*urom > *u/wrm

Reconstructed from personal names attested in Egypt in inscriptions on reused stone blocks of unknown date from Buhen (O. Masson 1978a:50f.) and in a votive inscription of unknown provenance, dated to the first Persian rule of Egypt, i.e. last quarter of the 6^th c. – 5^th c. (O. Masson 1976a:83).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.	uromś	E.Bu 2
	urmś	E.Bu 1
	wrmś	E.xx 7

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:430 checked against the photographs in O. Masson 1978a:Pl.XXVII.1-2 (no photograph of this part of E.xx 7 is available). Although it is theoretically possible that *urom and *u/wrm are two different derivatives of the same root, their identity is formally equally possible and leads to a more economic explanation (see under Meaning). Also Schürr 2001c:62f. treated them originally as identical names (although he found the form u/wrmś “merkwürdig”, because he expected that the accent was on the ‹o›), later he retracted this view (Schürr 2010c:193 n. 12), exactly because the “Verkürzung” of “[uró:m]” into urm is improbable. Accordingly, he proposed that urmś represents a misspelling and wrm is a different name as “[wárVm]”. However, while ‹o› can indeed continue an accented vowel, first, it is currently unknown whether this applies to all ‹o› (for a possible counter-example see e.g. polo, s.v.) and, second, we are dealing here with a derivative (cf. under Meaning) and thus, the final position of the accent is unclear (as e.g. in the case of kojoλ, see s.v.) and an accent on the first syllable could easily explain the syncope. Unlike the separation of urom and u/wrm, Schürr’s separation of urm and wrm can safely be excluded, since ‹u› and ‹w› are completely interchangeable and, accordingly, ‹w› is not [wa] (Adiego 2007a:235, 237, 241f.).

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 2007a:338, 430 cautiously connects these names to the Luwian adjective ura- ‘great’ (see s.v.). This is a formally and semantically fitting solution, since ura- was a frequent element in Anatolian personal names. However, we are obviously dealing with a derivative of ura- and the possibilities are numerous (cf. Melchert 2003b:195): if we assume a substantivization of ura- (*‘the great one’), then both formally fitting denominal suffixes, the appurtenance suffix -ama/i- (hence *‘pertaining to the great one’) and the possessive adjective suffix -mma/i- (hence *‘having the great one’) can provide a solution, although the semantics of the latter solution is less fitting in my view. If we assume a verbal derivative of ura-, also two deverbal suffixes can provide a solution: -ma/i-, forming animate nouns from verbs and -mma/i-, the suffix of the participle. If *u/wrm is indeed a secondary form of *urom, then the underlying verbal derivative can only be the Carian equivalent of the Luwian verbal stem class in -a-^(ti), a factitive form (‘*to make great’, Sasseville 2021a:16–77) based on the current knowledge of Carian phonology. If, however, *u/wrm is independent from *urom, i.e. the syncopated vowel is different, other possibilities could also be taken into account (cf. globally Sasseville 2021a:128–205, 215–254). However, Occam’s razor argues for the most economical solution and thus, *urom and *u/wrm are treated here as a single lexeme. Accordingly, its meaning is either *‘pertaining to the great one’ or *‘the one who is making it great / who is made great’.

[Zs.S.]