wãnτa-

This lexeme is attested twice in a poetic inscription excavated at the cemetery of Sardis, which has been roughly dated to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

nom. pl.	wãnτas	LW 11.2 (Sardis)
dat. pl.	wãnτa(ν)	LW 11.11 (Sardis)

The analysis of wãnτas as nom. sg. is preferred in Melchert 1997a:43, but this is unlikely, since the two occurrences of wãnτa- are probably referentially identical and, therefore, should have the same number. For the nominative interpretation of wãnτas, pace Eichner 1993a:126, see Melchert 1997b:43 and the discussion below.

[I.Y]

For the disappearance of the final -ν before the clitic =k, see Gérard 2005a:77.

[I.Y]

The first attestation of wãnτa- occurs in juxtaposition with mru- and sfarwa-, both denoting burial installations. In its second attestation wãnτa- is likewise juxtaposed with mru- ‘stele’ (wãnτa=k=t … puk mruwaaλ). This fact, as well as the likely derivational relationship between wãnτa- and wãna- ‘grave’, plead for wãnτa- belonging to the semantic field of burial landscape. This broad interpretation is already implied in the analysis of Littmann 1916a:8, where wãnτa- is, however, erroneously analyzed as the orthographic variant of wãna-, and affirmed on the new level of understanding in Melchert 1997b:42f. The only clue that one can use in order to narrow it down is the use of wãnτa- in the plural, but this also may be an instance of pluralia tantum.

No merit accrues to the analysis of Gusmani 1964a:223, where this lexeme is treated as a chain of clitics, or the earlier suggestions quoted in Gusmani 1964a:223. I see no motivation behind the proposal of Schürr 1997a:206 to understand wãnτa- as a designation of a group of persons, for a better analysis cf. Schürr 2003b:118.

[I.Y]

Synchronically, this is an a-stem, which is derived from wãna- ‘grave’ with the help of the suffix -τa- (Gérard 2005a:88; cf. Sasseville 2017a:137 n. 13).

[I.Y]

For the derivational base see wãna-.