armon

Attested in an inscription (together with an Egyptian one) on a bronze Apis from Memphis after 568 (O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:41) and perhaps in an inscription of unknown date and content from Euromos.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.	armon E.Me 8a
Uncertain:
unknown	armon C.Eu 2, 3

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:355 checked against the photograph in O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:Pl.VIa and Robert 1950a:Pl. IV. Although this line of the Euromos inscription is written in scriptio continua without word dividers (armonqyrbmuδolo), the presence of armon is definitely a possibility (cf. Adiego 2020a:129, who, however, rightly calls to the alternative possibility of dealing with the acc. sg. form of armo ‘month’ [see s.v.], or even the Carian cognate of the theonym Arma or a personal name based on it).

[Zs.S.]

In E.Me 8a the term armon qualifies a person called Paraeym, and the object shows an Egyptian inscription, too. Although it is not identical to the Carian ones, it refers to the same person as “Prjm, the dragoman / Prjm p3 wḥm” (note that there is nothing irregular in the usage of the Egyptian term, see in Vittmann 2001a:50f. contra O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:45 and Schürr 1992a:152). Accordingly, the word was translated as ‘dragoman’ as early as Sayce 1893a:146, but this translation was later abandoned and substituted with ‘herald’, a much earlier meaning of the Egyptian word (O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:44f.; Ray 1982b:192; Schürr 1992a:152 [but cf. below]; Janda 1994a:180) or even translated as a designation of origin “(Mann) aus Arma” ignoring the Egyptian text and the known Carian appurtenance suffixes (Hajnal 1997a:214, without arguments). However, Vittmann 2001a:51f. argues that a meaning ‘interpreter’ better fits the contemporary usage (followed also by Adiego 2007a:355, Adiego 2010b:153; Schürr 2006b:1585, Schürr 2019d:1f., 7; and Herda 2013a:469). Adiego 2007a:355 claims that “it would be very unlikely” that the word has the same meaning in C.Eu 2, but since we absolutely do not understand the inscription, there is nothing for or against this interpretation: a more critical problem is that its segmentation is not even assured, see under Forms.

[Zs.S.]

Janda 1994a:181f. proposed to derive armon from *ar(V)ma-wann(i)- with a stem cognate to Hieroglyphic Luwian “ataman- /adaman/” ‘name’ with rhotacism of /d/, which might be attested in Carian (Herda 2013a:469 calls this etymology “suitable”). However, it has been recognized in the meanwhile that the correct reading of the Hieroglyphic Luwian word is álaman- (see s.v.) and Carian does not show the rhotacism of /l/ (also Adiego 2007a:355 pointed out that the “sound changes assumed are ad hoc” and also described the proposal later as “very fragile”, Adiego 2010b:153 n. 10), moreover, the Carian reflex of the suffix -wann(i)- is -yn/-ýn (cf. Adiego 2007a:257). Thus, this etymology cannot be upheld.

Alternatively, Janda 1994a:182 n. 17 entertained the possibility that the underlying stem is identical to the name of the Anatolian Moon-god, Arma, as a divinity connected to treaties (what he does not endorse on religious grounds followed by Herda 2013a:469), but it does not solve the morphological problem.

Finally, Schürr 1997a:207, Schürr 2006b:1585, Schürr 2019d:7 connected armon with Lydian armτa- ‘prophet vel sim.’ (see s.v.). This is a formally and semantically promising hypothesis, but the morphological and phonological details remain unclear, see also the discussion under Reconstruction.

[Zs.S.]