muneit(i)-

This lexeme is attested in a grave inscription as well as in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

nom./acc. pl. n. or coll. (?)	muneita	TL 44b.20 (Xanthos)
dat./loc. pl. (?)	muneite	TL 127.2 (Limyra)

Based on the context, muneite was treated as a kinship term meaning ‘father-in-law’, i.e. se=tuhe se muneite se=[x]ahbe ‘and for (his) nephews, (his) father(s)-in-law(?) and (his) grandchildren.’ (Torp 1900a:7f., Laroche 1958b:189). The listing seems odd, and indeed, the proposed interpretation is hardly reconcilable with the following attestation muneita found in a military context involving a rebellion. Formally, the form is taken as an appellative in the neuter plural (see Cau 2003b:60, DLL:41). A nominative singular is hardly convincing considering the morphology (pace Schürr 2007b:113), but a collective, on the other hand, would be more appropriate. Nonetheless, more attestations are needed to verify any such hypothesis.

The form munaiti (TL 90.3) is more likely to be a verb in the 3pl. pres. (thus Thomsen apud Bugge 1901a:24, Hajnal 1995a:153, Neumann 2007a:226 with further literature; DLL:41 “acc. sg. (?)”), with the infinitive tãne ‘to lay down’ depending on it. An etymological relationship with Hitt. munnā(i)-^(mi) ‘to hide’ has been adduced (HEG L-M:231, Hajnal 1995a:153), which is phonologically and morphologically quite attractive. However, the fragmentary context hinders any certainty, and the meaning ‘to forbid’, tentatively assumed by all the scholars mentioned above, lacks definite proof.

[D.S.]

No semantics are given here; cf. under Forms.

[D.S.]

On the morphology, i.e. -nt(i)- participial form belonging to a verb in -(e)i-^(di), one should compare CLuw. muwinaint(i)-, which looks like a formal match. A connection to Lyc. B muwa- and CLuw. mūwa- ‘might’ remains possible, but unprovable.

[D.S.]