†=ms

van den Hout 1999a:36f. suggested that the phrase sb ak̑t[ms]˹k˺m (C.Ka 5, 9-10) / sb ak̑tmsk[m] (C.Ka 2, 5) represents in fact the particle chain 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 a particle =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, for which van den Hout cited Hitt. =šmaš, Cuneiform Luwian =mmaš, Lyd. =ms (see s.v.), is very improbable from a phonological point of view, since final *-s disappeared in Carian. In order to avoid this problem van den Hout compared it with the Hieroglyphic Luwian form =manz(a), but this can hardly be upheld: first, the Hieroglyphic Luwian form is secondary (cf. above) and has a convincing explanation as analogically renewed with the nominal dat. pl. ending (Melchert 1994a:270). Second, it is phonologically [-nt^s], which would probably have led to †=δ in Carian. Third, van den Hout’s argument for the Carian dat. pl. -s is based on a word (moruos ‘stele’) that does not exist, see s.v. Finally, 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.]