min͂te/i-

This lexeme is well attested in Lycian funerary inscriptions. It is also found in Greek Transmission, e.g. in a Greek inscription from Kyaneai as τῆς μίνδιος ‘of the Mindis’ (Petersen & Luschan 1889a:22,27), and from Telmessos as οἱ μενδῖται ‘the Mindis-people’ (TAM II 1, 40).

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	min͂ti	TL 4.4 (Telmessos)
		TL 36.3 (Xanthos)
		TL 42b.2 (Xanthos)
		TL 47.3 (Xanthos)
		TL 114.1 (Limyra)
		TL 115.1 (Limyra)
	ṃin͂ti	TL 2.3 (Telmessos)
		TL 3.4 (Telmessos)
	m[iñt]i	N 341.4-5 (Xanthos)
dat. sg.	min͂ti	TL 52.2 (Sidek-Yayla)
		TL 57.5 (Antiphellos)
		TL 58.2 (Antiphellos)
nom. pl.	min͂ti	TL 11.3 (Pinara)
		TL 39.7 (Xanthos)
		TL 50.1 (Xanthos)
		N 342b.3 (Tlos)
nom. sg. or pl. (?)	ṃị[n͂]ti	TL 46a+b.4 (Xanthos)
	m〈i〉n͂ti	TL 38.8 (Xanthos)
dat./loc. pl.	miñte	TL 149.14 (Rhodiapolis)
gen. adj. nom. sg. c.	min͂tehi	TL 106.1 (Limyra)
gen. adj. nom. pl. c.	min͂tehi	TL 58.5 (Antiphellos)
gen. adj. nom./acc. pl. n.	miñtaha	TL 75.5 (Tyberisos)
		TL 118.3 (Limyra)
		TL 139.4 (Limyra)
	miñt[ah]a	TL 135.3 (Limyra)
	min͂ta〈ha〉	TL 31.4 (Kadyanda)

For a new collation of the inscriptions involving the ada-formulas and the role of the Mindis, i.e. TL 2, TL 3, TL 4, TL 11, TL 31, TL 36, TL 38, TL 42, TL 46a+b (see Christiansen 2019b:78), TL 47, TL 50, TL 52, TL 57, TL 58, TL 75, TL 106, TL 114, TL 115, TL 118, TL 135, TL 139, TL 149, N 341, see Christiansen 2020a. For the restoration of tasa : min͂ta〈ha〉(TL 31.4), cf. the discussion Neumann 2007a:215 and Christiansen 2020a:190 and the other attestation ta[sa] : miñtaha (TL 75.5; Christiansen 2020a:232). The restoration of mị[ñti] in TL 149.13 suggested by Schürr 2008b:151 is not adequate, because the noun miñte follows within the same sentence.

[D.S.]

The meaning of min͂te/i- has been thoroughly debated in the literature and a summary can be found in Neumann 2007a:215f. and Christiansen 2020a:166f. In recent years, it has become the consensus that it refers to a collective human institution that supervised and guarded the necropoleis (Melchert 2015c:158) and that this institution was probably made up of servants of the local sanctuaries, i.e. a class of priest or even cult functionaries (Christiansen 2020a:167f., retracting her previous views). Certain phrases such as mãhãi miñtehi ‘the gods of the Mindis’, marazija miñtaha ‘the courts of the Mindis’ reveal that they were active in both religious and legal spheres. Furthermore, there is one owner of a Lycian tomb who is designated a θurtta miñtehi pddẽnehm͂mi (TL 106) ‘the θurtta of the Mindis, the administrator’, which implies that there may have been different roles occupied by different people within the institution of the Mindis (Christiansen 2020a:167).

[D.S.]

Hajnal 1995a:129 takes min͂ti as a derivative in -nt(i)- based on the Lycian abstract noun, which would match the base of Cuneiform Luwian māyašša/i- ‘of adulthood’, i.e. mi-n͂t(i)- ‘having adulthood’. Though plausible, one cannot exclude that it represents an original participial derivation in -nt(i)- derived from the verb *mije-^(ti) (= Hitt. māi-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) ‘to grow’). Moreover, Sasseville 2018a:316 shows that mutated consonantal stems take a genitival adjective in -ahe/i-, which would indicate that the base of min͂tehe/i- with its genitival adjective in -ehe/i- was thematic. Following this line of thinking, one would have to posit a thematic derivation of the nt-suffix, i.e. *min͂t(i)- ‘grown (man)’ → min͂t-e/i- c. ‘Mindis (institution)’.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head, see Lyc. A *mije-^(ti).