*=ma

This particle is found across the Lycian corpus. Since basically every inscription employs this particle, only a small portion of the entirety of attestations are given in the table below.

[D.S.]

indecl.	me	TL 26.16 (Tlos)
		TL 29.3 (Tlos)
		TL 39.5 (Xanthos)
		TL 57.6 (Antiphellos)
		TL 65.22 (Isinda)
		TL 83.6 (Arneai)
		TL 84.2 (Sura)
		TL 88.3 (Myra)
		TL 101.2 (Limyra)
		TL 109.3 (Limyra)
m(e)		TL 1.1 (Telmessos)
		TL 7.1 (Karmylessos)
		TL 40c.8 (Xanthos)
		TL 44b.19 (Xanthos)
		TL 84.1 (Sura)
		TL 111.1 (Limyra)
		N 324.4 (Xanthos)

Contra Neumann 2007a:203 with further literature, the sequence me=i consists of the same conjunction me with either the particle or the dative pronoun =i (following DLL:38). Consequently, there is no conjunction mei.

[D.S.]

The vowel of the particle me is elided whenever the following clitic begins with the vowels e or ẽ, e.g. m(e)=ẽne, m(e)=ene, m(e)=e (see DLL:37f.).

[D.S.]

The particle me introduces the particle chain at the beginning of a sentence. It is used after a topicalized element that is left-dislocated or in the apodosis of a conditional sentence (Garrett 1992a, Hajnal & Zipser 2017a). For an overview of the earlier literature, see Carruba 1969b:74-89 and Neumann 2007a:198f.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found 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.). It is also attested in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

indecl.	me	TL 44c.34, 37, 44, 59 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.11, 13, 24, 26, 28, 34, 35, 53, 56, 58, 59, 62 (Xanthos)
		TL 55.3, 5 (Antiphellos)
	m(e)	TL 44d.55 (Xanthos)
		TL 55.2 (Antiphellos)
	[m]e	TL 44d.17 (Xanthos)

Cf. DLL:121, Schürr 2018b:72.

[D.S.]

The Lycian B sentence introductory particle me is equivalent to the Lycian A particle me, although a functional analysis has never been possible because of the obscurity of the Lycian B inscriptions. However, its use after a topicalized element that is left-dislocated can be considered assured for Lycian B by the first sentence of the poem in TL 44c, where the left-dislocated sbirte is followed by a sentence beginning with me.

[D.S.]

There were several unsuccessful attempts to identify the Carian cognate of Lycian me=, Hittite =ma, and Palaic =ma:

First, Schürr 1996a:69f. proposed seeing this particle in mýqudem of E.AS 7, because he suspected a nominal clause in the sequence | mýqudem | pismaśk | (but translated it as “als nun hier angekommen war Psammetich” changed later into “dann (sei) ihm qudem Psammetich!” in Schürr 2001d:98) As it is visible, the segmentation of mýqudem is assured and a proclitic particle could be written together with its host (Simon forthcoming). Nevertheless, there is not a single piece of evidence either for segmenting mý= or for a nominal clause, and in general, for Schürr’s translations (only the identification of the name is assured). The meaning of E.AS 7 is currently completely opaque and, accordingly, the meaning of mýqudem is unknown (cf. Adiego 2007a:386).

Second, Hajnal 1997b:153–157 would identify the initial m° of the words mlane, mδane, and mλn(e) as the Carian cognate of Lycian me=. He received the particle m= in case of mlane by contrasting mlane of E.Th 35 and E.Th 44 with ewlane of E.Th 49. Setting aside that these inscriptions have not been edited and only mlan[ is certain from mlane of E.Th 35 (Adiego 2007a:104 with refs.), the situation is more complex, since the segmentation is assured only in case of mlan[ (E.Th 35) and ewmlane (E.Th 44), in all other cases it is entirely hypothetical (attestations following Adiego 2007a:365, 383): “ew mlane” is attested in xḳbjqmqewmlaneqebśτ | (E.Th 12) and ẉdbośknewṃḷạṇeḳ[ (E.Th 47), “mlane” in ]mwarudkśomlane (E.Th 10); and “ewlane” in balewlane |(E.Th 49). In other words, the very existence of mlane and ewlane is doubtful and the assumed segmentation cannot be proven (for further discussion see s.vv.). But even if one assumes that all these cases belong together, the meaning of these inscriptions is completely obscure and thus they cannot serve as argument. The cautious proposal of Adiego 2007a:382 that mlane is a “possible variant” of mδane is not helpful, either: not only because the existence of mlane is doubtful, but also because this proposal is based on the alleged lack of the sign ‹δ› in Thebes (Adiego 2000a:140 with n. 10), which is refuted by its presence in E.Th 4 and E.Th 14 (Adiego 2007a:101, 222).

As for mδane (attested in E.Sa 1, E.xx 7, and C.xx 2), Hajnal 1997b:154–156 analysed it as a complex from the particles *m-n- (cf. Lyc. me-ne-) and a verb da-n-e in 3rd sg. pret. (cf. Lyc. ta- ‘put, place’ + a suffix -(V)nne/o- + the ending -ōi). Although semantically this would fit the contexts, there are serious formal problems with this proposal, since it does not explain what the particles *m-n- do in front of the verb. Hajnal refers to the Lycian situation, where according to him ne resumes a topicalized object, which is, however, not present in C.xx 2 and E.Sa 1 (at least according to the communis opinio, but formally speaking it might be right-dislocated in E.Sa 1), not to mention that the Lycian case is explained nowadays differently (Kloekhorst 2011a). In other words, it cannot be maintained that mδane contains the particle m= (for further discussion see s.v.). Since Hajnal’s identification of this particle in mλn(e) is based on his analysis of mδane, it cannot be upheld, either (note also that his mλn is in fact arbitrarily extracted from the unsegmentable sequence […]ayomλnr𐋆i in C.Ka 4, 2).

However, without further notification these views have been abandoned in the paper on this group of Anatolian particles by Hajnal & Zipser 2017a:276 ignoring the proposals of Schürr and van den Hout (see above and below) they cautiously opted now for a re-interpretation of mδane as m= + =δ “ein anaphorisches Element” + a verb ane, allegedly related to Luwian ānni-/aniya- “‘tun’” (for a more precise meaning see s.v.; the identification of m=δ= as “introductory particles” and the tentative connection of the former particle with Lycian me goes back to Adiego 1994a:54f., Adiego 2007a:324). While this proposal would be semantically more or less fitting, its arbitrary nature (the invented =δ “anaphorisches Element”) is evident, as well as the same problem pointed out above, i.e. the lack of explanation what a series of particles would do in front of a verb. Hajnal & Zipser 2017a:277, Hajnal & Zipser 2017b:316 extend this analysis upon “mλ” in C.Ha 1 as “m=λ” with =λ as a 3rd sg. dative enclitic pronoun, which, however, does not exist: it reads as mδ, “mλ” is an easily recognizable misprint in Adiego 2007a:144 written immediately under the drawing of the original.

Finally, van den Hout 1999a:38 suggested segmenting the sequence [-]rsbak̑mnnartnyrobsmns[ in C.Ka 2, 2 as [-]r sba=k̑=m=n (nartnyrobsmns[), with an alleged by-form of sb ‘and’ (see s.v.), with =k̑, an alleged cognate of Lydian =k (see s.v.), and with =n, a third person enclitic pronoun in acc. sg. c. This would leave =m identified by van den Hout with the above Anatolian particles. However, there is not a single piece of evidence for this segmentation, since the text is completely opaque (cf. Adiego 2007a:350) and there are multiple other possibilities (e.g. [-]r sb ak̑mn nartn yrobsmns[ with ak̑mn as a noun or adjective, perhaps in accusative in congruence with nartn).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 28 April 2020

The particle is so far found in the festival for the Palaic pantheon and in another festival text with Palaic incantations.

[D.S.]

indecl.	ma	KBo 19.155 iii 7’	(CTH 751, MS)
	ma	KUB 48.53 r.col. 6’	(CTH 753, NS)
	ma	KUB 48.53 r.col. 8’	(CTH 753, NS)
	ma	KUB 48.53 r.col. 9’	(CTH 753, NS)
	ma	KBo 32.17 obv. 11’	(CTH 751, MS?)
	ma	KBo 19.152 iii 11’	(CTH 751, MS)
	ma	KBo 49.84, 5´	(CTH 754, NS)
	˹ma˺	KBo 37.150, 7’	(CTH 753, NS)
	mu	KUB 32.17 + KUB 35.167 obv. 14’/1’	(CTH 751, MS?)

The case of mu instead of expected ma must be due to the following enclitic pronoun =du ‘to you/him’, which would have colored the preceding enclitic element. For a potential parallel, cf. ˹ú-du˺ for /a=du/ (KBo 37.150 ii 1’). An interpretation of =mu as the enclitic pronoun ‘(to) me’ would be harder to account for with the following pronoun =du ´to you/him´.

[D.S.]

The existence of the Palaic particle ma, equating Hittite ma, seen e.g. in KBo 19.152 11’ and KUB 32.17 11’, was tentatively suggested, but could never be verified due to the paucity of the attestations (cf. Carruba 1970a:62). Its existence has now grown more certain due to the discovery of new Palaic fragments (e.g. KBo 37.150 and KUB 48.53). Yet despite the additional evidence from these new fragments, a functional analysis of the particle ma is not possible due to the incomplete state of the contexts. However, the particle appears so far to be restricted to the clitic chain in the Wackernagel position.

[D.S.]

CHD L-M:91-99