Journals / Gephyra / 2018 /

Do ‘Ergatives’ Exist in Lycian?

Likçe’de ‘Ergatif ’ hali var mıdır?

Journal
Gephyra
Pages
1–9
Publication Date
2018-05-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

From this would have been derived an adjective, attested in TL 149, and probably TL 71, too.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Lycian word for ‘oath’, (tese/i-), being genus commune, should therefore not require an ‘ergative’ suffix of the kind attested in Hittite and Luwian, when a neuter is functioning as the subject of a sentence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:On the contrary, the ‘collective’ (i.e. neuter) plural t[asa]: miñtaha (TL 75), ‘oaths of the Mindis’, is once attested as a punishing agency, as is marazija miñtaha (TL 118, 135 and 139), also neuter plural.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:From this would have been derived an adjective, attested in TL 149, and probably TL 71, too.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ergativ · Likçe · Hititçe

Abstract

The Lycian word for ‘oath’, (tese/i-), being genus commune, should therefore not require an ‘ergative’ suffix of the kind attested in Hittite and Luwian, when a neuter is functioning as the subject of a sentence. On the contrary, the ‘collective’ (i.e. neuter) plural t[asa]: miñtaha (TL 75), ‘oaths of the Mindis’, is once attested as a punishing agency, as is marazija miñtaha (TL 118, 135 and 139), also neuter plural. The word tesẽti (TL 149) or teseti (TL 135), also a punishing agency, should signify ‘oath gods’, not ‘oaths’ personified, comparable with esbẽte, probably ‘horsemen’ (dative), and the theonym So(u)mendis. Trm͂milijẽti is also not an ‘ergative’, but probably a compound, ‘place of the Termilians’, in TL 44d, 57, used also as a place-name Trimilin[d]/a/. From this would have been derived an adjective, attested in TL 149, and probably TL 71, too.

Özet

‘Yemin’ sözcüğünün Likçe karşılığı olup genus commune halindeki (tese/i-), bir neutrum cümlenin öznesi olarak işlev gördüğü zaman, Hititçe ve Luvicede tespit edilen türden bir ‘ergatif’ gerektirmemektedir. Aksine, ‘Mindis’in yeminleri’ ‘kollektif’ (yani neutrum) çoğul t[asa]: miñtaha (TL 75) bir kere cezalandırıcı kurumu olarak belgelenmiştir ve bu durum aynı şekilde neutrum çoğul olan marazija miñtaha (TL 118, 135 ve 139) için de böyledir. Yine cezalandırma kurumu olan tesẽti (TL 149) veya teseti (TL 135) sözcüğü, kişileştirilmiş ‘yeminler’ değil, ‘yemin tanrıları’na işaret etmelidir ve ‘atlı’ anlamındaki datif esbẽte ve tanrı ismi olan So(u)mendis ile karşılaştırılabilir. Trm͂milijẽti sözcüğü de ‘ergatif’ değildir, fakat TL 44d, 57’de büyük ihtimalle ‘Termillerin yeri’ anlamında bileşik bir sözcük olup, ayrıca Trimilin[d]/a/ şeklinde yer adı olarak da kullanılmıştır. Bu sözcükten, TL 149 ve büyük olasılıkla TL 71’de belgelendiği üzere bir sıfat türetilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SCHÜRR, D. (2018). Do ‘Ergatives’ Exist in Lycian?. Gephyra, 1–9. https://ajindex.com/articles/62793

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. I.- X. Adiego, Two reading notes to the Lycian text of the Letoon trilingual stele, Kadmos 51, 2012, 93-98.
  2. J. Borchhardt et al., Archäologisch-sprachwissenschaftliches Corpus der Denkmäler mit lykischer Schrift. Anzeiger ÖAW, phil.-hist. Kl. 134/2, 1997/99, 11-96.
  3. C. Brixhe, Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie. Documents et grammaire (Bibl. de IFEA XXVI), Paris 1976.
  4. T. R. Bryce, Burial Fees in the Lycian Sepulchral Inscriptions, AnSt 26, 1976, 175-190.
  5. O. Carruba, Der Kasus auf -sa des Luwischen, in: E. Neu (Hg.), Investigationes philologicae et comparativae, Gs H. Kronasser, Wiesbaden 1982, 1-15.
  6. B. Christiansen, Schicksalsbestimmende Kommunikation. Sprachliche, gesellschaftliche und religiöse Aspekte hethitischer Fluch, Segens und Eidesformeln (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 53), Wiesbaden 2012.
  7. H. Eichner, Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Nu¬merus ‘Kollektiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’), in: B. Schlerath – V. Rittner (Hgg.), Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte, Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.-25, Februar 1983, Wiesbaden 1985, 134-169.
  8. H. Eichner, Probleme von Vers und Metrum in epichorischen Dichtun¬gen Altkleinasiens, in: G. Dobesch – G. Rehrenböck (Hgg.), Die epigra¬phische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: 100 Jahre Kleinasiatische Kommission der ÖAW, Wien 1993, 97-169.
  9. J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler, Kleine Texte für Vorle¬sungen und Übungen 163, Berlin 1932.
  10. A. Garrett, The Origin of NP Split Ergativity, Language 66, 1990, 261-296.
  11. P. Goedegebuure, Split-ergativity in Hittite, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 102/2, 2013, 270-303.
  12. R. Gusmani, Lydisches Wörterbuch. Mit einer grammatischen Skizze und Inschriftensammlung, Heidelberg 1964.
  13. R. Gusmani, Die Nominalformen auf -z im Milyischen, Die Sprache 10, 1964, 42-49.
  14. I. Hajnal, Der lykische Vokalismus (Arbeiten aus der Abt. „Vergl. Sprachwiss.“ Graz 10), Graz 1995. O. Jäntti, Evaluating Anatolian ‘Ergativity’ (academia.edu, Download Februar 2017).
  15. E. Kalinka, Tituli Lyciae lingua Lycia conscripti (Tituli Asiae Minoris I), Vindobonae 1901. A. Korol’ov – V. Ševoroškin, Lykische Wörter und Namen, Archiv Orientální 37, 1969, 523-542.
  16. E. Laroche, Un «ergatif» en indo-européen d’Asie Mineure, BSL 57, 1962, 23-43.
  17. E. Laroche, L’inscription lycienne, in: Henri Metzger (Hg.), Fouilles de Xanthos VI: La stèle trilingue du Létôon, Paris 1979, 49-127.
  18. L. Locatelli, Le cheval dans l’onomastique du Su