uiomλn

Attested at least in a Carian-Greek bilingual decree from Kaunos dated to the end of the 4^th c. BC and perhaps in another official inscription from Kaunos of unknown date (cf. Adiego 2007a:155 with refs. and 301, resp.).

[Zs.S.]

unknown	uiomλn	C.Ka 5, 1
	[ui?]omλŋ?	C.Ka 2, 1

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:426, checked against the photographs of Frei & Marek 1997a:Tafel I., III and Frei & Marek 2000a:86. The segmentation of uiomλn is assured due to the surrounding words (kbidn and i[…]ini], but we may be dealing with more than one word, as it has indeed been suggested, see under Meaning. The restoration [ui^?]omλŋ is generally accepted (Frei & Marek 1997a:30who, however, also count with the possibility [y]omλŋ; Hajnal 1997b:157 n. 28; Adiego 2010b:174f.), although there is no evidence for that, except the partial similarity of some phrases of C.Ka 2 and C.Ka 5 (the reading of its last letter is problematic according to Adiego 2007a:426). Adiego 2007a:426, 434 adds also “yomλn” of C.Ka 4, 2, “very likely to be a variant” (only “perhaps” in Adiego 2007a:434, see also Frei & Marek 1997a:29f. and Hajnal 1997b:157 n. 28), but its segmentation is ad hoc and the connection is not possible due to phonological reasons (there is no evidence for the palatalization u > y as a synchronic process in Carian).

[Zs.S.]

C.Ka 5 is a Carian – Greek bilingual text and since the Greek version starts with “ἔδοξε Καυν[ί]οις ‘it seemed good to the Kaunians’”, many scholars looked for a verbal construction in the corresponding Carian passage, “kbidn uiomλn” (while [ui^?]omλŋ^? may be helpful in the question discussed below, especially in view of its different Auslaut, it cannot be and was not taken into account by other researchers either, due to its unhelpful context, setting aside that its connection is questionable, see under Forms). This is entirely logical, nevertheless a nominal phrase (such as, e.g., “The decree of/by the Kaunians”) cannot a priori be excluded and, accordingly, this view also has (had) its supporter.

A verbal interpretation was first proposed by Frei & Marek 1997a:29–31 as a 3pl. pret. ‘to decide’ (sc. kbidn ‘the Kaunians’). The weaknesses of this idea are that the Auslaut of uiomλn is not fitting to any known 3pl. pret. Anatolian ending (the Carian form now seems to be -δa(ne), see Simon 2020d) and kbidn (if it can be an ethnic name at all due to its missing -y/ý-, see the discussion below) does not show the nom. pl. ending -š. Their solution was followed by Adiego 2002a:20 (more cautiously in Adiego 2007a:426: “probably” a finite verb, corresponding in some way to Greek ἔδοξε ‘it seemed good’, even more cautiously in Adiego 2010b:174, allowing both a verb and a substantive), Melchert apud Adiego 2007a:427 and Melchert 2010f:185 n. 38 (but with kbidn as acc. sg.: ‘They have pledged Kaunos [to appoint …], but see below), and Neumann 1998a:30. Neumann, however, saw the verb only in mλn (because it would be too long for a “simple” verbal form, which of course proves nothing) and compared it with Hittite malai- ‘to approve (of)’ (the comparison was followed by Adiego 2002a:20 and Melchert apud Adiego 2007a:427).

Separating uiomλn as uio mλn has other supporters, too: Hajnal 1997b:151–157 argued for this segmentation on the basis of the “verbal complexes” containing °mλn°, but most of these sequences (mlane, lane, mδane) have nothing to do with °mλn° (admitted by him, too), only […]ayomλn𐋆ri in C.Ka 4, 2in and šannemλne in C.Ia 3, but the meaning and the segmentation of both are simply unknown. He suggested two possibilities for the identification of “mλn” (he left uio without explanation, referring only to the possibility of a meaning ‘Beschluß, Entscheidung’, Hajnal 1997b:157 n. 29):

1. First, a 3pl. (pret.?) verb meaning ‘sagen, beschließen, o. ä.’ with a subject in nom. pl. (at that time the reading kbidn, which excludes this [cf. above], was not assured) or with kbidn in gen. pl. as an impersonal construction (“Beschluß von Kaunos: man erklärt(e)…”). He supported this interpretation with the Hittite verb māld- ‘to recite, to make a vow’ reconstructing *mold-onto for the Carian form, which is phonologically irregular (Carian λ does not continue *-ld-), admitted by him, too. Therefore, he alternatively connected it with Hittite malai- ‘to approve (of)’ (cf. above).
2. Second, a complex of particles/and or enclitic pronouns with a verb such as in mlane, lane, mδane, with an “Eingangspartikel” m-, with the “Stammerweiterung” -n- (cf. Hittite -anna/i-) and the 3sg. pres. ending -e. Although the last two interpretations could independently be supported, there is no “Eingangspartikel m-” (see s.v.) and thus, this analysis should be excluded.

Also Eichner apud Tremblay 1998a:117, 123 assumed uio mλn and translated the entire phrase as ‘il plaît/plaisant à la commonauté des Cauniens’, implying an ethnic adjective kbidn in gen. pl. (for its problem see above and below) and a 3sg./pl. pres. ending, but the details are unknown.

A completely different path was followed by Melchert 1998c:37 with n. 12, who cautiously argued for a nominal construction ‘decree of Kaunos’ (uiomλn as nom.-acc. sg. n. and kbidn as gen. pl. [sc. plurale tantum], cf. also Melchert 2002b:310 n. 12here, however, entertaining a meaning ‘in Kaunos’, which does not fit, retracted in Melchert 2010f:185 n. 38, see above). He also called attention to CLuw. wayamman- ‘cry, howl’, which could have been the cognate of the Carian stem suffixed -λ- (cf. CLuwian -alla/i-, for the semantics see the etymology of proclamation).

As mentioned at the beginning, both verbal and nominal constructions are possible. There is no evidence and no reason to segment uiomλn further and thus, while this obviously cannot be excluded, we have to work with this form. The form kbidn would have a key role in understanding the phrase, but it unfortunately allows multiple interpretations (cf. also s.v. *kbid-). Theoretically, it can be both the toponym and an ethnic adjective derived from it. In the case of an ethnic adjective, the disappearance of -y/ýn- of the attested form kbdynš (acc. pl. c.) should be explained. Although this could be done by referring to the frequent “disappearance” of Carian vowels, the rules of which still elude us, it would also imply a zero ending (for both implications see already Melchert 2002b:310 n. 12). This would be compatible only with the nom. sg., the dat. sg. (with attested zero ending) and with the dat. pl., which might have had a zero ending based on Proto-Anatolian *-os. All of these could be possible semantically (e.g., “The Kaunian (decree)”, “by the Kaunian decree”, “by the Kaunians”, etc.), but the ethnic adjective mday/ýn in nom. sg. shows that this -y/ý- did not disappear in nom. sg. In view of mday/ýn and kbdynš the only way to explain kbidn as an ethnic adjective is to claim that this -y/ý- disappeared only in the oblique cases. This is in theory possible, but not very probable since it implies a retraction of the accent (onto the remaining vowel), which is exactly contrary to what happens in oblique cases.

Thus, it is more probable that kbidn reflects the name of the city (with Melchert). Purely on formal grounds it could be a nom.-acc. sg. n. (based on Anatolian comparative evidence), or (with Melchert) an acc. sg. (attested), or (with Hajnal and Melchert) a gen. pl. on the basis of Proto-Anatolian *-om (as plurale tantum) The name of the city is not attested yet fully, but the compound personal name Kbdmu and the Aramaic nisbe KBYDŠY argue that the final -n is an ending (this may exclude the nom.-acc. sg. n. form, but the stem underlying Kbdmu and KBYDŠY may simply lack the final -n). It would be hard to find a fitting construction with an acc. sg. (Melchert’s above quoted proposal, “They have pledged Kaunos to appoint…” is a strange formulation for a city decree), but a subject in nom.-acc. sg. n. (e.g., “Kaunos has decided that…”) or a possessor in gen. pl. (e.g., “The decree of Kaunos is that …”) are perfectly possible.

Accordingly, uiomλn can be both a substantive and a verb. If it is a substantive, then it could be (with Melchert) a nom.-acc. sg. n., probably with the suffix -λ- (cf. Luwian -alla/i-), from an unknown stem (Melchert’s suggestion was in fact fitting both semantically and formally), but meaning ‘decree’ or similar. A verbal interpretation is more complicated lacking obvious parallels to the ending. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the closest relative of Carian, Lycian A, employed °ni at the end of the (attested) medio-passive present endings, for instance -ẽni in 3sg. A medio-passive ending does not necessarily imply passive semantics and thus, one can assume both ‘Kaunos [nom.-acc. sg. n.] decides that…’ and ‘It is decided by Kaunos [gen. pl.] that…’. No decision can be made without further evidence.

[Zs.S.]