k̑ik̑

Hapax in a Carian graffito from Egypt (Abu Simbel), c. 593/592 (Adiego 2007a:31 with ref.).

[Zs.S.]

unknown

k̑ik̑

E.AS 7

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:377 checked against the photo in O. Masson 1979a:Pl. IV.3. Note that the inscription uses word dividers and k̑ik̑ appears in the segment nazk̑ik̑; in other words, its existence is not assured. However, pronouns and conjunctions were normally treated as enclitics in Egyptian Carian inscriptions and, thus, not separated (Simon forthcoming).

[Zs.S.]

Schürr 2001d:98 claims that k̑ik̑ is the equivalent of the Lycian indefinite pronoun tike (A) / kike (B) ‘irgendwer’, see s.vv. (replacing his earlier suggestion of a personal name, Schürr 1996a:70). However, as Adiego 2007a:377 already rightly pointed out, this hypothesis depends on the overall interpretation of the inscription, which is currently an unsolved problem. Note that Schürr’s translation (Schürr 2001d:98, 108, replacing a more cautious one from Schürr 1996a:70) “Mißachtete (o.ä.) irgendwer diese Großkönige, dann (sei) ihm qudem Psammetich! Es beopferte (?) nun sie, die Felsigen, Ai[.]iqom” lacks not only a clear sense but also any basis (for critical discussions see the respective entries: esaγδow, bebint, bý, †mý=, naz, psý). Furthermore, this comparison is not possible from a phonological point of view, either (contra Adiego 2007a:377: “phonologically sound”), since Carian k̑ continues *k^u̯, i.e. k̑ik̑ <*k^u̯ik^u̯-, which cannot be the regular precursor of Lycian tike and kike (on their origin see most recently the detailed discussion by Sideltsev & Yakubovich 2016a:33–40 and here s.v.). The phonologically regular comparison would have been Hitt. kuiš kuiš ‘whoever’ (a generalizing relative pronoun), but even this formally fitting comparison does not change the fact that its meaning cannot be established due to the opaque inscription.

[Zs.S.]