alo(s)

Attested in two inscriptions, a tomb-stela from Memphis c. 530-500 (Kammerzell 1993a:169, 171) and a votive inscription on a bronze vessel of unknown provenance and of unknown date (on both issues see the discussion s.v. no-).

[Zs.S.]

nom./dat. sg.	alos	E.Me 45
unknown	alosδ	C.xx 2

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:351, checked against the photographs of O. Masson 1978a:Pl.XXI.2 and Gusmani 1978c:Pl.III. The grammatical definition depends on the meaning of this word, which is currently fully unclear (see under Meaning): formally speaking, alos could be a dative of alo (see already Schürr 1992a:153) but also the nom. sg. of a genitival adjective alos (Janda 1994a:175).

[Zs.S.]

This word is only attested (until now) in the phrase alos(δ) k̑arnos(δ). The inscriptions are unfortunately not helpful, except that alo(s) looks like an adjective qualifying k̑arno(s). Setting aside Gusmani’s idea that we are dealing with a salutation or wish formula (Gusmani 1979f:222, Gusmani 1986b:62), which does not fit contextually, Adiego consistently assumed that the phrase means ‘Halicarnassus’ (Adiego 1990a:135f., Adiego 1994a:40, Adiego 2000a:154f., Adiego 2004a:309, Adiego 2007a:279, 284f., 351, Adiego 2010b:173, Adiego 2013a:21, Adiego 2019a:32, Adiego 2019b:43f., followed by Janda 1994a:175, 183f., cf. below), even if this leads to unsolved morphological problems, admitted by him, too (Adiego 2010b:173 n. 38, Adiego 2019b:44): His hypothesis assumes a Greek folk-etymology with ἁλι- ‘sea’, which would fit a coastal city (cf. already Janda 1994a:184), and alos k̑arnos as ‘Halicarnassus’ would even fit E.Me 45 as the indication of the origin of the person mentioned in the inscription (Janda 1994a:175, 183 and Adiego 2007a:279; morphologically speaking with the zero appurtenance suffix, Santini 2017a:119 with ref.). However, the phrase alosδ k̑arnosδ cannot be reconciled with a toponym due to the unexplained -δ and due to the lack of a both formal and semantically fitting Anatolian suffix (Simon 2008b:459, 462, Simon 2021b:56 n. 6; also Janda 1994a:183f. left the -δ unexplained).

Janda 1994a:184, who accepted the identification with Halicarnassus, was reminded by alo(s) to Carian ἄλα ‘horse’ (and k̑arno(s) would go back to a word meaning ‘eagle’). Thus, according to him, Halicarnassus would originally mean ‘(Stadt des) Adlerpferds’, for which he finds support in Halicarnassean coins showing Pegasus (Janda 1994a:185–188). However, first, coins showing Pegasus are extremely widespread in Caria and Lycia (see Janda’s own list, Janda 1994a:185 and see Santini’s methodological reservations, Santini 2017a:123); second, the meaning would rather be “Pferdeadler”; third, no explanation for the difference between ἄλα and alo(s) is given (Santini 2017a:121 n. 64 would derive [o] from *[ā] or *[á], which may be fitting, but it does not explain the preservation of the [a] in ἄλα), and, fourth, k̑arno(s) cannot be derived from the word for ‘eagle’ (see s.v.), and thus, this analysis must be excluded.

Alternatively, Janda 1994a:184 n. 19 himself called attention to Luwian ala- “‘sea’” and “harnisa-” ‘fortress’ (see, however, s.vv. on the precise meaning and form of these words) as possible underlying words, but claimed that this “hätte (…) mit größeren lautlichen Schwierigkeiten zu kämpfen und fände auch sonst keinen Anhalt”. However, setting aside the much debated the question of the meaning of Luwian āla/i- (also supposed to mean ‘high, deep [of sea]’ or ‘far’, see s.v.), the phonological problems of this solution are not bigger than in the previous case, but exactly the same and an underlying meaning ‘sea-fortress’ is obviously more apt for Halicarnassus than ‘horse-eagle’ (see already Santini 2017a:123f.).

Since, however, the formal problems of neither solution are solved, the connection with Halicarnassus is still not proven, and the context of the inscriptions are not helpful enough, no meaning can currently be assigned to alo(s).

[Zs.S.]