†=δ

Hajnal 1997b:150 and Melchert 1998c:37, Melchert 2002b:308 suggested (and Adiego 2007a:363 called it an “attractive” theory, “backed by attractive etymological connections” [Adiego 2010b:155f.]) segmenting the sequence i[…]inisδrual in C.Ka 5, 2 (corresponding to ἐπὶ δημιοργοῦ Ἱπποσθένους) as i[…]inis=δ rual and translate it as ‘under/in the ___ship of Hipposthenes’ with a postposition δ comparing Lycian ẽti ‘under’ or ñte ‘in(to)’ (Melchert) and ñte, CLuw. ānta, Hittite anda ‘in(to) (Hajnal), see s.vv. However, Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27 rightly retracted this segmentation since “the supposed word order of noun + adposition + noun is totally unattested in Anatolian!”, in other words =δ should stand after the office rual and not after the name of the office holder.

Nevertheless, ignoring Melchert’s observation, Adiego 2020a:136–138, 141f. still maintained that the original analysis of Hajnal and Melchert is the correct one and suggested that the beginning of C.Eu 2, qmoλ k̑i temaliśδun, contains the same postposition based on the claim that temaliś=δ=un corresponds to i[…]inis=δ, although °δ is preceded here by an obviously different case, what Adiego could not explain, although admitted the existence of the problem (Adiego 2020a:141). All in all, neither these proposed interpretations of C.Ka 5, 2 and C.Eu 2, 1–2 nor the existence of a Carian postposition =δ can be upheld.

For the further alleged cases, iβrsδrx̣[ (C.Ka 4, 1, proposed by Hajnal 1997b:150) and alosδ k̑arnosδ (C.xx 2, cautiously entertained by Yakubovich 2019c:304 n. 7 [if it is not an ending], but nevertheless admitting that the “function” of the phrase unclear) see s.v. sδrual and Simon 2021b:56 n. 6 with detailed discussion and refs.

[Zs.S.]