ẽ

This particle is attested in various types of inscriptions.

[D.S.]

indecl.	ẽ	TL 65.19 (Isinda)
		TL 65.21 (Isinda)
		TL 84.6 (Sura)
		TL 89.2 (Myra)
		TL 90.4 (Myra)
		TL 118.2 (Limyra)
		N 320.37 (Xanthos)

The particle ẽ is difficult to keep apart from the enclitic pronoun =ẽ, although only the former can be tonic (see TL 65.19, 21; TL 118.2 and Pedersen 1945a:65) and is not restricted to Wackernagel’s position (see TL 118.2), as opposed to the latter. For the co-occurrence of the two homonyms, see e.g. m(e)=ẽj=ẽ (TL 90.4, separated by a glide sound).

Already Torp 1901b:22-27, who properly argued for the existence of this particle (see under Meaning), tried to see it in cases where a word ends with ẽ (likewise Gusmani 1975e:65), although their examples can nowadays be safely interpreted as nom./acc. sg. n. nouns and need not be discussed any further here.

Regarding the attestation of the trilingual inscription N 320.37, Laroche 1979c:75 took ẽ in xttade : mej=ẽ as an enclitic pronoun referring to the stele, which is untenable (followed by Adiego 2015a:10-12); for a criticism, see Melchert 1992b:49 n. 18. Moreover, the harm to be avoided is directed at the gods and the priest, and subsequently, the verb xtta(i)-^(di) ‘to do harm’ is intransitive (see N 320.34-36; except in TL 131.3, where it is used with the preverb ese).

[D.S.]

Torp 1901b:22-27 argues convincingly that there is a Lycian word ẽ to be distinguished from the enclitic pronoun =ẽ and notices that it is commonly used in conditional sentences, etymologically comparing Gr. ἄν. His analysis is fully accepted by Houwink ten Cate 1961a:76f., Gusmani 1975e:65 with n. 9, Melchert 1992b:49 n. 18, Melchert (DLL:19), but only tentatively by Christiansen 2020a:253. Melchert 1992b:49 n. 18 also points out that the occurrence in the trilingual inscription is rendered with Greek ἄν, which brings proof to Torp’s view.

[D.S.]

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.]

indecl.

ẽ

TL 44d.7 (Xanthos)

This attestation is adduced here, because an enclitic pronoun would fail to make sense of the syntax, since the direct object(s) of the clause alb(a)… zawa is a collective or a neuter plural, which should be rendered with =ede, not =ẽ. Nonetheless, since the passage is obscure, any claim must be considered tentative; cf. Schürr 2018b:64f. “a verbal form ubẽ{:}ti”), Gehrisch 2018a:92 “a verbal form ubẽ”.

Pace Melchert (DLL:115), there is no attestation at TL 55.3; see kãtaqe-.

Pace Neumann 2007a:80f. and Schürr 2018b:68, : ẽ : at TL 44d.19 is here emended to xerigaz{:}ẽContra Schürr (ibid. p. 59, 86), the reading xerigañ is linguistically untenable. in order to recover a genitival adjective (used for personal names solely in the accusative), because there is otherwise no case ending in the singular that ends with -z.

[D.S.]

See under Lycian A above, although the obscure context does not provide any hint regarding the function or meaning of ẽ.

[D.S.]