katoš(i)-

This lexeme is attested in a decree composed by the Persian priest Mitridaštas and the chief of the temenos, and it has, together with LW 23, recently been dated to the second half of the 6^th century BCE (Euler & Sasseville 2019a:134f. with n. 34).

[D.S.]

Since the word katošν refers to what is decreed by each party, Meriggi 1935a:71, 74 saw in it the preverb kat- and the root o-, which he also draws from the verb ow-, here translated differently than Meriggi’s “to decree”. Therefore, he translated Lyd. katošν with ‘decree’ (followed by Gusmani 1964a:146 “Verordnung”, Shevoroshkin 1968c:64, Carruba 1969a:57, Dusinberre 2003a:230 “order”, Sh. Hawkins 2013a:184, Bouzid-Adler 2014a:16). However, one could wonder why the other Lydian word for ‘decree’, i.e. ẽtam(i)-, was not used instead, though (near-)synonyms cannot be excluded. In any case, nothing forces the meaning ‘decree’ for katošν, since it may simply mean ‘that which follows’; cf. Sasseville 2021a:289. Moreover, since the content of what is decreed refers to a mutual exchange of properties and protection, it is also possible that the katošν refers to this exact type of pledge. Therefore, pending more philological research on this inscription, no precise meaning is assigned here for katoš(i)-, simply ‘(a reference to what is decreed)’.

[D.S.]

Despite the morphological analysis of Meriggi 1935a:71 and Gusmani 1964a:146 cited above, it would be possible instead to see kat-oš-(i)- with the root of Lyd. os- (+ palatalization). It may even be possible to suggest a different analysis for the preverb kat-, by assuming instead that kat- is the root and -oš(i)- the suffixal part. All in all, one should be careful about analyzing this word and wait for more evidence. The acc. sg. c. ending -ν speaks for an i-mutated paradigm; see Sasseville 2017a.

[D.S.]