xθθã(n)-
‘monument’
- Language
- Lycian A
- Grammar
- subst, n.
- ID
- 3597
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lycian A
xθθã(n)-
‘monument’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in various grave inscriptions as well as on 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.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | xθθã | TL 44b.38 (Xanthos) |
| [x]θθã | N 325.7 (Xanthos) | |
| nom./acc. pl. | xθθãna | TL 44b.58 (Xanthos) |
| gen. adj. acc. sg. c. | xθθanahi | N 318.7 (Xanthos) |
| N 327.2 (Xanthos) |
The grammatical assignment of xθθanahi as acc. sg. is supported by its probable status as the direct object of m͂mijeti ‘to conceive (vel sim.)’ and as the referee of the anaphoric pronoun =ene in the second clause, thus the direct object of puhtti ‘inscribes’ (Sasseville 2021a:504f.).
[D.S.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Thanks to a join, Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:141 were able to determine the word boundary of xθθã in TL 44b.38-39, which disproves the previous restoration as xθθã[na] by Melchert (DLL:85). Based on the very same join, Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:141 amend [x]θθã in N 325.7. This is very likely but cannot be confirmed due to the fragmentary context. The reading qθθã- in TL 44b.38-39 by Kalinka 1901a:42 is outdated. For the reading xθθã, see Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:23.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
In TL 44b.38 xθθã is coordinated with arawazija nom./acc. pl. n. ‘monuments’, suggesting that it is also some kind of monument. This is supported by TL 44b.58, where xθθãna, modified by xugaha se=xñnaha ‘of the grandfather(s) and grandmother(s)’, is something made as a gift by the Lycian king just like tukedri ‘statue’ occurring in the same passage (cf. Schürr 2012a:130). The genitival adjective xθθanahi in N 327.2 could denote an object connected to the xθθã(n)- on which it is inscribed, or simply the text belonging to the xθθã(n)-monument to be inscribed (cf. Sasseville 2018b:426, contra Bousquet 1992a:193). Interpretations by Gehrisch 2018a:70 as Germ. ‘Ahnentafel’ (cf. Schürr 2012a:130 “something pertaining to the ‘Ahnenkult’”) and Hajnal 1995a:215 n. 268 as ‘altar pit’ are less likely on contextual grounds. Outdated Shevoroshkin 1977a:132 ‘relatives, family’.
[D.S.]
1.1.5Stem
As suggested by Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:143, we are dealing with a neuter n-stem. The ã in the nom./acc. sg. is probably due to vowel harmony instead of the expected xθθẽ(n)- based on the other neuter n-stems (see DLL:xi).
[D.S.]
This lemma was written together with Jonas Döll.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Hajnal 1995a:215 n 268 compares xθθã(n)- to Hitt. ḫateššar/n- ‘perforation, hole, sacrificial pit‘ (HW 2nd ed. Ḫ: 504-506) and reconstructs an a-stem (<*-eh2-) with an s- and an n-suffix: Pre-Lycian *ḫatasána- > *ḫatahána- > *ḫthán-a- ( = xθθãn-). His basic assumptions are correct but, because of the join by Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:141, we know that we are dealing with a neuter n-stem and not with an a-stem. Based on the comparative evidence, we reconstruct *Het-o/es-(E)n-. The semantics of the root *h2et- ‘to pierce’ fit well with the reference to some kind of monument. For the relation of the Hittite suffix -eššar/n- to s-stems, see Rieken 1999a:385 with further literature.
[D.S.]
This reconstruction-lemma was written together with the intern Jonas Döll.
For the lemma head see Lyc. *xtt-.