*ynem

Reconstructed from a hapax personal name from Memphis, c. 550-520 (Kammerzell 1993a:169, 171).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.

ynem-ordś

E.Me 29

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:434 (on the reading of the second half of the name as -ord instead of -ori of Adiego 2007a:57, 434, 444 see s.v.), checked against the photograph of O. Masson 1978a:Pl. XIII, 2.

[Zs.S.]

Based on the comparison with other Carian names with -ord as their second member, Schürr 2019d:4 suggested that ynem is a participle and cautiously (“vielleicht”) proposed to identify the underlying word as the cognate of Sanskrit van- ‘to love’, etc. Carian names with -ord attested until now show the word for ‘god’ (Msnord, see s.v. mso / *msn-, msñ-) and an unknown, fragmentary word ([…]wśordś, E.Me 10) as their first member. But since -ord is a continuation or at least a cognate of Luwic aradu- (see s.v.), names with aradu- as their second member should also be taken into account: they show a divine name (Tarḫunta/Tarḫunna) and a participle (Piyama-) as their first member (see s.v.). Accordingly, identifying ynem as a participle is fitting, even if our current knowledge on Carian participles is very limited: no Carian participle has assuredly been identified yet, but the suffix is the one expected in Luwic languages and the Carian word *qtblem may indeed be a participle (see s.v.) and then, a formally perfect parallel (a slightly different participle could be *arjom [see s.v.], but note that *kbiom/*kbjom is not a participle [see the discussion s.v.] and Νετερβιμος is problematic [see s.v. *pi-]).

The letter ‹y› implies palatalization from *u (Adiego 2007a:257) and the expected triggering palatal vowel in the following syllable indeed appears there (note, however, that according to Melchert 2021b, the change *u > ‹y› was unconditioned). A Carian verb *un- may reflect, however, different verbal stems. Schürr’s proposal (PIE *wenH- ‘liebgewinnen’) is definitely one of the possibilities, another one could be PIE *wen- ‘überwältigen, gewinnen’ (for both see LIV²:680f., 682f.). Since both may be attested in Carian (see s.vv. un and βάνδα) and the meaning of ord is unknown, it is hard to decide the issue, but Schürr’s proposal might be semantically better fitting.

[Zs.S.]