sb

The word is attested both in the Egyptian and in the Carian sub-corpora, on votive objects (E.Me 8b [after 568, cf. O. Masson; Yoyotte 1956a:40f. with discussion] and E.xx 6 [of unknown date, cf. Shevoroshkin 1964b:58]), in a graffito from the tomb of Montuemhat in Thebes (E.Th 13, around the mid-7th c. BCE, during Psammetichus I), and in two decrees from Kaunos and Sinuri (C.Ka 5 [end of the 4th c., Adiego 2007a:155 with refs.] and C.Si 2a, of Idrieus and Ada, thus between 351/350 and 344/343) as well as in a stele of unknown date and meaning (perhaps a decree, see the discussion in Adiego 2007a:301) from Kaunos (C.Ka 2).

[Zs.S.]

indecl.

sb

C.Ka 2.7; C.Ka 5.4 , 7, 8; C.Si 2a.1; E.Me 8b; E.xx 6

Unclear cases:

indecl.	sb	C.Ka 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13; C.Ka 5.9, 10, 11, 15(bis); E.Th 13
indecl.	ṣb	C.Si 2a.5

Attestations following Adiego 2007a:411, checked against the published photos. Following the analysis of Schürr 2013c:25–29, the attestation in C.Kr 1 has been excluded, since it is rather part of a compound word (see s.v. sbmno-).

The reason for the unclear cases is that the meaning of these inscriptions is unknown and either they are written in scriptio continua (C.Ka 2; C.Ka 5; C.Si 2a) or sb appears proclitically (E.Th 13: sbaśbśτ), thus the segmentation cannot be assured:

In case of C.Ka 2.13 (]maTsban[), C.Ka 5.10 (kmtabsimssb[---]), and C.Ka 5.15 (tabsbort[-]sbTor), the segmentation is possible, but does not lead to a better understanding of the inscription. The sequence ]sbañmsñsimδa in C.Si 2a.5 was analysed by van den Hout 1999a:39 as sba=ñ msñsimδa (sba ‘and’ with =ñ ‘enclitic pronoun 3^rd sg. acc. c.’ and msn ‘god, deity’) and by Adiego 2007a:352 (“perhaps”) as sb añ msñsi (…) ‘and the mother of the gods’: while both solutions are formally possible, they cannot be verified. In C.Ka 2.4 (°sarnišsbu[) sarniš is clearly a separate word (see s.v. sarni-), but the segmentation <sb u[> cannot be verified. In C.Ka 2.7 (sarnišsb𐋆orsolšsbuTbit) the coordination of sarniš with 𐋆orsolš by sb is assured, but the segmentation <sb uTbit> cannot be verified. In C.Ka 2.3 ([-]k̑arλanoŋsbzšariosŋik̑[) the assumption of Adiego 2007a:435, 437 that [-]k̑arλanoŋ and zšariosŋ are coordinated by sb is plausible, but cannot be verified, similarly the segmentation ]abrunk̑ur[-]šynšTynn sb in C.Ka 2.11. In C.Ka 5.9 (olšotršsbak̑t[--]) the segmentation olš otrš sbak̑t[--] is beyond doubt (see s.v. otr), but it is not clear whether we deal with sbak̑t[--] or sb ak̑t[--] (both may be present in yτ2orusbak̑t[----] of C.Ka 5.11, where, however, the entire segmentation and meaning are unclear). The latter analysis could be supported if ak̑t[ indeed represents a separate word or a chain of enclitics (see the discussion s.v. ak̑tmsk[), but none of these suggestions can be verified. The same problem appears in otršbisbak̑tmsk[ of C.Ka 2.5, where the segmentation of otrš is clear and bi is probable (see s.vv.). van den Hout 1999a:37f. sees an enclitic chain in [-]rsbak̑mnnartnyrobsnmns[ (C.Ka 22) following sb, which, however, supports the segmentation of sb only if one follows his hypothesis on the enclitics (for a discussion see s.v. ak̑tmsk[), otherwise it is fully obscure.

Segmentation is assured in all other cases by the context.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning was established by Schürr apud Ray 1990b:129f. with the help of the Greek version of a Carian formula, thus its meaning is assured (cf. already Ray 1990a:77; see also Hajnal 1998a:84–86; Adiego 2007a:411).

Sb links constituents within a single clause (and in view of van den Hout 1999a:32f. perhaps clauses as well, since he interprets sbak̑t[--] of. C.Ka 59 as an enclitic chain attached to sb, for a discussion see s.v. ak̑tmsk[). If there is punctuation in the text, sb always appears proclitically, cf. E.Me 8b, E.xx 6 (Adiego 1995a:31, Adiego 2007a:411).

[Zs.S.]