kehixñta-

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./acc. coll. (?)

kehixñta

TL 44c.13 (Xanthos)

A locative singular or a dative/locative plural (thus van den Hout 1995c:159) cannot be entirely excluded.

[D.S.]

In the context, the kehixñta seem to stand in apposition to the donation of the military precinct to the Persians (more precisely to Ieramenes, for Tissaphernes and his army to use) by the Xanthians during the war (see Sasseville 2021a:379, Hyland 2021a:266 with n. 37; contra Schürr 2004b:188-191), which implies that it denotes some kind of understanding. Vis-à-vis its second member, i.e. Lyc. xñta, also compounded in tllaxñta- ‘payment standard’, one can moreover deduce that kehixñta- refers to a sort of “contract”. No meaning is suggested in DLL:32 and in Neumann 2007a:164Outdated Meriggi 1937a:512 with n. 1 “verbal form” (rejected by van den Hout 1995c:159)., whereas Schürr 2004b:188-191 wishes to see in kehixñta a functionary in the nom. sg., which is untenable since arñnas ‘Xanthos’ is the subject of the clause.

Concerning the first member of the compound, Korolev & Shevoroshkin 1969a:538 segment it from xñta and see an agreement with telẽzijehi, positing for kehi the gen. adj. of a (nowadays no longer assumed to exist) pronoun, which is unconvincing (thus contra Shevoroshkin 2000a:205, 207 “ghost word” reading (e)kehi xñta, although the preceding word does not end with a vowel, renderings the putative elision unmotivated). Pending an etymological approach for the first member kehi-, no meaning is assigned here.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head, see Lyc. *xñt-.