awaha- (awasa-)

This lexeme is found exclusively in grave inscriptions.

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	awaha	N 342a.2 (Tlos)
dat. sg.	awasi	TL 16.2 (Pinara)
nom. pl.	awạhãi	N 334.10-11 (Tlos)

The grammatical interpretation of certain forms is very much debated and depends on how the context is understood as well as how one analyzes the stem formation of awaha-. Thankfully, a new inscription N 342 published by Korkut & Tekoğlu 2019a:173 has yielded a nominative singular form awaha- as the subject of pibiti (3sg. pres. ind. act.) (see Sasseville 2021a:421; contra Christiansen 2019b:114 A 3^rd plural would be expected to be *pibijẽti.), which brings additional evidence that awaha- c. refers to a group of people (see under Meaning). This was already argued by Schürr 2008b:150, 163 (followed by Melchert 2015c:159 and Christiansen 2020a:192f.), taking awahãi in N 334 as nominative plural, and not genitive. Therefore, in analogy to min͂te/i-, which also refers to a group of people, awaha- can be used both in the singular and in the plural.

A different problem comes up in connection with the analysis of the form in -ai: Christiansen 2020a:186f. takes awahai in TL 17.3 as a dative singular comparing the similar passage in TL 16, although the ending -ai cannot be the dative of a stem in -a-. Schürr 2008b:157 suggests taking the forms in -ai as belonging to an adjectival derivation in -ai(je)-, derived from the noun awaha-. This would account for the form at least in a regular manner. A different idea would be to take these forms as denasalized nominatives or genitives in -ãi, although their superior number and the lack of independent evidence for this “denasalization” render this option unpersuasive. Therefore, Schürr’s hypothesis is adopted here; see under Derivatives.

[D.S.]

For a new collation of the inscriptions TL 16 and N 334, see Christiansen 2020a. The form with -s- instead of expected -h- in TL 16.2 is taken as a Lycian B dialectal form (thus with Melchert (DLL:7)), instead of an archaic Lycian A form (contra Meriggi 1928a:167). Schürr 2008b:149 read ṣawasi (i.e. s(e)=awasi) in TL 16.2, whereas Christiansen 2020a:185 takes this unexpected “s” before the first vowel of the word as a word divider. The reading by Schürr can be justified based on the squeeze published in Christiansen ibid. and is adopted here.

[D.S.]

The noun awaha- refers to a group of people who work for the Mindis within a necropolis and perform certain function concerning the burial of families in their tombs. (Schürr 2018b:157, Melchert 2015c:159 and Christiansen 2020a:192f.). In N 342, they are in charge of giving to the person performing the aladaha-action 5 ada-money (likewise N 334). In TL 16, they are coordinated with aladahali as one of two people who received a payment in ada, i.e. ‘for the aladahala-person and the awasa-group 2 and a half ada’ (contra Christiansen 2020a:185, who takes awasi in this case as an action noun ‘internment(?)’).

For a summary of outdated hypotheses, see Neumann 2007a:31. The meaning ‘to inter, bury’ tentatively assigned to awaha- is drawn from an etymological perspective, which is far from certain (see under Stem), and therefore, this assumption should not be accepted so quickly (pace Gehrisch 2018a:155).

[D.S.]

Schürr 2008b:157 compares the word formation of awaha- with the one of the personal names stemaha- and mam͂maha-. A more solid approach is offered by Sasseville 2018a:313, who established the existence of a Lycian A suffix -aha- c. equating to Lyc. B -asa- c., which creates agent nouns referring to individuals or divinities. Therefore, awaha- can be analyzed as a noun in -aha- derived from a nominal base *awa-, which might be related to the root of uwe-^(ti) ‘to (regard with) favor’ (cf. CLuw. awa-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to see’, uwi- ‘to be seen, observe’, Hitt. au(š)-/uw-^(ḫi) ‘to see’). Meriggi 1928a:167 und Hajnal 1995a:181 suggest a compound made of an otherwise unattested preverb *awa- and the verb ha- ‘to release’, which would be fine, except that this type of root formation does not create nouns denoting individuals, but rather concrete (or abstract) nouns, cf. n͂tata-. Unless one wishes to adopt a semantic shift from abstract → individual, preference is given here to the formation in -aha- c.

[D.S.]

1. awahai(je)-

For different etymological suggestions, see under Stem, although none of them can be proven based on the current state of research.

[D.S.]