ankβu

Attested in two inscriptions from Buhen (Egypt), presumably c. 591 (O. Masson 1978a:7).

[Zs.S.]

nom. / acc. pl. ?	ankβuš	E.Bu 1, 4-5
		E.Bu 2, 4-5

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:352, checked against the photographs in O. Masson 1978a:Pl.XXVII.1–2.

[Zs.S.]

Schürr 1996d:97f. cautiously translated ankβuš as ‘step-grandson’ since it appears in both inscriptions after a papponym, the segment °kβuš recalls the term κομβος, κομβιον ‘grandson’ known from Greek inscriptions in Caria (see s.v.), and an- can be compared with Lycian epñ ‘afterwards’ in forms such as epñ-nẽn(i)- ‘younger brother’ from nẽn(i)- ‘brother’. He explained the lack of -p- with the claim that intervocalic -p- (in this case <*ópem) disappears in Carian and the Auslaut °uš as a suffix comparing Lycian arus with -s <*-nt-s. Even more cautiously, Adiego 2007a:352 described ankβuš as “perhaps a title or kinship term (in nominative)” based on the context.

However, it is precisely this context that is fully unclear: setting aside the genealogical formulae consisting of three personal names in gen. sg. and preceding ankβuš, neither the words preceding the first names ([.]msal in E.Bu 1 and euml^?bnasal in E.Bu 2) nor the text following ankβuš in E.Bu 2 (τrel kδouś) can be translated (it is not followed by anything in E.Bu 1, on kδouś see s.v.). In other words, while it is not impossible that the word ‘grandson’ stands after the papponyms, there is no contextual ground for this assumption. Moreover, the ending -š is known until now only as nom. and acc. pl., which cannot be reconciled with a single subject. While it could be explained as a suffix (and thus a nom. sg.) as proposed by Schürr, there is currently no evidence for such a Carian suffix (the expected outcome of *-nt-s quoted by Schürr is -δ). Finally, the derivation of an- from *ópem via the disappearance of intervocalic -p- is highly problematic: there is no compelling evidence for this sound law in Carian, since all alleged cases can be explained differently (neither upe / ue nor para / parp need to be identical contra Schürr 1992a:141, Schürr 1993a, Schürr 2010c:190f., see s.vv.).

All in all, there is no contextual hint for the meaning of this word and Schürr’s analysis faces unsurmountable formal problems.

[Zs.S.]