sδisa

Attested in tomb inscriptions from Mezargediği (west of Kaunos; for its reconstruction as a tomb inscription cf. O. Henry 2007a:86f. with refs.) of unknown date (C.Ka 1) and from Krya, perhaps from the 4th c. BCE (Roos 1985a:51).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.	sδisa	C.Kr 1.1
dat. sg.	sδisas	C.Ka 1.1-2

Attestations following Adiego 2007a:289–293, 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 siδi (for which see s.v. si-) and sδi(a) (for which see s.v. and here under Meaning), checked against the available photos. On the segmentation and grammatical categorization of sδisa in C.Kr 1.1 see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

Schürr suggested already in Schürr 2001d:109 that this word should be segmented as sδisa and sδisas and considered this lexeme as a “Bezeichnung des Toten”, without arguments (not taken into account by the authors of other interpretations, but followed by Marek 2006a:124f.). However, based on parallelism of the texts C.Ka 1 and C.Kr 1, he managed to demonstrate in Schürr 2013c:25f. that this is the correct segmentation and the word refers to the deceased. This parallelism and other factors exclude the alternative suggestions, for their detailed critical analysis see Simon 2019b:3–5 with refs.

As for the meaning of sδisa, Schürr 2013c:26f. with refs. (cf. already Schürr 2001d:109) compares it with the Lycian personal name Hñtihãma from TL 75 (Tyberissos) of unknown meaning. He suggests that this name is derived from a verb *hñti-ha-, which would represent the Lycian equivalent of sδisa- and which would mean “Besitz besitzen” and thus sδisa “Besitzbesitzer”. Schürr’s proposal and the general view that this word is connected to sδi(a) (see the refs. under Form) were rejected by Simon 2019b:5f. on morphological and semantic grounds. Instead he suggests an ethnic adjective from the Lycian city called Σινδία.

[Zs.S.]