*k̑t > *kt

Reconstructed from a personal name attested in Caria (in a bilingual decree of the satraps Idrieus and Ada and thus between 351/350 – 344/343), which is also known from Greek (Ἑκατόμνως and variants, 5^th/4^th c. BC ‒ 3^rd c. AD, cf. Zgusta 1964a:159f.; Blümel 1992a:13; LGPN V.B:131f.), Lycian (Katamla / Ekatamla, Adiego 1994b:254f.; DLL:93, 97; Neumann 2007a:54), and Aramaean transmission (KTMNW, Adiego 1994b:247). If *kt is indeed a variant (see the discussion under Forms), then it is attested also in Egypt (from the tomb of Montuemhat in Thebes around the mid-7^th c. [during the rule of Psammetichus I]) and probably in Greek (Ακταδημος, Ακταυασσις, Ακταυσσωλλος, Adiego 2007a:330, from the 5^th/4^th c., cf. Zgusta 1964a:52; Blümel 1992a:10; LGPN V.B:16) and Babylonian transmission (Aktatimasu, end of the 6^th c., Zadok 2005a:83 and Simon 2016e:277 with discussion; followed by Dees 2021a:58).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.

k̑tmñoś

C.Si 2, 1 (bis)

Probably with the same element:

nom. sg.	ktmno	E.Th 25
nom. sg.	ktmn	E.Th 37
gen. sg.	kboktś	E.Th 2

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:372, 375, 378, checked against the photographs in Robert 1950a:Pl.II, III. (no photographs of the Theban graffiti have been published). k̑tmño is the original, Carian version of the name of the famous Carian satrap, Hekatomnos (identified by Schürr 1992a:137). Although Neumann apud Schürr 1992a:137 n. 6, apud Adiego 1994b:248, Adiego 1994b:17, Adiego 2007a:54 assumed a Greek analysis (a hypochoristic form of *Ἑκατόμνηστος, an idea going back to Angermann 1893a:8 and followed by Simon 2008b:459f. [retracted here]), Adiego 1994b:253, Adiego 2007a:378 rightly pointed out that it is analysable also as a Carian compound name “kt-mno” with mno ‘son and/or servant’ (see s.v.). Since the identity of *k̑t with *kt is not without problems (see below), it is more decisive that Hekatomnos cannot regularly reflect k̑tmño (or ktmno, if the underlying form was a secondary ktmno, which is, however, not attested yet in Caria, cf. below), since Carian does not have [h] and the name probably had a consonant cluster [-kt-] (the substitution of ‹k̑› is not helpful due to its unclear synchronic value: Adiego 2007a:243f. and Kloekhorst 2008a:138 propose a palatal stop, for which, however, there is no evidence, see Simon 2008b:459f., who proposes instead [k^w]). The original Carian form without initial vowel is shown also by the Lycian and Aramaean transmission (see above). In other words, this is a Carian name that underwent a folk-etymological Hellenization (cf. already Adiego 1994b:252f., Adiego 2007a:243, either by the theonym Hekate as proposed by him or by the word ἑκατόν ‘hundred’, the latter would better explain the vocalism). Adiego 2007a:378 assumes that the element *k̑t is identical to *kt, which is well attested and may be identical to the name element *akta- in Greek (and Babylonian) transmission (Adiego 1994b:253 n. 10, Adiego 2007a:378). This implies that *k̑t became *kt losing its labial/palatal element in the consonant cluster, the existence of which is supported by *akta- (it is worth noting that this change is only attested in Egypt and thus, it may represent a local change, either as a sound law or as a sound substitution by Carians whose language was influenced by their native Egyptian). This is completely plausible phonetically and if ktmno is indeed the variant of k̑tmño (as treated by Adiego 1994b:251f., Adiego 2007a:375, 378) then there is direct evidence for this analysis ‒ however, the graffito ktmno has not yet been published in a scholarly way (and thus the questions, whether its first sign is indeed inverted [cf. Adiego 1994b:251, Adiego 2007a:102] and if so, whether it has any relevance, cannot be judged).

Furthermore, Adiego 1994b:251f., Adiego 2007a:104, 375 proposed that ktmn is perhaps an incomplete form of ktmno. This is possible, but due to the lack of a scholarly publication of this graffito, it cannot be judged. For the analysis of kbokt as a compound from kbo- (see s.v.) and kt- see Adiego 1994b:252, Adiego 2007a:372.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 1994b:253‒255 cautiously entertains that this is the name of the goddess Hekate (Neumann 2007a:54 daringly claims “zweifellos”) or perhaps another, local god. This idea can safely be discarded due to the different form.

Alternatively, Adiego 1998b:24 proposed connecting *akta- with ak̑t- known from *ak̑tmskm (?) ‘descendant ?’. This would be possible if *ak̑tmskm were a compound with *ak̑t- and if it had a fitting semantics. Unfortunately, nothing is known currently about the structure and origin of *ak̑tmskm and thus, this analysis remains only as a formally appealing possibility that cannot be proved at the moment.

[Zs.S.]