†akymyδu

This alleged word is attested in the inscription akymyδuýeryly[vacat]d (C.xx 3) on a ram-headed bronze cultic object of unknown provenance. Schürr 2001b:119–121 suggested to segment it as akymyδu ýerylyd , with akymyδu as a 3rd pl. imperative from a verb related to Hitt. āk- / akk- ‘to die’ (and ýerylyd as an ablative-instrumental) referring to animal sacrifice which, in his view, was executed with this object identified by Schürr as hammer (since, however, it looks like the head of a cultic axe with a ram-head as its blade, it was hardly used as a real instrument, it must have been a Prunkobjekt). Although a segmentation at the suggested point is probable on phonological grounds (see also Adiego 2007a:350) and °δu would definitely fit the 3rd pl. imperative ending expected on Anatolian grounds (this ending is not attested or has not been recognized yet in Carian), Schürr did not explain the formal differences between āk- / akk- and the alleged stem akymy- and thus, this etymology should be abandoned (Adiego 2007a:350 calls Schürr’s proposal “very speculative” [and “unsatisfactory” in Adiego 2019a:31], without providing any argument).

Moreover, both Schürr 2001b:118f. and Adiego 2019a:31 observed that this inscription is surprisingly rich in vowels from a Carian point of view (Adiego 2007a:350 entertains the idea that the first <y> could be “secondary (epenthetic?)” as in the personal name ardybyr, but there is no evidence for this assumption in either cases). Inspired by this strange feature, Adiego 2007a:350 cautiously asks if we are dealing with “a sort of alphabet model”, with the names of the letters: “a-ky-my-δu, etc.”. This is definitely a possibility, even if the Carian order of the letters is unknown (but any deviation from the Greek model should not cause any problem considering the immense differences between the two alphabets).

Adiego 2019a:31 cautiously modified his idea on the alphabet and suggested to read the inscription in the opposite direction and pointed out that in this case the originally last six letters follow the order of the Greek alphabet with one exception (d-(y)-l-y-r-e) and the next letter, <ý>, could formally be interpreted as a modification of the preceding <e>. Adiego 2019a:31 n. 32 admitted that “the main problem” of this interpretation is that it does not explain the remaining part, uδymyka, but claims that it “would be tempting here to see not the letters but the names of the letters” (italics in original).

All in all, it is clear that whatever the meaning of the inscription is, the word akymyδu does not exist.

[Zs.S.]