*iβrsi > *iβarsi / *iβrs / *βrsi

Reconstructed from personal names widely attested in Caria and Egypt from the mid-7^th c. BCE (from the tomb of Montuemhat in Thebes during the rule of Psammetichus I) until at least 320 or 320/319 (C.Hy 1, Adiego 2019b:20–22, on C.St 1 see Robert 1950a:16; E.Ab 3 and E.Bu 4 are of unknown date) as well as in Greek transmission as Ιμβρασ(σ)ις and Ιμβαρσις (Adiego 2007a:360, 366; for cognate toponyms and divine names see Adiego 2007a:335).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.	iβrsiś	E.Bu 4
	iβrsś	C.Ka 3
	iβarsiś	E.Ab 3
nom. sg.	βrsi	E.Th 26
		E.Th 48
		C.Hy 1
gen. sg.	βrsiś	C.Hy 1 (bis)
		C.St 1

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:360f., 366f., checked against the photographs, if available (C.Hy 1: Adiego, Debord & Varınlıoğlu 2005a:603 Fig. 1 and Laumonier 1934a:347 Fig. 26. [C.Hy 1]; Robert 1950a:Pl.VI, 1 [C.St 1, squeeze]; published photographs of C.Ka 3 [Roos 1972a:Pl.15, 2 and Frei & Marek 2000a:126] only show a part of the inscription; the lost E.Bu 4 is only known from drawings [see the discussion in Adiego 2007a:122 with ref.]; E.Ab 3 is not known from photograph, and no published drawing or photograph of these Thebes inscriptions exist). Adiego 2007a:360 explains the missing initial [i] in βrsi either with aphaeresis or with the lack of the notation of the vowel and remarks (Adiego 2007a:367) that the lack of the second ‹i› in iβrsś can be attributed not only to the “defective notation” of the vowels, but also (“perhaps”) to a different suffix (he mentions -s- < *-so- instead of -si- <*-siyo-), which would imply that we are dealing with a different word. However, an alternative suffix cannot currently be supported by other Carian material. Considering that Adiego 2019b demonstrated that the written form is to be taken literally at least in the Memphite corpus, we are probably not dealing here with “defective notation”, but with an ongoing aphaeresis and syncope of the vowels. The loss of ‹i› is independently attested in both positions: for the Anlaut see iduśoλ > dwśoλ and for the Inlaut dbikrm > dbkrm (Adiego 2007a:361f., 362, 368).

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 1995a:20, Adiego 2007a:335 (cf. also Adiego, Debord & Varınlıoğlu 2005a:611) identified the word underlying the personal name as an ethnic adjective in -si- built on a Carian cognate of Cuneiform Luwian im(ma)r(i)- ‘open country’ (followed by Hajnal 1998a:89f. and Melchert 2013c:35). Schürr 1996c:152, however, identified the stem with Imbros, the name of the citadel of Kaunos (cf. also Schürr 1991-1993a:168), i.e. with a toponym instead of an appellative. Nevertheless, with the exception of C.St 1, the interpretation of all forms as personal names are assured by the context (and this interpretation fits the exception, too) and it is more probable that the personal name was built on a generic term than on a specific toponym. On the identification and meaning of the underlying stem see the discussion s.v. *iβr.

[Zs.S.]