kdu-

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.) as well as in a grave inscription.

[D.S.]

acc. sg. (?)	kduñ	TL 90.3 (Myra)
unclear	kdu[	TL 44a.5 (Xanthos)

Pace Schürr 2008b:165 and Gehrisch 2018a:135, kduñ can hardly be dative singular (despite the preceding hrppi, unless kduñ turned out to be a personal name of foreign origin) and tijãi accusative plural. The latter can be either nom. pl. or gen. pl.; see under Lyc. tija-. The most likely hypothesis for kduñ is that of an accusative singular, despite the idea of Neumann 2007a:162f. to see kdu as the full word and take it as an acc. sg. of an a-stem kda-.

[D.S.]

It has been suggested that kduñtijãi should be taken as one word (Neumann 2007a:162f.), instead of dividing it as done in the standard editions; see Lyc. tija-. Otherwise, the final -ñ is considered strange by scholars, cf. Starke 1990a:141 n. 432 “a sandhi”, likewise van den Hout 1995b:122 n. 51. Indeed, since the nasal ñ is usually expressed between -u- and a dental (cf. verbal endings in -ñti or -ñte to stems ending in -u), it is likely that the word is meant to render a sequence -uñt-.

Gehrisch 2018a:63 takes ñtikdu at TL 44a.5 to be one sequence made of ñt(e) + ikdu-, suggesting an etymological connection with a Hittite body part, which is not persuasive.

[D.S.]

No meaning has been suggested; cf. DLL:31, Neumann 2007a:162f., Schürr 2008b:165. The obscurity of the context and the syntactic role of the word involved hinders any reliable approach.

[D.S.]

If the word kduñ really is complete, it looks like an accusative singular of a u-stem, which is problematic, since u-stems in Lycian were otherwise eliminated by being transferred to the paradigm of a-stems. More evidence is needed to shed light on this word.

[D.S.]