pδak̑mśuñ

A hapax, attested in C.Si 2, a bilingual decree of the satraps Idrieus and Ada (thus between 351/350 – 344/343).

[Zs.S.]

acc. sg. c. ?

pδak̑mśuñ

C.Si 2, 2–3

The attestations follows Adiego 2007a:396 checked against the photographs of Robert 1950a:Pl.II, III. This segmentation is accepted by other scholars as well (Melchert 2010f:179; Schürr 2010c:202; and Simon 2016-2017a:261 with n. 5, Simon 2019e:287). Some words of caution are, however, in order: The beginning of the word is ascertained by a word-divider, but its end is defined only by the fact that it is followed by a sequence k̑i, which may be identical to the relative pronoun (Adiego 2000a:144f.; Melchert 2010f:179; Schürr 2010c:202; Simon 2019e:287). This is further supported by the letter ‹ñ›, which originally stood in word-final position (Simon 2019e). Since, however, the meaning of this passage is unknown (see also under Meaning), it remains hypothetical. Furthermore, it is unknown whether we are dealing with a single word or more words. Pδa and k̑mśuñ belong to different lines, which may point to the latter scenario (see Simon forthcoming for new lines as word-dividers). However, pδak̑mśuñ is preceded by pñmunśñ, which is generally supposed to be an adjectival form of the personal name Ponmoonnos (see s.v. Carian pun-/pn-/pñ- ‘all’), which would point to pδak̑mśuñ as a single word in agreement with pñmunśñ (Adiego 2000a:145). Further research is required to solve this problem.

As for the grammatical definition, Adiego 2000a:145, 147f., Adiego 2007a:304, 396 proposed with question mark that we are dealing here with an accusativus genitivi similarly to pñmunśñ. Nevertheless, as he also pointed out, the -u- remains in this case problematic and thus, he would not exclude other case forms such as gen. pl. However, if pñmunśñ is an accusativus genitivi from a personal name, then its head noun cannot be an accusativus genitivi, just a simple accusative.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 2000a:145f., 148 Adiego 2007a:304, 396 proposed a connection of the segment pδ(a)° with Lycian pddẽ ‘place’ (<*pédom). Since, however, ‹δ› goes back to *-nd-, Adiego is forced to assume that ‹δ› is used here in a value [d(:)], which is fully ad hoc. Thus, any connection with Lycian pddẽ ‘place’ can safely be discarded. He cautiously suggested some etymologies for the remaining segment as well (Adiego 2000a:146f.), but they are not fitting either: the connection of k̑m(ś)- with Lycian kumaza- ‘priest’ is phonologically not possible, as shown by the real Carian cognate qmoλ ‘priest’ identified by Adiego himself in the meanwhile (see s.v.). The connection of ak̑m(ś)- with ak̑tmskm ‘descendant?’ (see s.v.) cannot be maintained morphologically and also Adiego admitted that it is difficult to go beyond the case of a phonological coincidence.

While it is clear on contextual grounds that pδak̑mśuñ is the object of the deed, currently, nothing more can be said about its meaning.

[Zs.S.]