β₂o[…]ol

Hapax 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.

β2o[…]olš

C.Ka 5.8-9

Attestation following Adiego 2007a:360 checked against the available photograph.

The exact number of the missing letters (probably one to three) is not known (Frei & Marek 1997a:9–11). The unity of β₂o[ at the end of the line 8 and olš at the beginning of line 9 follows from the context, see under Meaning.

Frei & Marek 1997a:38f., Frei & Marek 1998a:12f. cautiously (“vielleicht”) restore β₂o[rs]olš identifying it with 𐋆orsolš (see s.v.) based on the allegedly parallel phrase sarniš sb 𐋆orsolš (C.Ka 2.7), implicitly followed by Hajnal 1997b:164. However, as pointed out by Adiego 1998b:23, Adiego 2007a:360, this suggestion requires the identity of two formally quite different letters (𐋆 and β₂ [probably simply a graphic variant of β, Adiego 1998b:23, Adiego 2007a:213 n. 11]), which is rather improbable (and thus they are generally considered to be different graphemes).

[Zs.S.]

The word appears in the following part of the inscription (the unambiguously identified equivalent parts are underlined):

προξένους ε[ἶναι κ]αὶ εὐεργέτας Καυνίω[ν αὐτο]ὺς καὶ ἐκγόνους καὶ [ὑπάρχει]ν αὐτοῖς ε[

sarni[š] mdoτ₂un sb unδo[…]tλš kbdynš sb β₂o[…]olš otrš sb ak̑t[…]kmtabsims sb [ (…)

Considering the difference in the structure of the two versions after the clearly parallel part (Greek: acc. pl. + and + acc. pl. + and + clause vs. Carian: and + acc. pl. + acc. pl. + and + unidentified), there are altogether four theoretical solutions that are based on two basic possibilities depending on whether β₂o[…]olš does or does not have an equivalent in the Greek version:

1. If β₂o[…]olš does not have an equivalent in the Greek version it can be coordinated (a) with kbydnš; (b) with sarni[š] (…) unδo[…]tλš; and, finally, (c) with otrš, and the first two possibilities have already been proposed:

1a) Adiego 1998b:22f., Adiego 2007a:299f., 360 suggested that the phrase sb β₂o[…]olš belongs to the previous word, i.e. kbydnš, showing one more geographic name that was omitted in the Greek version, i.e. ‘of the Kaunians and of the β₂.-eans’. He connected “very tentatively” this geographical name with Imbros, the citadel near Kaunos. Set aside that the explanation from Imbros is phonologically not possible due to the lack of /r/, the main problem with this suggestion is that β₂o[…]olš does not show any of the known ethnic suffixes (-yn-/-ýn-, -s(i)-, -i-). Adiego 2007a:270 (cf. also Adiego 2010b:165) claims that there exists a subtype attested in msnord and ksolb (connected with the toponyms Μασανωραδα and Κασωλαβα) where no suffix can be recognized, perhaps due to the defective vowel notation (Janda 1994a:174 does not offer an explanation for the lack of suffix; for further refs. see Adiego 2007a:375, 385, add also Hawkins 2013a:9, who does not quote the alternative analysis as per below). Note, however, that none of the inscriptions involved necessarily require an ethnic name since, contra Adiego 2010b:165f., a papponym also perfectly fits all cases (and msnord was booked indeed as such by Schürr 2001d:103f., Schürr 2002a:165–168; originally followed by Yakubovich 2010d:94, who, however, treats it now as a toponym, Yakubovich 2013a:116):

E.Me 3: pikreś ue šarwljatś msnordś ‘the stele of Pikre, (son) of Šarwljat, (son) of Msnord’

E.Me 48: [--]j[-]ś [-]owtś k̑i : msnordś ‘of X, who (is) of Y, (son) of Msnord’

E.Me 43a: lýk̑siś | upe | šrquqś k̑i | ksolbś ‘the stele of Lýk̑si, who (is the son) of Šrquq, (son) of Ksolb’

In other words, there is no assured independent evidence for ethnic names without expressed suffix and thus the interpretation of β₂o[…]olš as an ethnic name remains problematic.

1b) Adiego 1998b:22f., Adiego 2007a:300 alternatively proposed that β₂o[…]olš is part of the threefold phrase sarni[š] (…) sb unδo[…]tλš (…) sb β₂o[--]olš” expressing Greek προξένους (…) καὶ εὐεργέτας. Since unδo[…]tλš most probably means εὐεργέτας (see s.v.), this is possible only if β₂o[…]olš provides a third element not expressed in the Greek formula (see for instance Adiego’s suggestion: “ciudadanos”). Similar is the suggestion of Hajnal 1997b:164 (“Ehrenbürger” vel sim.) based on προξένους. This is, however, exactly due the formulaic nature of the phrase, not probable.

1c) For the case that β₂o[…]olš qualifies otrš see under 2b).

2. If β₂o[…]olš does have an equivalent in the Greek text, there are two possibilities, depending on (a) if otrš is the last word in accusative plural or (b) there is one more word in accusative plural.

2a) Considering that after the assured parallelism of the two versions the Greek part consists of two units, [αὐτο]ὺς καὶ ἐκγόνους and καὶ [ὑπάρχει]ν αὐτοῖς ε[ and that plural accusatives appear only in the first Greek unit and in β₂o[…]olš otrš in the Carian version, the Carian correspondent of these two units seem to be sb β₂o[…]olš otrš and sb ak̑t[…]kmtabsims sb [ (…), respectively. In this case, β₂o[…]olš otrš is asyndetic, unlike the Greek version. If the Carian and the Greek versions are strictly parallel, then β₂o[…]ol means ‘self’ and otr means ‘descendant’, if the parallelism is not that strict, an inverse word order is also possible, then otr means ‘self’ (as generally assumed, see s.v.) and β₂o[…]ol means ‘descendant’. Frei & Marek 1997a:38f., Frei & Marek 1998a:12f. indeed already suggested that β₂o[…]ol means ‘descendant’, which was rejected by Adiego 1998b:21, Adiego 2007a:360 on the basis of the “clear correspondence” otrš = [αὐτο]ὺς, but as we can see, this correspondence, if exists, does not necessarily exclude the translation ‘descendant’.

2b) Considering that some letters are missing, one cannot be sure that otrš is the last accusative plural, it may be present also in ak̑t[(…)š(…)]. In this case ak̑t[(…)š(…)] is the equivalent of ἐκγόνους (thus meaning ‘descendant’) and otrš corresponds to [αὐτο]ὺς (as generally assumed, see s.v.). In this case β₂o[…]olš either qualifies otrš (not expressed in the Greek version) or belongs to some previous word (also not expressed in the Greek version), for which see the possibilities discussed under 1). ak̑t[…]kmtabsims is, however, normally restored as ak̑t[ms]k° (see s.v.) based on the similar phrase otrš bi sb ak̑tmsk[ in C.Ka 2.5, which, if correct, excludes this possibility.

All in all, the meaning of β₂o[…]ol cannot be established.

[Zs.S.]