sδrual

Hapax in a Carian-Greek bilingual decree from Kaunos dated to the end of the 4^th c. BC (cf. Adiego 2007a:155 with refs.). It may be attested in a Carian fragment from Kaunos of unknown date (cf. Frei & Marek 2000a:97f. and Marek 2006a:123) as well.

[Zs.S.]

dat. sg.	sδrual	C.Ka 5, 2
	sδrụ?[al?]	C.Ka 4, 1

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:363, checked against the photograph in Frei & Marek 1997a:Tafel I‒II as well as O. Masson 1973b:Pl.I.2, II.1 and Frei & Marek 2000a:98. There is a general agreement that iβrsδrx̣[ of C.Ka 4, 1 is analogous to the phrase i[…]inisδrual of C.Ka 5, 2 (Hajnal 1997b:150, Schürr 2001d:109, Schürr 2006a:121, Adiego 2007a:367; cf. also Frei & Marek 2000a:113 and Marek 2006a:124), which would provide one more attestation for sδrual. This may be further supported by the circumstance that the letters rx̣[ might point to rụ[al], since the trace transcribed here as x̣ is compatible with an ‹u› (Schürr 2001d:109), among others (cf. also Frei & Marek 2000a:103, but omitted in the edition of Marek 2006a:123f.), although it seems to be placed slightly too far away to be the part of the same word.

The precise segmentation and grammatical category of sδrual is highly problematic (cf. Adiego 2007a:363). Due to the parallel Greek part of the inscription, the sequence i[…]inisδrual must correspond to ἐπὶ δημιοργοῦ Ἱπποσθένους and obviously includes the Carianization of the name of Hipposthenes.

Hajnal 1997b:150 and Melchert 1998c:37, Melchert 2002b:308 suggested (and Adiego 2007a:363 called it an “attractive” theory, cf. also Adiego 2010b:155f. “backed by attractive etymological connections”) to segment i[…]inis=δ rual ‘under/in the ___ship of Hipposthenes’ with a postposition δ comparing Lycian ẽti ‘under’ or ñte ‘in(to)’ (Melchert) and ñte, CLuw. ānta, Hittite anda ‘in(to) (Hajnal), see s.vv. and with i[…]inis as a dat.-loc. (Hajnal, alternatively, as nominative with [only graphically] preserved -s, which is fully ad hoc) or a genitive form (note there is no evidence for -s as a genitive ending, contra Melchert 2002b:308, and thus, it was retracted in Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27). However, Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27 rightly retracted this segmentation since “the supposed word order of noun + adposition + noun is totally unattested in Anatolian!”, in other words =δ should stand after the office rual and not after the name of the office holder (note also that Hajnal’s comparandum only included iβrsδrx̣[ [perhaps iβrsδrụ[al], C.Ka 4, 1] of supposedly identical structure [see s.v. *iβr with discussion] and, accordingly, not helpful, as well as alosδ k̑arnosδ [C.xx 2], which is fully unclear morphologically [see below]). Nevertheless, ignoring Melchert’s observation, Adiego 2020a:136f. still maintained that the original analysis of Hajnal and Melchert is the correct one.

As a new analysis, Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27 suggested i[…]ini sδrual, with a possessive adjective in -i- (<*-iyo-) from Hipposthenes, since its genitive should have been “†ipozinas” (recte i[…]inaś], considering that Greek eta appeared as ‹a› in Kaunos (cf. nik[ok]lan, lys[ikl]an, see already Frei & Marek 1997a:49 and Hajnal 1997b:143f., who already recognized that i[…]ini is not fitting, but claimed that “man wird auch das vorläufig einfach zur Kenntnis nehmen müssen” and “bleibt unklar”, resp.).

The following segmentations of the phrase i[…]inisδrual are in theory possible:

1. i[…]in isδrual: This implies that the name of Hipposthenes appeared Carianized in nominative without the stem vowel due to some Carian vowel apocope. This is theoretically possible, but since all the vowels were kept during the Carianization of these names (cf. above), this very improbable.
2. i[…]ini sδrual: In this case the final ‹i› requires an explanation. There is no such Carian case ending in singular and thus, it must be either sound substitution or a suffix. As Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27 pointed out (cf. above), it cannot be a sound substitution and the only known fitting suffix is the possessive adjective suffix -i- (<*-iyo-). In this case, both words can be nom. sg. or dat. sg. Both would mean ‘during the Hipposthenean __ship’ (in both cases with zero endings) and while nominative is not impossible in such a function, dative is obviously the more probable solution (the segmentation of Frei & Marek 1997a:30f., 43, Frei & Marek 1998a:12, Schürr 2001d:109, and Marek 2006a:120 is identical, but they did not disclose their morphological-syntactical analysis).
3. i[…]inis δrual: In this case, i[…]inis can only be the dat. sg. of the possessive adjective i[…]ini ‘Hipposthenean’ and also δrual must be dat. sg. This would show two different dative singular endings in the same phrase and would imply that the possessive adjectives (or at least the possessive adjectives in -i) had a different dative singular ending. This is not impossible, but the distribution of the Carian dative endings is not yet clarified and adjectives with this suffix have not been found as yet in dat. sg. (note, however, the case of prŋidas, which seems to be a possessive adjective in dative singular with zero ending [see s.v.] ‒ nevertheless, it has another suffix). Thus, while it cannot be excluded, it is less probable than the possibility No. 2.
4. i[…]inisδ rual: This possibility must be mentioned only because alosδ k̑arnosδ in C.xx 2 shows a parallel Auslaut, in which °sδ is probably a complex of derivational and inflectional morphemes (the phrase is attested also as alos k̑arnos in E.Me 45). Unfortunately, its morphology and meaning are fully unclear (see most recently Simon 2021b:56 n. 6 with detailed discussion and refs. and cf. s.vv.) and thus, it is not helpful. Moreover, since i[…]ini is already a possessive adjective, it is hard to imagine a plausible complex of morphemes.

All in all the most plausible analysis with Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27 is i[…]ini sδrual, lit. ‘during the Hipposthenean sδrualship’ (it is worth mentioning that the different way of expression can explain also the different word order in the only known dating with a personal name, (δa) kδuśo piĺipus ‘under the reign of Philippos’ in C.Hy 1, 1).

[Zs.S.]

Due to the parallel Greek passage (cf. under Form), there is no doubt regarding its meaning (Frei & Marek 1997a:30f., Frei & Marek 1998a:12; Hajnal 1997b:150; Melchert 1998c:37, Melchert 2002b:308, Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27; Schürr 2001d:109f.; Adiego 2007a:363).

[Zs.S.]

Two proposals have been suggested for the etymology of sδrual. Hajnal 1997b:150f. (who identified the word only as rual) saw a cognate of Lyc. A arawa- ‘freedom’ (see s.v.) and reconstructed */erowā-/ ‘freedom’ with a derivative in -al < “*-llo/ī-”. Although the connection with arawa- can safely be discarded due to the shape of the Carian word, it is not impossible that °al is somehow connected with Luwian -alla/i-, a typical suffix for professions, although this is phonologically problematic, since the regular Carian reflex is -oλ (Adiego 2007a:258).

Schürr 2001d:109f. compared sδrual with the Lycian A personal name hñtruma deriving it from hñti ‘(a preverb)’ and arus- ‘citizen(ry)’ (which would have given *sδru in Carian), see s.vv. However, he did not provide any explanation for the different morphology and for the semantic problems and thus, this cannot be proved currently, even though a common base of these words is formally possible.

[Zs.S.]