†znekarś

Eichner 1993a:127 and following him, Zinko & Zinko 2019a:421 (but without reference to Eichner) segment a word “znekarś” from the completely opaque sequence ewśako³pebijasexnebarśaka of the Sidetic inscription S3 (i.e., here °xnebarś°, on their reading see below). This segmentation was previously proposed by Neumann 1968a:92, Neumann 1978b:874 and Ševoroškin 1975a:162f., but both of them left the first letter without transliteration. The reason behind this segmentation was on the one hand that °ase° recalls an ending attested in other words (see s.vv. abas, bijase, jewas), which is still a valid argument and, on the other, that °aka° (more precisely, °akaś°) recalls the same sequence in line 2 of the same inscription, which is, however, interpreted today as part of the papponym mewakaś in gen. sg. (see s.v. *mewaka). Thus, unsurprisingly, Nollé 2001a:635 did not segment this word and Pérez Orozco 2007a:139 segmented it differently (see s.v. śaka).

Despite the uncertain segmentation some scholars went further: Ševoroškin 1975a:164 saw a substantive or adjective in it and Eichner 1993a:128 gave the meaning “kundtun” (similarly Zinko & Zinko 2019a:421 as ‘verkünden (?)’, who speculate about the nom. sg. of a participle based on alleged Lydian participles [this comparison goes back to Ševoroškin 1975a:164 n. 19, not mentioned by Zinko & Zinko], which is more than problematic, as they are nowadays rather translated as finite verbal forms, see esp. Gérard 2005a:103f.), what he, however, himself described as “unverbindlicher Übersetzungsvorschlag”.

However, not only the segmentation but also the reading of this alleged word is more than uncertain: Eichner 1993a:127 and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:421 read the first sign as ‹z› (N26); Pérez Orozco 2003a:107, Pérez Orozco 2007a:138 read it as ‹ñ› (N25), while Ševoroškin 1975a:162 and Nollé 2001a:635 did not give any transliteration. The reading ‹z› / N26 of Zinko & Zinko can safely be excluded, since it is a completely different sign. The reading ‹ñ› / N25 by Pérez Orozco stands definitely closer to this sign, but they are not identical, especially not regarding the uppermost stroke, which has a completely different angle. All in all, no reading of the first letter can be given here. Besides, the fourth letter is read today as ‹b›, see the discussion s.v. *tbi^?at, which is otherwise accepted by Zinko & Zinko 2019a:422, 429f., too.

Since neither the existence nor the reading of this word can safely be established, it must be regarded as a ghost-word until corroborating evidence emerges.

[Zs.S.]