qoΩo

Hapax in a compound name from Krya, perhaps from the 4^th c. BC (Roos 1985a:51).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.

qoΩomu

C.Kr 1, 1

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:407, checked against the photographs of Deroy 1955a:Pl.II.2 and Schürr 2013c:24 Abb. 5. The phonetic value of the sign ‹Ω› is still unknown, see the completely different analyses of Adiego (Adiego 2002a, Adiego 2007a:252f.: ‹τ₂› [tš]) and Melchert (Melchert 1998c:34 with n. 2 and Melchert 2010f: 184 n. 32: [w]).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general and justified agreement on contextual grounds that QoΩomu is a personal name (Adiego 2007a:292; O. Henry 2007a:96; Duhoux 2008a:66; Schürr 2013c:26; Simon 2019b:3f.) and considering its structure, it is probably a compound name with mu- ‘might vel sim.’ (see s.v.) as its second member (Schürr 2013c:26 and Simon 2019b:4f.). Schürr 2004a:96 n. 9 cautiously suggested that qoΩo could be a cognate of Luwian ḫāw(i)-, Lycian A xawa- ‘sheep’ (see s.v.), but later (Schürr 2013c:21) he has explicitly withdrawn his proposal, without explanation. This is indeed not a fitting comparison, since the laryngeal would have yielded †k and not ‹q› in this position (see most recently Simon 2011b and Brosch 2016a, both with refs.), furthermore, the Carian word for ‘sheep’ is attested as κόον / κοῖον ‘all four-footed cattle, small cattle, sheep’ in Greek transmission (see s.v.) and probably in kojoλ ‘a profession, perhaps shepherd’ as a derivative (see s.v.).

From a semantic point of view, the options cannot be narrowed down since mu- can be combined with almost every class of words, including toponyms. On the formal side, initial ‹q› implies an earlier *Hu-/ku- (cf. Simon 2011b:544f., Simon 2017f:387), but the unidentified letter ‹Ω› prevents any identification.

[Zs.S.]