*ak̑tmskm (?)

Attested in a Carian-Greek bilingual decree from Kaunos dated to the end of the 4^th c. BC and in another official inscription from Kaunos of unknown date (cf. Adiego 2007a:155 with refs. and 301, resp.)

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg./pl.	ak̑t[ms]˹k˺m	C.Ka 5, 9-10
	ak̑tmsk[m]	C.Ka 2, 5

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:350, checked against the photographs of Frei & Marek 1997a:Tafel I., III and Frei & Marek 2000a:86. Adiego convincingly argued that the formal closeness and the similar context of both words imply their identity (cf. already Frei & Marek 1997a:42, Frei & Marek 1998a:12; Adiego 1998b:23f., Adiego 2010b:175; accepted also by Hajnal 1997b:42 and van den Hout 1999a:36f.). While there is no doubt about the segmentation of the beginning of these forms (preceded by otrš bi sb (C.Ka 2) and otrš sb (C.Ka 5), see s.vv.), their Auslaut is unclear (admitted also by Adiego 2007a:350f.): undoubtedly more than one letter is missing after ak̑tmsk[ in C.Ka 2 (even if the reconstruction in Frei & Marek 2000a:113f., Marek 2006a:122 is grossly exaggerated) and, accordingly, it is not known how many letters of ak̑t[ms]kmtabsims should be restored in ak̑tmsk[, especially because the precise syntax and context are unclear, see under Meaning. Although Adiego 2007a:155, 350, 454 segmented ak̑t[ms]kmt absims (also Hajnal 1997b:142), he did not restore -t in ak̑tmsk[m], instead he booked it as ak̑tmsk[m…]δ (and claimed that we are perhaps dealing with two differently inflected forms of the same stem). However, prudence dictates not to connect ]δ (the segmentation of which is possible, as it is followed by a sequence bi, see s.v.) with this word due to the precisely unknown number of missing letters in ak̑tmsk[m…]δ and to the unknown context. The Auslaut -t would be possible if the segmentation ak̑t[ms]kmt absims were certain, but it is not (see s.v. †absims). Therefore, a minimalistic approach is followed here and only those letters have been included in the restoration that imply each other (similarly to Frei & Marek 1997a:42 and van den Hout 1999a:34 with n. 14, 36).

Finally, Adiego 2007a:351 pointed out that ak̑t[ in C.Ka 5, 11 could also belong here (Frei & Marek 1997a:42f., Frei & Marek 1998a:12 even restored it in this way, followed by van den Hout 1999a:36 with n. 24). This is possible, but it cannot be proved now (the “traces” after ‹t› do not seem to belong to any letter since they are above the letters’ line, cf. also Frei & Marek 1997a:16).

[Zs.S.]

The word appears in the following part of C.Ka 5:

[αὐτο]ὺς καὶ ἐκγόνους καὶ [ὑπάρχει]ν αὐτοῖς ε[

sb β₂o[…]olš otrš sb ak̑t[…]kmtabsims sb [

While *ak̑tmskm is obviously connected with the privileges given in this inscription (Frei & Marek 1997a:42, 52), its precise Greek equivalent remains problematic since the two texts are not completely identical. As discussed in detail in case of β₂o[…]ol (see s.v.), one possibility is that [αὐτο]ὺς καὶ ἐκγόνους ‘themselves and (their) descendants’ corresponds to sb β₂o[…]olš otrš and then καὶ [ὑπάρχει]ν αὐτοῖς ε[ should be equated with sb ak̑t[…]kmtabsims sb [. This is the solution of Frei & Marek 1998a:13, who identify *ak̑tmskm with [ὑπάρχει]ν (for the restoration see Frei & Marek 1997a:39f.) maintained in Frei & Marek 2000a:109, adding εἶναι as an alternative.

The other possibility is that β₂o[…]olš qualifies otrš but is not expressed in the Greek text and then *ak̑tmskm would correspond to ἐκγόνους ‘descendants’. This is the view of Hajnal 1997b:164 and Adiego 1998b:24, Adiego 2007a:300, 351, Adiego 2010b:156, 175 (following an idea of G. Neumann).

Although the meaning of β₂o[…]olš cannot be established (see s.v.), from the point of view of Carian syntax it is more probable that we are dealing with two units, each introduced by sb ‘and’ (β₂o[…]olš otrš [note also the agreement] and ak̑t[…]kmtabsims), which implies that (with Hajnal and Adiego) it is ak̑t[…]km(tabsims) that corresponds to ἐκγόνους ‘descendants’ (on the role of °tabsims see s.v. †absims).

Finally, it must be mentioned that van den Hout 1999a:36f. explained and segmented *ak̑tmskm completely differently: he interpreted it as sba=k̑=t=ms=km, with an alleged by-form of sb ‘and’, with =k̑ ‘and’ (see s.v.), with =t (see s.v.), with =ms, the dat. pl. of the 3rd person enclitic pronoun, and =km, without explanation (sic, see s.v.). However, this interpretation can be excluded: first, it does not make sense to assume a particle ‘and’ following a conjunction meaning ‘and’, unless this conjunction is already a meaningless sentence initial particle, but there is no evidence for this in case of sb (see s.v.). Second, there is no evidence for a by-form “sba” of sb (see s.v.). Third, a dat. pl. =ms enclitic pronoun is very improbable from a phonological point of view (see s.v.) (note also the interesting circumstance that until now no sentence initial particle chain could assuredly have been identified in Carian, see the critical discussion in Simon 2020d:400‒403 with refs.).

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 1998b:24, Adiego 2007a:300 made a “very speculative / puramente especulativa” etymological attempt, connecting ak̑t- with Hittite katta ‘downwards; with, alongside’ and mskm with Luwian *mašḫa- in mašḫāḫit- ‘growth, prosperity’ (the Carian form would have an -m- denominal suffix, which has Luwic parallels) as a compound (for the semantics see off-spring and Nach-kommenschaft). Setting aside the problems of the exact meaning of the Luwian word (see s.v.), this etymology is excluded by the -k̑-, since it continues *-k^w-, which does not lead to the initial consonant of katta (whether ak̑t- has anything to do with the Carian name element *akta- of unknown meaning [see s.v.] as proposed in Adiego 1998b:24 is a different question that requires further evidence). In other words, the etymology of this word is currently unknown.

[Zs.S.]