tupelija-

This lexeme is found in the inscription of 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.).

[D.S.]

acc. sg.	tupelijã	TL 44a.38 (Xanthos)
		TL 44a.39 (Xanthos)

Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:136 assume that tupelijã is a title modifying the personal name qacadunimi puwejehñ ‘Qacadnimi, (son) of Puweje, the tupelijã’ and translates tupelijã as ‘champion’. First, the passage in question surely contains a diplography, since qacadunimi puwejehñ is repeated in the line after and it is very unlikely that this sequence of personal names would occur twice in a row (likewise Eichner 2005a:26 n. 140). Therefore, the words starting from se in line 39 up to puwejehñ in line 40 are removed from the text here. A similar kind of mistake made by the carver is found on the West side of the inscribed pillar: TL 44d.30-31. Despite all appearances, qacadunimi puwejehñ must not be analyzed as a patronymic construction, since the genitive puwejehñ can be dependent on the following tupelijã instead (thus Gehrisch 2018a:62). Contra Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:136, tupelija- is not likely to designate an agent noun, because the suffix chain -ija- c. or -elija- is used rather for abstract or concrete nouns; cf. xupelija- c. Moreover, its etymological relationship with Hitt. tuppi- ‘tablet’, HLuw. SCRIBA-la- /tuppala-/ ‘scribe’ and SCRIBA-la-li-ia /tuppalalliya-/ ‘writing’ is undeniable (Eichner 2005a:26 n. 140). Therefore, tupelija- would be expected to mean ‘inscription’ vel sim.

These semantics would be adequate in the context. For example, in the first attestation, i.e. mrbbẽnedi tupelijã trm͂mili ‘the Lycian inscription with mrbbẽnedi’, tupelijã is probably the direct object of axã ‘I made’ in line 35 and appears to be coordinated by se with the first direct object tupa. The following sentence, se […] qacadunimi puwejehñ tupelijã, probably missing a verb in the lacuna, is better interpreted as having a change of subject. A personal name in the accusative case would be out of place in a context, explaining the architectural setting concerning the monument. Therefore, the sentence is better interpreted as ‘Qacadunimi [carved?] the inscription of Puweje’, implying that the other inscription in question, perhaps the Lycian B inscription, was composed by Puweje.
A list of outdated hypotheses can be found in Neumann 2007a:390. No meaning is given in DLL:73. Gehrisch 2018a:62 translates tupelijã as ‘army’, which finds no support whatsoever.

[D.S.]

The noun tupelija- is an abstract noun in -a- derived from an adjectival formation in -i(je)-, i.e. *tupeli(je)-. This adjective is derived in turn either from a substantivized formation in -ele/i-, i.e. *tupele/i-, or from an agent noun in -ala-, i.e. *tupala- (cf. HLuw.  /tuppala-/); these would be derived from the attested noun tupa.

[D.S.]

For the derivational base see LycA. tupe/i-.