xes-

This lexeme is attested on the Xanthos stele, which was inscribed shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE.

[D.S.]

nom./acc. sg.

xezm͂

TL 44d.36 (Xanthos)

Sasseville 2018a:310f. argues that the sentence, in which the word xezm̃ occurs, is a divine beneficial formula wished upon the Lycian king Gergis (Lyc. Xeriga). Consequently, the direct object xezm̃ is expected to be something positive the gods would provide for the king. Based on etymological comparisons with Hitt. ḫaššikk-^(mi) ‘to satiate (one’s thirst)’, Pal. ḫaš- ‘to satiate one’s thirst’ and HLuw. /hasa-/ ‘abundance’, Sasseville (ibid.) assigns the semantics ‘satiety, abundance’ to Lyc. B xezm̃. He adduces as additional evidence the epithets of the deities of the beneficial formula, which pertain to nourishment. Based on the Hieroglyphic Luwian bilingual inscription of Karatepe, we are aware that satiety or abundance in the kingdom (KARATEPE 1, §6) is something an Anatolian king of the Iron Age was proud to have. Therefore, if the semantic assignment of Lyc. B xezm̃ is correct, then it would mean that this concept was continued in Classical Lycia. In spite of the evidence presented here, the meaning of Lyc. xezm̃ remains tentative.

Alternatively, Shevoroshkin 1977a:131f. suggests a connection with the root ‘to beget’ (cf. Hitt. ḫāš-/ḫašš-^(ḫi) ‘to beget’, HLuw. /has(s)-/ ‘id.’) and interprets xezm̃ as a participial form (likewise Schürr 1997b:63, DLL:135). A participle with apocopated ending is formally possible, but fails to make good sense of the syntax of the sentence.

[D.S.]

The neuter gender postulated here for xezm̃ is not secured from a synchronic perspective, but is likely due to the lack of i-mutation, in which case the ending of the accusative singular common gender would have been -i.

[D.S.]