unδo[..]tλ

Attested in a Carian-Greek bilingual decree from Kaunos, dated to the end of the 4^th c. BC (Adiego 2007a:155 with refs.).

[Zs.S.]

acc. pl. c.

unδo[..]tλš

C.Ka 5, 7f.

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:428, checked against the photograph in Frei & Marek 1997a:Tafel I‒II. Its segmentation is assured due to the neighbouring words (sb and kbdynš).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement that it is the equivalent of word εὐεργέτας in the Greek version of C.Ka 5 since its identification by Frei & Marek 1997a:37f. (Adiego 2007a:428; Schürr 2009c:100; cf. Hajnal 1997b:158, 163. [sceptical, without arguments]). It was identified by them as a compound from un- ‘good’ (also by Schürr 2009c:100, without referring to them) and δo[..]tλ-, a nomen agentis in -tλ, the Carian equivalent of Hittite -(a)t(t)alla- ‘dto’, which is fitting both formally and semantically (their suggestion for the base verb, a connection with Luw. tūwa- ‘put, place’, is, however, phonologically irregular).

Nevertheless, Adiego 1998b:22 suggested segmenting it as “un δo[..]tλš”, i.e., δo[..]tλ as ‘benefactor’ and un as the infinitive of the verb ‘to do’: in his views, the bestowal of the new titles in C.Ka 5, 6f. is expressed by an infinitival phrase in both cases: sarni[š] mdoτ₂ un sb un δo[..]tλš kbdynš. Although this analysis cannot a priori be excluded, it is discussed s.v. mdoτ₂ un that a verbal form is not expected in this phrase and mdoτ₂ un is more probably a gen. pl., and this solution leaves the different word orders unexplained. Thus, the solution of Frei & Marek is preferred here.

[Zs.S.]