*tobVn₂re

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

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.

tobVn2remar

S9, 6

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:128, 137 (cf. Zinko 2016a:368), checked against the photograph in Zinko 2016a:360 Abb. 1. On the possible readings of the unknown vowel sign see under Graphic Features. Nollé 2001a:644 segments the name as tobVn₂re-mar (followed by Simon 2019g:387f.). Ignoring Nollé’s proposal, Pérez Orozco 2007a:128 (followed by Zinko 2016a:368 and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:429) segments it as tobVn₂-remar. The segmentation tobVn₂-remar leads, however, to a phonologically problematic word *remar without known parallels, unlike tobVn₂re-mar, which leads to a phonologically regular word *mar with well-attested parallels, see the discussions s.v. †rem(a)r and *m(a)r.

[Zs.S.]

In case of the hapax sign N22 already Nollé 2001a:644 pointed out that it can be a vowel sign (but Rizza 2019a:546 is not sure about it), which is supported by the identification of the neighbouring signs as consonants (on ‹b› see s.v. *tbi^?at, on ‹n₂› see below). Pérez Orozco 2007a:128, 142 suggests that it can be an ‹u› or a “badly drawn” ‹a›, but consistently transcribes the name as Tobañ-. While Zinko & Zinko 2016a:375 maintain the transcription ‹a/u›, Zinko 2016a:361, 368 transcribes it as ‹a₂›, since it may be a graphic variant of ‹a› (followed by Zinko & Zinko 2019a:422). The sign is not identical either to ‹a› or ‹o›, but it could be a graphic variant of any of them or even a different vowel (Simon 2019g:385 n. 5). Accordingly, here the neutral transcription ‹V› is used.

The phonetic value of the sign N25 is guaranteed by the alternative spelling with N16 ‹n› in the Sidetic coin legends (S10) siduawniś / siduawn₂iś (see s.v. *sidua), see Melchert apud Pérez Orozco 2003a:105 and Pérez Orozco 2007a:128 (his isolated transcription as tobadremar^? in Pérez Orozco 2007a:137 must be a misprint), but his tentative claim that ‹ñ› is a palatalized variant of ‹n› (Pérez Orozco 2007a:141) is excluded exactly by this alternation (Simon 2019g:385 n. 5). Accordingly, the neutral transcription ‹n₂› of Zinko 2016a:361f., 368 (also Zinko & Zinko 2019a:422 [although they transcribe this name as tokañremar in Zinko & Zinko 2019a:429], who previously did not transcribe the sign, Zinko & Zinko 2016a:375) is followed here.

[Zs.S.]

Pérez Orozco 2007a:128 reconstructs three different precursors for the word, *tobani- / tobuni- / tubani-, but admits that it has no known parallels (also Zinko 2016a:368). Contra his reconstructions there is currently no evidence for a palatal vowel following the *n, the second vowel is unknown (see under Graphic Features), and the change *u > o is more than dubious (see s.v. ośad). Since *tobVn₂re is attested in a Sidetic compound name, it must be Anatolian. If the segmentation *tobVn₂re is the correct one (cf. under Form), -re- can be the Sidetic cognate of either the Luwian appurtenance suffix -alla/i- or the Luwian adjective suffix -ara/i- (Simon 2019g:388 with discussion), but since the meaning of the base is unknown, nothing more can be said about tobVn₂re either.

[Zs.S.]