hexis(ñta)

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

nom. sg. c. (?), acc. pl. (or nom./acc. pl. n.)

hexis (or hexisñta)

TL 44b.34 (Xanthos)

The grammatical interpretation depends on whether it is a formation in -is- c. (Neumann 2007a:92) or a mutated stem in -e/i-, in which case it would be an acc. pl. (Meriggi 1978c:263).Outdated Bugge 1897a:53, Meriggi 1936b:265 “dat. pl.”. The former analysis has gained more popularity and receives support from the lack of a transitive verb within the passage. Nothing is suggested in DLL:23 or Gehrisch 2018a:69.

On the other hand, if the word is hexisñta, a completely different analysis is required (see under Graphic Features and Meaning).

[D.S.]

Outdated is the restoration in Schürr 2012a:116f., see Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:140. However, Schürr & Dönmez 2015a (ibid.) suggest instead that hexis, occurring at the end of the lineAccording to the autopsy by Schürr 2012a:115, there is no word divider after hexis., may not be complete and that the segment ñta at the beginning of the following line may actually belong to it, i.e. hexisñta[.].

[D.S.]

Bugge 1897a:53 compares trqqas hexis with the Greek phrase δώδεκα θεοῖς from the Greek epigram of the pillarBugge was misunderstood by Meriggi 1936b:265., whereas Torp 1901b:41 suggests comparing Greek Θεοὶ χθόνιοι ‘gods of the underworld’; both approaches are now considered outdated. Neumann 2007a:92 assumes that the epithet hexis- is either specifying or praising, which leads nowhere. Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:140 suggests an ethnicon in -is-, i.e. ‘the Storm-god of the (town) hexi- (vel sim.)’, which is possible but hardly provable.

If the segment ñta in the next line belongs to the same word as hexis-, an epithet of the Storm-god would no longer be tenable. Instead, we would have a nominal form hexisñta, which could be interpreted as a number in -sñta (cf. Lyc. A sñta) or as the participle of a verbal stem in -s-^(ti) (see Sasseville 2021a:452). Pending further evidence, it is left here open.

[D.S.]

The stem interpretation depends on too many philological factors most of which are yet to be fully understood; see above.

[D.S.]