tixzzidi (tixzzi)

The word is found twice: once in a funerary inscription datable to the reign of Alexander The Great, and once 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. or acc. sg.(?)	tixzzi	TL 29.17 (Tlos)
dat. sg.(?)	tixzzidi	TL 44b.40 (Xanthos)

The two words listed in the table may belong to two different lexemes, however; see under Stems. Contra Gehrisch 2018a:74, tixzzidi can hardly be a verbal form, as it would create syntactic problems; see under Meaning.

[D.S.]

The word has often been divided as ti and xzzidi (thus Hajnal 1995a:145 n. 167The relative phrase with ti and a putative verb xzzidi suggested by Hajnal goes against the syntactic rule that the relative pronoun is positioned after the verb in indicative sentences., Neumann 2007a:145), although the other attestation, which has often been left unconsidered, speaks against a word division (thus also Melchert in DLL:68, Schürr 2012a:121).

[D.S.]

In the context of TL 29, tixzzi appears to be something meant for the Storm-god of the Greeks and the Lycians, although the fragmentary state of the context hinders a more certain interpretation. The passage attested on the pillar, however, is more complete:

me=(e)rawazija ade : tuminehi : mlatraza : tixzzidi mãn^?a hm͂mãta : qarazutazi : tezi : aruwãtija tukedri (TL 44b.39-42)

‘The mlatraza of Tymnessos tixzzidi made as monuments the mãna hm͂mãta for the qarazutazi sarcophagus, high buildings (and) a statue.’ (vel sim.)

Neumann 2007a:145 compares to Lyc. ti-xzzidi the word xzzuna, which is also obscure, although it is entirely possible that it also represents a reflex of the same stem as the one found in Hitt. ḫazziye/a-^(mi) ‘to inscribe’ (i.e. *h₂et- + -i̯e/o-). Phonologically speaking, nothing would speak against it, but a compound made of ti- (cf. Lyc. tija-) and xzzid- would have to be posited. In any case, this etymological approach is more compelling than that suggested by Hajnal 1995a:145 n. 167, i.e. with Hitt. ḫaššu- ‘king’. Likewise, the etymological link to Hitt. tiye/a-^(mi) via an imperfective formation **-xzz- suggested by Gehrisch 2018a:74 is phonologically and morphologically untenable.

[D.S.]

Schürr 2012a:121 suggests that tixzzidi modifies the title mlatraza-, in the same manner other formations in -idi modify titles; cf. przzidi(je)- and mahanahidi. Vis-à-vis the other attestation tixzzi, he posits that tixzzidi is a derivative of it, although the exact morphological process is not explained. As suggested by O. Billing under the lemma przzidi(je)-, it is possible to view tixzzidi as an adjectival formation in -i(je)- in the nominative singular agreeing with the title mlatraza. In this case, tixzzi would have to be the derivational base with the loss of the dental suffix -d in the nom./acc. sg. just as with the Luwian stems in /-id-/ n. Since the contexts are poorly understood, the analysis must remain tentative until further evidence emerges.

[D.S.]