*mewaka

Reconstructed from a hapax personal name attested in the so-called Longer Strategos Votive Inscription of unknown date (see the discussion s.v. śa) from Side.

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.

Mewakaś

S3, 2

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:137, 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. On its assured segmentation see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

The reading of the fourth sign (N23) as ‹k› by Pérez Orozco 2003a:106 is not accepted by Schürr 2016b:150 n. 7 (“unklar”) and Rizza 2019a:546 (“speculative” and “uncertain”). See the discussion s.v. *kuar for the merits of the reading ‹k› and why it is followed here. In fact, *mewaka presents one more piece of evidence for the reading ‹k›, since it leads to a meaningful interpretation also in this case.

[Zs.S.]

“Mewaka” is attested in the phrase darkew diuneśijaś mewakaś iśtratag ‘D., (son) of D., of Mewaka, strategos’ (S3, 2) and thus, there is general and justified agreement that we are dealing with a papponym (Ševoroškin 1975a:163; Neumann 1984c:76; Eichner 1993a:127f.; Nollé 2001a:636; Pérez Orozco 2003a:107, Pérez Orozco 2007a:138f.; Schürr 2016b:150 n. 7). Setting aside an earlier interpretation based on an obsolete reading (Nollé 2001a:636), Pérez Orozco 2007:127 cautiously proposes that the word underlying this personal name is related to the Luwic word for ‘four’ and cites the Pamphylian name Μουακας (LGPN V.B:304) as a morphological parallel (cf. also Pérez Orozco 2003a:106). This proposal is formally and semantically fitting and thus, it is accepted here, too (nevertheless, the question whether its earlier form was indeed *Mawaka as Pérez Orozco assumed must be left open, since it can phonologically more easily be explained from Proto-Luwic *mewo-, on which see s.v. Proto-Anatolian *mi̯éu̯-/mi̯u-‘. Reconstruction).

[Zs.S.]