ahbalawija

The word sequence is found in a grave inscription from Limyra.

[D.S.]

unknown

ahbalawija

TL 112.5 (Limyra)

The interpretation and the segmentation of this word is debated (cf. Neumann 2007a:6, Gehrisch 2018a:152). Melchert (DLL:91) takes it tentatively as a personal name in the nominative, which no longer works due to the new reading of the following verb as 3pl. pres. marṇ̃ti (Christiansen 2020a:242). Christiansen suggests instead that the word begins in the previous line restoring x]-ahbalawija, in order to obtain the word xahba, while taking lawija as a personal name. She assumes that [x]ahba lawija would be in the dative case, the indirect object of the verb mar-^(ti) ‘to order’. This must be rejected on grammatical grounds, because the dative singular of xahba- c. is xahbi and a Lycian personal name in the dative singular would be expected to show the ending -je. Therefore, her suggestion makes no sense syntactically. If one wishes to save the restoration of x-] in line 4, xahba would have to be taken as dative plural and, thus, be the indirect object of the verb. Yakubovich 2019b:406 proposes to separate ahba and lawija in two, but interprets ahba as the nom./acc. pl. n. form of the possessive pronoun ehbi(je)- ‘his’. This is not convincing, because the expected form would be *ahbija with the suffix -i(je)-. Moreover, the possessive pronoun regularly follows its head noun. Concerning lawija, he connects it etymologically with Lyc. A lawi- ‘to respect (?)’, translating lawija as ‘respect’. While the etymological approach is flawless, the contextual analysis is not supported, since the clause in question refers to a prohibited action.

Since km̃mẽti is the subject of the verb marṇ̃ti, i.e. ‘how many order (someone to)…’, one can expect in the clause an indirect object, an infinitive verb and the direct object of the infinitive verb. The word ahbalawija, however it is to be analyzed, should therefore be either the indirect object of marñti ‘to order’ or as the direct object of an implied infinitive (perhaps aladehãne in the previous parallel clause). Thus, x]ahba would have to be dative plural and lawija either nom./acc. pl. of implied aladehãne or loc. sg., which is formally possible. Pending further evidence, no decision can be made.

[D.S.]