adymδš

Hapax in an inscription from Sinuri of unknown content and date (Deroy 1955a:316).

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. pl. c.?

adymδš

C.Si 1, 1

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:349, checked against the photograph in Robert 1950a:Pl.I. The segmentation of the word is assured by word dividers. Adiego 2000a:151 signals that it is not entirely sure that there is no missing letter at the beginning of the word (not any more mentioned in Adiego 2007a:138f., 349, 452), since the beginning of the line is broken (cf. already Deroy 1955a:316 and Hajnal 1995b:18 n. 15). This is correct; nevertheless, there is not too much space for one more letter if the beginning of the next line is projected upon this line.

It appears in the first position of the inscription and thus, it may be the subject of the sentence. This is supported by the circumstance that the ending -š is currently attested as the ending of the nom. and acc. pl. c. (Melchert 2010f:178, cf. already Adiego 2007a:349, but he assumes both sg. and pl. as a possibility in this case) and the next word (yrik̑ñ) seems to be an acc. sg.

Adiego 2007a:349, 363 called attention also to the sequence dymδa in the completely unclear sequence of šasqariodymδa in C.Hy 1. The similarity is remarkable, but currently there is no way to (dis)prove this connection since all sequences are unclear. Note also that Adiego 2019b:23 entertains now another possible segmentation, see s.v. δa.

[Zs.S.]

Since the content of the inscription is unclear (contra Hajnal’s translation [Hajnal 1995b:17f.], presented as a fact, although it is pure invention), there is no agreement regarding the translation of adymδš: Hajnal 1995b:17 and Adiego 2000a:152 (but cf. below) saw a personal name in it, Melchert apud Hajnal 1995b:18 n. 15 proposed a reflexive verb ‘he made for himself’, consisting of ad- ‘made’ (cf. Lyc. ade ‘dto’), -y- (an anaptyctic vowel), -mδ- (a particle), and -š (the reflexive particle). Adiego 2007a:349 books only the nominal and the verbal possibility and both with a question mark.

Melchert’s analysis can safely be excluded, since (1) there is no evidence for -y- as an anaptytic vowel in Carian; (2) there is no need for an anaptyctic vowel in this position in Carian (see e.g. the personal names idmns [E.Me 33], idmuonś [E.Me 18], kbdmuś [C.My 1], Adiego 2007a:367, 370 with analysis and s.v. *kbid-; cf. also Adiego 2019c that the Carian “vowelless” spelling should be taken seriously); and (3) there is no evidence for the particle †mδ (Simon 2020d and see s.v.).

As pointed out under Form, we seem to deal with the subject of the sentence on syntactic and morphological grounds. The presumable nom.-acc. pl. c. ending argues against Hajnal’s syntactically possible proposal of a personal name (contra Adiego 2000a:152). Instead, it implies a substantive or a substantivized adjective / participle. adymδ could be a compound, but considering that Carian -δ- regularly continues *-nt-, adymδš may rather continue an earlier participle of a verbal stem *adym- or an -nt-derivative of a nominal stem *adym-. Unfortunately, no further lexical connections could have been detected (it remains open whether the Lydian name element ady- attested in Adyattes has any connection with adymδš).

[Zs.S.]