tija-

This lexeme is attested only in contexts of prohibitions and penalties in grave inscriptions.

[D.S.]

nom. pl.	tijãi	TL 89.4 (Myra), TL 90.3 (Myra)
acc. pl.	tijas	TL 26.10 (Tlos)
gen. pl.	tijãi	TL 39.5 (Xanthos)

The instance in TL 39.5 is here parsed as a genitive plural dependent on the accusative object kbijehis ‘two of the penalties’ = ‘a double penalty’, pace DLL:67, Schürr 2008b:166, Christiansen 2020a:197f..

[D.S.]

The meaning is suggested by Melchert (DLL:67), who convincingly takes it as a derivative in -a- c., thus an action noun, of the verb *ti- ‘to cause to be paid’. Christiansen 2020a:197f. takes it as an agent noun (likewise Schürr 2008b:166) meaning ‘payer’. However, it does not make sense in TL 89.4 that the payers should be the ones persuing the offender. Moreover, this is not supported from a morphological and semantic point of view, since a deverbal derivation in -a- c. (< *-eh₂) produces an action noun and not an agent noun. There is simply no parallel for a deverbal agent noun in *-eh₂ as a simplex, while denominal examples are numerous; cf. Melchert 2014e:259-263. Melchert (DLL:67) rightly points out that tija- ‘penalty’ is simply personified as an agent in the curse formula of TL 89.4, i.e. ´The penalties will chase him.´ For an overview of the outdated literature see Neumann 2007a:362f.

[D.S.]

1. tijala-

This lexeme is attested on the Xanthos stele, which was inscribed shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE.

[D.S.]

acc. sg.	tiu	TL 44d.18 (Xanthos)
dat. sg.	ti	TL 44d.7 (Xanthos)
dat. pl.	tije	TL 44d.65 (Xanthos)

Ševoroškin (apud Neumann 2007a:302) interprets convincingly the sequence qi[d]rasdditiu (TL 44d.18) as qi[d]rasa^!di tiu; cf. Shevoroshkin 2002a:219. Here, we restore the glide between the vowels, which is sometimes omitted. For a less convincing word division see Hajnal 1995a:158 n. 166.

We separate masxxm̃tije in masxxm̃ and tije (thus with, among others, Neumann 2007a:363 with further literature, contra Hajnal 1995a:214 n. 265, DLL:120). The sequence -m̃t- within a Lycian word is not possible; it should be assimilated as -ñt-.

[D.S.]

The assignment of all forms cited in the table into a united lexeme is new and should be considered tentative. All of them are found within the same context. This analysis is based on the assumption that Lycian A tija- c. ‘penalty’ has been borrowed into Lycian B (see under origin below). The semantics are adequate for the Lycian B context, which speaks of war amendments. This is also supported by the passage in TL 44d.11-14, which mentions that the wrath of all the gods. Afterwards various rituals and sacrifices are performed. Therefore, we tentatively assign the meaning ´penalty´ for Lycian B tija- c.The semantic assignment of Shevoroshkin 2002a:219 ‘spoils’ cannot be supported independently.

[D.S.]

The Lycian substantive tija- c. ´penalty´ can be analyzed as an action noun in -a- c. (< *-eh₂) derived from the verb verb *ti- (< *k^u̯ei-).

[D.S.]

Since a Proto-Lycian *k^u̯- develops to Lycian B k-, the lexeme tija- ‘penalty’ cannot have originated in the Lycian B dialect, for which *kija- would be expected. Therefore, we assume a loanword from Lycian A tija- c. ‘penalty’. For other loanwords of Lycian A into Lycian B see sm̃mẽt(i)-, uwedre/i-.

[D.S.]

For the base of the derivation see PAnat. *ku̯ei̯-.