†absims

Adiego 1998b:24f., Adiego 2007a:155, 348, 454, Adiego 2010b:155 segmented ak̑t[ms]kmtabsims in C.Ka 5, 9–10 as ak̑t[ms]kmt absims (also Hajnal 1997b:142) and tentatively suggested connecting absi° with Lycian ehbi <*ebesi ‘his’ (i.e. ‘his (“for ‘their’?”) descendants’, also Hajnal 1997b:165 [“ihre”, with question mark]), but admitted that this suggestion leaves °ms unexplained. This suggestion can surely be excluded, not only because of the unexplained °ms, but also due to the unfitting semantics (as also Adiego recognized, the context requires a plural form) and since there is no evidence that this is the correct segmentation and not ak̑t[ms]km tabsims, as discussed in detail s.v. ak̑t[ms]km (cf. also Adiego 1998b:25). Although tabsims appears in a Carian – Greek bilingual, currently no further formal or semantical analysis of this sequence is possible (Frei & Marek 1997a:42, Frei & Marek 1998a:13 believe it to be one of the privileges given to the dedicatees of the inscription): since the two versions are not entirely identical, there are multiple possibilities for its meaning (see the discussion s.v. ak̑t[ms]km). Unfortunately, the most probable solution implies that ἐκγόνους ‘descendants’ is the equivalent of ak̑t[ms]km tabsims, being probably identical with ak̑t[ms]km, which also means that tabsims adds a piece of information that is not present in the Greek version. The possessive pronoun ‘their’ would doubtless be fitting, but it is completely unclear how this could be formally reconciled with tabsims, if this is a single word at all, which is equally not proven.

[Zs.S.]