unabãm̃me/i-

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

dat./loc. pl.

unabãm͂me

TL 44c.11 (Xanthos)

Kalinka 1901a:106 considers dividing the word in two, i.e. unabã m̃me, which is formally possible. However, most scholars treat it as a unitary word: Hajnal 1995a:145 takes it as a participle in -me/i- modifying esbẽte ‘horsemen, cavalry’ (followed by DLL:76, Schürr 2009c:100), although participles in -m̃me/i- (instead of regular -me/i-) to root verbs ending in -u- as per Sasseville 2021a:304f. do not apply to the present case. Meriggi 1937a:511 n. 3 compares the first part unabã to Lyc. A ãnabahẽ (TL 149.8), which is, however, more likely to represent a deity and not a group of people; cf. Sasseville 2018a:313. Schürr 2009c:100f. analyzes the un- in unabãm̃me as a separate word, comparing the personal name unuwẽme/i-, which he likewise divides into un- + uwẽme/i-. However, since the personal name is more likely to be related to Hitt. unu- ‘to decorate’, his analysis is not cogent. Furthermore, the possibility of a compound should not be left unmentioned, i.e. unabã ‘?’ + m̃me/i- ‘buildings’. In this case, it would be more likely to represent a substantive with esbẽte ‘(lit.) having horses’ as the adjectival attribute. For the sequence una-, see Christiansen 2020b:268 n. 46. The hypothesis that unabãm̃me represents a numeral as suggested by Gehrisch 2018a:78 is untenable.

[D.S.]

No meaning can be assigned as long as the morphology of the word (or of the two words) remains ill-understood; see under Graphic Features.

[D.S.]

As pointed out by Shevoroshkin (apud Neumann 2007a:403), the part unabã could represent a formation in -ba-, as known from Lycian B xñtaba-. However, the sound change -w- > -b- between vowels is restricted to Lycian B so far, which would make it a borrowed word.

[D.S.]