(sñ)aidλo

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

[Zs.S.]

dat. sg.?

(sñ)aidλo

C.Si 1, 3

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:413, checked against the photograph in Robert 1950a:Pl.I. sñaidλo is definitely a phonological unit, since it is separated from the preceding word by word dividers and it represents the last word of the inscription. It must be, however, remain open whether it should be further segmented. A phonological unit can include different lexemes in Carian, for instance a preceding demonstrative pronoun (Simon forthcoming). In fact, ‹ñ› may point to the end of the word (Simon 2019e) and ‹sñ› could be a Carian demonstrative pronoun (see s.v., cf. already Adiego 2000a:152 and Simon 2019e:292). This could be further supported by the fact that all the preceding words of the line (which follows an empty space and thus, it is a separate unit) consists of presumable accusatives: yrik̑ñ bin=q and °aidλo is formally a dative (see under Meaning) and thus, a meaningful structure could be reconstructed: ‘yrik̑_[acc.] and this bi_[acc.] for a.’ (on ‹binq› see s.v.). Note, however, that yrik̑ seems to be a personal name (Adiego 2007a:434) and ‹sñ› rather looks like a nominative (see the discussion s.v., ‹sñ› as acc. sg. would imply a simplified spelling instead of ‹snn› or an archaic form), although the above reconstruction works with nominatives, too (but the context of the other attestation of yrik̑ñ, in C.Si 1, 1, argues for an accusative). Accordingly, this reconstruction remains hypothetical. On the case of sñaidλo see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 2000a:152, Adiego 2007a:309, 413 tentatively interprets sñaidλo as a verb, consisting of a pronoun or “introducing particles”, the verb “aid-” ‘they made’, and clitics, having an “exact correspondence” in Lycian se͂ñnaite͂ (and supported by the verb ñmaiλo). There are several problems with this explanation.

The comparison with ñmaiλo faces the problem of an additional ‹d›, which was explained by Adiego 2000a:152 as a redundant spelling of the lateral dental, which is, however, ad hoc and has no parallels in Carian. Moreover, the segmentation and the verbal interpretation of ñmaiλo are probably wrong (see s.v.). Thus, this comparison should be abandoned.

As for the comparison with se͂ñnaite͂, the Lycian verb does not represent an “exact correspondence” due to the ‹λ› in the Carian form. This was taken as part of the verbal stem in Adiego 2000a:152 (“sñ-aidλ-o”), which is not comprehensible, and it was taken as a clitic (together with =o) in Adiego 2007a:413, but such clitics are not known in Carian. Moreover, the form aid as a 3rd plural form is suspicious having no phonologically expected ending (*δ, see the discussion s.v. ai-). All in all, the explanation of sñaidλo from the verb ai- ‘to make’ is both phonologically and morphologically ad hoc.

Formally speaking, (sñ)aidλo recalls the dative singular forms ending in -o and especially psnλo, an -alla/i-derivative personal name in C.Ha 1 (see most recently Simon 2020d:404f. with discussion and refs.). Analogically, one can explain (sñ)aidλo as a dat. sg. of a (perhaps substantivized) -alla/i- adjectival derivative of a substantive (sñ)aid- of unknown meaning as the recipient of the inscription or of the act referred to in the inscription.

[Zs.S.]