sδi(a)

Attested in funerary inscriptions from Eski Çine (south of Alabanda, C.Al 1) and from Tralles (C.Tr 1), both of unknown date.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.?	sδi(a?)	C.Al 1
	sδi?(a)	C.Tr 1.1

Attestations following Adiego 2007a:412 (cf. also Schürr 2001d:109 with n. 12, Schürr 2013c:25–27; Duhoux 2008a:56–72; O. Henry 2007a:94–100 with n. 17; Kloekhorst 2008a:139–143), although, contra these authors, without sδisa(s) (for which see s.v. sδisa) and siδi (for which see s.v. si-), checked against the photo on the cast (C.Tr 1 is lost and no photos are available, for drawings see Adiego 2007a:130 with discussion and refs. and below).

In C.Al sδia° is followed by a damaged sign, from which only the lower part, a single vertical stroke has been preserved. This was reconstructed as a word divider by Schürr 2001d:109 n. 12 and O. Henry 2007a:98 (latter with question mark). If this is correct, then the form of the word is sδia (O. Henry 2007a:100 speculates on segmenting °a as a demonstrative pronoun, rightly rejected by Duhoux 2008a:62 with n. 49). However, Duhoux 2008a:62 reconstructs the sign as ‹n›, which is equally possible. In this case the word may be sδi only, especially if Duhoux’s interpretation as sδi an ‘this grave’ is correct. Finally, O. Henry 2007a:98 questions the reading of the third and fourth sign. The third one is clearly visible on the photo of the cast, but the fourth one is indeed conjectural.

Following Schürr 2001d:109 n. 12 Adiego 2007a:130 claims that the third letter in C.Tr 1 is “definitely” ‹i›, but the photo of the cast (Deroy 1955a:Planche I) and the published drawings (Kontoleōn 1890a:337; Sayce 1905a:Pl.II no. 9; Deroy 1955a:307 [based on the cast] and Kubitschek apud Adiego 2007a:130 [based on the original]) do not support this. Nevertheless, no other fitting Carian sign presents itself.

[Zs.S.]

According to Adiego 2007a:412, this is a noun used in funerary contexts, thus ‘tomb’, ‘stela’ or similar (although he notes that these specific inscriptions are too fragmentary for an interpretation, Adiego 2007a:292). This is generally supported by Duhoux 2008a:62f., 70f. and O. Henry 2007a:100f., both of them would, however, specify the meaning as ‘grave, burial’. All these suggestions definitely fit the given contexts. For a detailed criticism on the alternative proposals of Schürr 2013c:26 (“Personenbezeichnung”) and Kloekhorst 2008a:143 (‘to lie’) see Simon 2019b:2f.

[Zs.S.]

Rejected loanword:

1. śuθi

A derivation from PIE *k̑ei- ‘to lie’ was proposed by Adiego 2007a:259 (“perhaps”), 412 (with question mark). This idea was discussed positively by Duhoux 2008a:88f., but he also suggested an alternative derivation from PIE *sed- ‘to sit (down)’, which is, however, not possible phonologically (Carian δ goes back to *nt, Adiego 2007a:260). The identification of si- ‘to lie’, the Carian reflex of *k̑ei-, by Kloekhorst 2008a:139–141 (see s.v.) allows to prove Adiego’s semantically fitting hypothesis, the only remaining question is the exact way of the derivation. Duhoux segmented a suffix -δi, which is, however, unknown (admitted by him, too) and thus not helpful. Melchert 2010f:181 offered as “pure speculation” the mophologically and semantically fitting idea of a derivative from a participle, in this case *k̑eyontid- ‘lying place’. Although he rightly points out that the suffix -id- is attested in Carian, the nom.-acc. sg. of the -id-stems in Carian is not yet known (his example, sdi=s, cannot be used as evidence, since it is in fact sdisa with a completely different meaning, see s.v.; for possible Carian words with the loss of word-final *-d see Melchert 2010f:180). Thus, alternatively, one may consider a derivation from the participle with the Carian suffix -i-, which derives ethnic adjectives from toponyms (Adiego 2007a:269f. with refs.) and thus it could have been a more general appurtenance suffix (itself continuing the Luwic appurtenance suffix *-iyo-, Adiego 2007a:270), with the original meaning ‘*pertaining to the lying one’ (the syncope of the vowel in the first syllable can be attributed with Melchert 2010f:181 to the rightward shift of the accent due to the suffix, which is not unparalleled in Carian).

[Zs.S.]