keruti(je)-

This word is attested once in a grave inscription from Limyra.

[D.S.]

dat./loc. sg. c.

kerutị

TL 111.3 (Limyra)

The letter 〈i〉 is badly damaged, but can still be partially recognized on the autography of Kalinka 1901a:78.

[D.S.]

The word keruti has been interpreted in various ways. Carruba 1978b:171f. n. 28 suggests a sacrificial animal with horns because of an etymological connection with Hitt. karāwar/un- n. ‘horn’ (followed by Neumann 2007a:165, who translated ‘aries’, adopted by Gehrisch 2018a:151). Neumann 2012a:393 also claims on contextual grounds that keruti represents a sacrificial animal. Melchert 2012a:209 n. 9 argues against taking keruti as a sacrificial animal, i.e. as the direct object of the clause, because it would create discontinuous syntax, but since there are other examples of discontinuous syntax in Lycian A, that part of his objection is not a cogent counter-argument. However, an important fact that has been left out so far, is that there is otherwise no evidence for a neuter plural ending -i in Lycian. If keruti was the direct object, it would be expected to end in -a, i.e. **keruta. Therefore, an interpretation as direct object is not possible on grammatical grounds. The first clause is thus left without an explicit animal as direct object:

me=ttlidi : kbisñtãta : ãm͂mãm : ql(a) ebi : kerutị : e[ … ] se=ttlidi : trzzubi : ãm͂mãma : kbisñtãta : uwa : kịj̣u[.....] (TL 11.3-4)

‘…, he will pay 20(?) full-grown (sacrificial animals) at the local precinct keruti … and he will pay to the deity Trzzuba 20(?) full-grown bovines …’

Objectively, the word keruti looks like an attribute to the loc. sg. qla ‘precinct’; cf. the phrase qlaj ebi pñtreñni ‘at the local precinct of Pñtre’ (TL 109.6), qla (e)bi ehetehi ‘at the local precinct of peace’ (TL 44b.48). Therefore, keruti would be best interpreted as an adjective in -i(je)- modifying qla. Despite this suggestion, which is syntactically superior to the others, the meaning of keruti(je)- becomes even harder to elucidate. Melchert (DLL:97) suggested a personal name, but this can hardly be sustained. An etymological connection with Hitt. karāwar/un- ‘horn’ and HLuw. (“CORNU”)zú+ra/i-ni- ‘horn’ cannot be maintained on phonological grounds, since PAnat. *k̑ yields Lyc. s. To maintain the etymological link, a loanword from another Anatolian language, in which *k̑ > k (e.g. Hittite, Palaic, Lydian), would have to be posited. However, the semantics of ‘horn’ are unfortunately improvable at this point.

[D.S.]