†δarš

Adiego 2007a:246, 262, 363 entertains the idea that δarš in δaršqemorms[ of C.St 2 is a personal name (and part of an onomastic formula) and then connects the personal names Ανδαρσως, Ανδροσσως, and Δερσως, comparing the former with CLuw. ānnara/i- ‘forceful, virile’ (see s.v.) and Hittite “innarā- ‘forceful, violent’”, recte inarā- ‘vigor’ (Adiego 2007a:333) and deriving it via *narasā- (allegedly attested in Ναρασος, see s.v.) > *n̥rasō- > *n̥drasō > *n̥dr̥sō (Adiego 2007a:262).

However, the sequence δaršqemorms[ is fully opaque and thus, its segmentation and the very existence of δarš are unknown. Accordingly, it is not surprising that Schürr 2001b:119 proposed a completely different segmentation and interpretation (δar šqem orm s[, with šqem as a participle). Assuming that δarš is the correct segmentation, there is no evidence that it is a personal name, since there is no evidence for an onomastic formula either, as any genitive singular is missing. Assuming that δarš is a personal name, it can indeed regularly be identified with Ανδαρσως, Ανδροσσως (but not with Δερσως, contra Adiego 2007a:246), but its derivation via *narasā- > *n̥rasō- > *n̥drasō and any connection with CLuw. ānnara/i- ‘forceful, virile’ and Hittite inarā- ‘vigor’ are phonologically ad hoc. All in all, there is no evidence for the existence, meaning, and etymology of this word.

[Zs.S.]