*qtblem

Reconstructed from a personal name in a votive inscription of unknown provenance (but probably from Egypt rather than Caria, see Schürr 2010e:134 and Simon 2019e:289, Simon forthcoming contra Meier-Brügger 1994a:113; Adiego 2007a:160, Adiego 2010b:171, Adiego 2019a:32f.), its dating to the 6th c. is not assured (Gusmani 1978c:67, not “late 6th – 5th century BC”, contra Adiego 2019a:32).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.

qtblemś

C.xx 1

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:408 checked against the photograph in Gusmani 1978c:Tafel I. The name is attested also in Greek transmission as Κοτβελημος and Κυτβελημις (Adiego 2007a:408 with refs., for the sources see Zgusta 1964a:261 §771; Blümel 1992a:17f.; LGPN V.B:244, 252, for a further possibility see Schürr 2010c:195).

[Zs.S.]

Adiego apud Melchert 1993d:78 compared it (and was followed by Melchert) with Lycian B qetbeleime/i- (see s.v.), while Melchert pointed out that the sequence -em- may be connected with the Luwian (-aimma/i-) and Lycian (-eime/i-) participial suffixes (also Hajnal 1995b:151 compared both words). In fact, the Lycian B word was compared with the Greek transmission of the Carian name and both were identified as participles already by Shevoroshkin 1978a:252 (also by Neumann 2007a:301), although this went unnoticed (except in Valério 2015a:344). Valério 2015a:344 went one step further and proposed a derivation (for both words) from “*Hwitwalāim(a/i)- ‘vivified, animated’ (or sim.)”, a participle of a denominative verb “*Hwitwalāi-” (cf. Cuneiform Luwian ḫuitwal(i)- ‘alive, living’, see s.v.).

As for the formal side, the connection with the Lycian B word is undoubtedly correct and Valério 2015a:344 believes that it “is not difficult to harmonize [his proposed derivation] with current views on (…) Carian phonology”. Nevertheless, there are several points of concern.

1. The initial consonant. Valério only claims (Valério 2015a:344 n. 65) that Carian ‹q› is either a possible uvular stop (following Adiego 2007a:244), which does not explain anything, or that it is a labialized velar (following Kloekhorst 2008a:138), which seems more relevant, but this identification is not correct (see already Simon 2011b:539f., 542f. [not quoted by Valério], see also Simon 2017f:387). In fact, as was shown in Simon 2011b:544f., Simon 2017f:386f. ‹q› can indeed reflect *H^w, but through the steps *H^w > *Hu > *ku > *qu (reflected in this case in the Greek spellings Κυτβελημις and Κοτβελημος).
2. Due to the widespread syncope, the Carian form is not informative regarding the vowels in the first and second syllable. However, Valério did not address the problem that the Greek spellings show an [e] in the second syllable in place of *ó required by the assumed Lycian and Luwian cognates (see the reconstruction s.v. Cuneiform Luwian ḫuitwal(i)- ‘alive, living’). Currently there is no evidence for such a change in Carian. One could, however, argue that this [e] is a product of umlaut from *a triggered by the vowel of the i-mutation, which is a well-attested phenomenon in Carian (see e.g. Adiego 2007a:258f.). This explanation implies a change *ó > *a in Carian. This belongs to the less understood aspects of Carian historical phonology, but if the onomastic element para is indeed a cognate of Hittite parā ‘out (to), forth, toward’ (see e.g. Adiego 2007a:340 and s.v.) from PIE *pró and if the initial vowel of eri ‘companion’ <*ari-, a cognate of Hittite arā- ‘friend’ (see s.v.) indeed continues Proto-Anatolian *ó (see the discussion in EDHIL:198f.), this would be possible. Note that the [e] in the Carian form belongs to the Proto-Luwic deadjectival verbal suffix *-ī́- / *-éi- and continues *éi (on the Proto-Luwic form see Sasseville 2018b:208‒210): this can reflect either monophthongization or a simple syncope.
3. The real problem is presented by the cluster [tb]. The Carian change *Cw > Cb was identified already in Simon 2008b:460 (and later independently by Schürr 2019d:12), but the voiceless dental (i.e. [tb] instead of the expected *[db]) remains to be explained. Valério 2015a:344 suggests that Proto-Anatolian *dw became regularly tb in Carian (and in Lycian B). However, all of his cited examples from all Anatolian languages are restricted to initial position, where devoicing is due to the initial position of the stop. Valério’s evidence for internal position consists only from this word (Valério 2015a:342‒344) and thus, his etymology remains highly problematic.

As for the semantic side, one must rely upon the Lycian cognate and its etymology since the Carian word is only attested as a personal name. Unfortunately, the meaning of the Lycian word cannot be established beyond the fact that it denotes deities (see s.v.). Since divine epithets frequently become independent divine names, one can speculate that the Carian name does not reflect the underlying adjective but became a theophoric name. If Valério’s etymological proposal turns out to be correct, the semantic side needs some adjustment: considering that “vivified, animated” gods sounds unusual and that Anatolian participles function also as active forms, Sasseville’s translation of the Lycian term as ‘invigorating’ (Sasseville 2018b:48) sounds more plausible and accordingly, this applies also to the Carian word.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020