ś› and ‹s› are unclear, and thus, the regularity of a derivation from *usa- remains uncertain. Moreover, *u seems to have been preserved in Sidetic, including the initial position, see ubat-, a cognate of Luwian upatit- ‘landgrant, donation’ (see s.vv.). On the entangled morphological and semantical side, the allegedly cognate Luwian words, ušandal(i)- and ušantari- mean ‘copious, fertile’ (see s.vv.) and it is unclear how a stem *usa- ‘beneficios recibidos’ could underlie these words. Assuming for the sake of the argument that also the stem *usa- simply meant ‘copious, fertile’ and that the ending -d could have served for adverbs, this would fit the inscription, but it does not solve the phonological problem.

All in all, none of the proposals are satisfying and thus, on contextual grounds ośad could be identified as an adverb at best.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 25 October 2020