zum̃me-

This lexeme is mostly found in grave inscriptions.

[D.S.]

nom./acc. sg.	zum͂mẽ	N 314b.3 (Kızılca)
	zum͂mẽ	TL 106.2(x2) (Limyra)
	zum͂m[ẽ]	TL 59.3 (Antiphellos)
	[zum͂]mẽ	TL 135.2 (Limyra)
	zu[m͂]mã	TL 91.3 (Myra)
	zum͂[m	TL 44c.17 (Xanthos)

The exceptional spelling with final -ã instead of -ẽ is surprising (see Melchert 1992b:50 for sporadic “a”-vowels; cf. Melchert 1994a:309 for a different view); cf. under Stem.

The second form zum̃mẽ in TL 106.2, which is usually taken as one word, i.e. zum̃mẽñne, is here analyzed as zum̃mẽ=ñne=ti ‘what(ever) (counts) as zum̃mẽ for them’, i.e. a relative nominal clause (contra DLL:89, Neumann 2007a:440 “zum̃mẽ + ñneti”), Frotscher 2012a:158, Vernet 2018a:369 “zum̃mẽñne=ti”, Christiansen 2020a:250). This would get rid of the problematic verbal form in -ẽñneti noticed repeatedly in the literature.

[D.S.]

Since zum̃mẽ refers to a bad thing that can be inflicted on a grave and/or its occupants, Torp 1898a:24 contextually suggests that zum̃me- means ‘damage’ or something similar (followed by Bugge 1901a:24, Laroche 1960a:178, Starke 1990a:298, DLL:89, Hajnal 1995a:112f., Neumann 2007a:440, Christiansen 2020a:250). However, the etymological connection with CLuw. zam(ma)n- suggested by Eichner 1984a and Hutter 1987-1988a:254 and defended by Starke 1990a:279 is not tenable on phonological grounds, because CLuw. -a- does not correspond to Lyc. A -u- under any condition (Nikolaev 2019a:190); see also under Origin. Likewise, the etymological connection with the GKW zammurai- ‘slander’ as per Neumann 1969c:396 is not tenable (see Nikolaev 2019a:189f.).

Nikolaev 2019a:190 suggests that the noun might have a more sacred meaning such as ‘desecration’ or ‘violation’, although, since it may take (dead) people as direct objects, one might even venture to suggest the meaning ‘slander (?)’. In any case, pending further evidence, we can only posit that zum̃me- n. denotes some kind of forbidden action.

[D.S.]

Melchert 1994a:309 and Hajnal 1995a:112f. consider Lyc. zum̃me- to reflect an old neuter stem in *-men-. See Martínez Rodríguez 2018a:277f. for a summary and for a proposed historical distinction between the stem-final -ã and -ẽ. Differently, Sasseville 2021a:304 with n. 7 sees a substantivized participle in -me- n. derived from a root verb zu-^(di).

[D.S.]

Hajnal 1995a:112f. suggests connecting the Lycian root zu- to a PIE root *ti̯eu̯- ‘to shake’ (for a criticism of the root, see Nikolaev 2019a:190 n. 46). Nikolaev 2019a:190 suggests tentatively a connection with Lith. žū́ti ‘to die’, reconstructing a PIE root *g̑^(h)i̯eu̯H-, which would lead to the desired outcome in Lycian also phonologically, but he admits that the evidence is sparse. More evidence would be welcome.

[D.S.]