ew (?)

Hapax in the so-called Longer Strategos Votive Inscription of unknown date (see the discussion s.v. śa) from Side, if it exists, see the discussion under Form.

[Zs.S.]

acc. pl. c.?

ewś

S3, 2

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:138f. checked against the photographs in Darga 1967a:Res. 8 (= Neumann 1968a:Taf. I.2 = Brixhe 1969a:Planche II) and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:426 Fig. 21.5. There is general agreement regarding its segmentation from the completely opaque sequence ewśako³pebijaseñnebarśaka (Ševoroškin 1975a:163f.; Neumann 1978b:874; Eichner 1993a:127; Nollé 2001a:635f.; Pérez Orozco 2003a:107, Pérez Orozco 2007a:139; Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420) based on the assumptions that the following sequence °ak° certainly appears also in the second half of the line (śa ak ośad anaϑemataś) and that its final consonant °ś can be interpreted either as a nominal or as a verbal ending, see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

On the reading of the second sign (N6) of this word as ‹w› and not ‹j› as previously assumed proposed by Pérez Orozco 2003a:15f. (contra Schürr 2016b:150f.) see the discussion in Simon 2020e:201 n. 3. On the transcription of the third sign (N14) as ‹ś› see s.v. iśtratag.

[Zs.S.]

Implicitly referring to alleged cases of verbs ending in -ś (see the discussions s.vv. maljadaś and iśtratagejaś), Ševoroškin 1975a:163f., Eichner 1993a:128 and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420 saw a verb in ewś. Ševoroškin assumed a preterite form, but did not translate the verb (his cautious comparisons are based on a reading that became obsolete in the meanwhile), Eichner translated it as ‘hat … geehrt’, while Zinko & Zinko as ‘machte’. None of them presented any argument for these ad hoc translations (Eichner called his own “unverbindlicher Übersetzungsvorschlag”, what Nollé 2001a:635 described as “phantasievolle Übersetzung”) and thus, they cannot be accepted.

Pérez Orozco 2007a:139 saw an acc. pl. in this word (which is formally fitting) and assumed a substantive since he cautiously identified the following sequence ak as a verb (see s.v).

Morphologically speaking the identification as a substantive is slightly more certain than as a verb and a substantive yields a more logical syntactical structure in this context, and thus, it may be more probable than the interpretation as a verb. However, there is still no hint for its precise meaning.

[Zs.S.]