waxssa-

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.]

The word sequence wixsabalaba surely contains the word waxssa in spite of the different vocalism in the initial syllable, which is very likely a scribal mistake to be emended to wa^!xsabalaba. Gusmani 1968c:4 interprets wixsabalaba as a compounded personal name, which makes no sense in the sentence. Instead, it represents something that is given to the river-valleys: wixsabalaba : metm͂me xbade : lẽm͂=pe ‘The wixsabalaba having been given to the metm̃me river-valleys…’ Since the word lebi occurs two lines earlier, it is preferable to separate wixsaba laba into two words, in which laba would be the collective form of lebi. As to the first part emended here to wa^!xsaba, there are two options. First, it could be further separated into wa^!xsa and =ba, in which case =ba would stand for the particle =be colored by vowel harmony (thus Shevoroshkin apud Neumann 2007a:426). Second, one can assume an adjective wa^!xsabe/i- in the plural neuter agreeing with laba (thus tentatively DLL:134, Shevoroshkin 2012a:474). In the latter case, it would represent an adjective in -we/i- (with fricativization, i.e. -be/i-) derived from the noun waxssa-. Pending further evidence, the interpretation of this sequence will be left open (likewise Schürr 2016d:176).

[D.S.]

The word [..]kssa (TL 44c.37-38) is here restored and emended to [wa]x^!ssa. As Sasseville 2018a:312 points out, there are two lexemes from the poem that could be restored here, i.e. muxssa- or waxssa-. The letter 〈k〉 [ҫ] before 〈s〉 must be a spelling mistake for 〈x〉 [k], since only the sequence -xss- [ks], attested countless times, is phonetically possible, whereas the otherwise unattested sequence -kss- [-ҫs-] is phonotactically unlikely.

The attestation {waxssadi} in TL 44d.31 represents a case of diplography, because a part of the sentence was accidently carved twice.

The double -ss- in the consonant cluster is often graphically reduced to one -s-, which has no linguistic relevance; it is purely graphic.

[D.S.]

Gusmani 1968c:2-4 takes waxssa in one example as a noun in apposition to xeriga, the Lycian king and assigns the meaning ‘fighter’ or ‘hero’ (followed by Shevoroshkin 2012a:474 and Gehrisch 2018a:82f.) by adducing CLuw. wašḫa- c. as an etymological connection, which was translated at the time as ‘lord’. This translation is now outdated; see under lemma. Melchert (DLL:134) points out rightly that Lyc. B waxssa represents an inanimate object, especially considering its neuter gender, e.g. xuzruwãta (nom./acc. pl. n.) … waxssa ‘waxssa full of xuzr’. Another passage tells us clearly that waxssa is something that is offered to the gods in order to please them:

                tuwi=p(e)=ene : padrete : xeriga : waxsa (TL 44c.50)

                ‘Gergis padre-ed waxssa as an offering’

                me=d(e)=erẽple : xradi : waxsa : trujele (TL 44c.59)

                ‘He offers (as compensation) waxssa to the angry deities.’

Neumann 2007a:416 suggests an etymological connection with waḫešnaš wātar ‘slewing water’, which is not contextually supported. Sasseville 2021d adduces instead Hitt. ^NINDAwageššar, which designates a common type of bread, positing that Lyc. B waxssa is the common word for ‘bread’. This is contextually appropriate, since bread is something that is typically given to the gods in Hittite rituals and festivals in order to please them. For the historical details, see under Origin.

[D.S.]

The inflectional paradigm of the lexeme waxssa- is odd, since it does not fit into any regular paradigm (cf. Schürr 2018b:85). The nom./acc. pl. in -a agrees with an adjective in the neuter plural, e.g. xuzruwãta… waxssa (TL 44d.56). However, it cannot be treated as a regular neuter or collective, since its ablative-instrumental ending is -adi, instead of expected -edi. Moreover, it shows a dative (plural) in -i instead of the expected dative plural in -e. For this type of dative, one can compare Lyc. B lacra (nom./acc.) beside lacri (dat.). To assign a singular number to the form in -i would be contextually unsupported. Therefore, the nouns waxssa- and lacra- should be assumed to have irregular paradigms. Nevertheless, their gender is "neuter" and, semantically, they seem to be collectives.

[D.S.]

1. waxssepddime/i- (PN) (Schürr 2018a, Adiego 2021a, Sasseville 2021d:176 n. 7)

2. wexssere- (PN) (Schürr 2018a)

If the comparison of waxssa- with Hitt. ^NINDAwageššar is correct, the Lycian word must be considered a loanword from Hittite, because the suffix -eššar/n- (*-es-r̥/n-) represents a Hittite innovation. This loan process would have occurred already in the Bronze Age. For a parallel case explaining the phonological development involved, see Lyc. B muxssa- (under Origin).

[D.S.]