aladehala-

The lexeme is found exclusively in funerary inscriptions.

[D.S.]

dat. sg.	aladehali	TL 4.4 (Telmessos)
		TL 36.4 (Xanthos)
		TL 50.2 (Xanthos)
	aladahali	TL 6.3 (Karmylessos)
		TL 16.2 (Pinara)
		TL 31.5 (Kadyanda)
		TL 39.8 (Xanthos)
		TL 42b.2 (Xanthos)
		TL 114.3 (Limyra)
		N 334.11-12 (Tlos)
		N 342a.2 (Tlos)
		N 342b.3-4 (Tlos)
		N 357.2 (Tlos)
	ạḷạḍạḥạḷị	TL 20.3 (Pinara)
	ala{la}dạhali	TL 9.2 (Kirme)
	alad[ah]ali	TL 17.2 (Pinara)
	aladahaḷ[i]	TL 46a+b (Xanthos)
	ạ[l]ạḍạḥạli	TL 115.3 (Limyra)
	ạḷadahali	N 322.3 (Pinara)
abl./instr.	alade[ha]ladi	TL 147.2 (Limyra)

The form aladahali in N 334 is treated as accusative singular by Schürr 2008b:150 because of the occurrence of the verb aitẽ ‘they made’, for which he expects an overt direct object (followed by Melchert 2015c:159). However, as pointed by Christiansen 2020a:193, the direct object of aitẽ could be the amount of ada, which would allow for the interpretation of aladahali as indirect object. From a morphological and inflectional perspective, an accusative singular in -i is not possible for a common gender a-stem in -ala-, for which we expected -alã or -alu. Its status as common gender a-stem can be supported by the occurrence of the abl./instr. in -adi as well as with the related noun elihala[ (TL 35.6), which is most likely nominative singular. Furthermore, the argument of Melchert 2015c:158f. that aladehali must be an action noun in -e/i- due to the alternative infinitive aladahhãna is not valid, because we find in Hieroglyphic Luwian the same type of alternations between infinitives and agent nouns in /-alla-/ c.; cf. sa₅+ra/i-ku-na-la (dat. sg.) vs. sa₅+ra/i-ku-na (inf.) (KULULU lead strips 2, obv. §3, 19-20). The difference is a simple distinction between ‘for the one performing X’ and ‘for the performance of X’. Therefore, aladahala- c. is here taken as an agent noun in -ala- (thus with Eichner 1993b:239, Hajnal 1995a:106 n. 88, DLL:2f., contra Gehrisch 2018a:22, Christiansen 2020a:178 et passim). For the Lycian agent noun suffix -ala- c., see Sasseville 2014-2015a.

The function of the ablative/instrumental in TL 147.2 is difficult to grasp due to the fragmentary state of the context (cf. DLL:3, Neumann 2007a:9, Schürr 2008b:151). A partitive function following tike ‘anyone’ is possible, although the genitive is normally used; for the use of the partitive genitive with tike, see tike terihe (TL 58.4, N 309b.4, N 324.24, 28), tike kumalihe (TL 26.19).

[D.S.]

For a new collation of the inscriptions in which aladehali occurs, see the extensive paper of Christiansen 2020a. The variant aladahali is simply due to the vowel harmony coloring the preverb de to da. On the reading of TL 42b as aladahali instead of aladaheli, see Adiego 2014a.

[D.S.]

The meaning of the noun aladehala- c. depends on the semantics assigned to the verb aladeha-^(di) (or alaha-^(di)), for which see under lemma. As argued under Forms above, aladehala- c. must be taken as an agent noun, not as an action noun. Thus, aladehala- is ‘the one who performs aladeha’. Thus, what is considered assured is that aladehala- represents an official of a necropolis, who receives payment subsequent to a burial. For a list of outdated hypotheses, see Neumann 2007a:9.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see Lyc. ha-^(ti) or ha-^(di).