DOI Artikel:
Arkwright, Walther: Über das lykische Alphabet
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22624#0085
75
as F, and in any case has very little resemblance to x. Nor does any sibilant
resemble x. The derivation from O is preferable.
5. W (a form of T) has more resemblance to the Cypriote T (ti) than to the
Greek and Lycian T, but the otlier derivation is quite probable.
6. ^ (probably a form of B) has only a slight resemblance to the Cypriote
4 (be7 pe, cpe). The Greek derivation is preferable.
7. 'f or T (nasalized a) has very little resemblance to the Cypriote X (a)
and none at all to T (na).
8. 88 (nasalized ä) has very little resemblance to X- (e). A late form T has
a resemblance to a Cypriote variant T (which however is not given in most
tables); but exceptional and especially late variants cannot properly be used as
means of comparison; 88 is not like i$' (ne).
9. X (sonant m) has a resemblance to the Cypriote X (me) of which a trun-
cated and presumably later variant has actually the shape X.
10. E (sonant n) has a certain resemblance both to T (na) and to (ni).
The last four are those 011 which the question chielly turns. In the case of
and 88 the shape so strongly sug’gests that they are differentiated from a common
original Y, and they have so little resemblance to the Cypriote a and e7 with which
moreover they do not really correspond in sound, that it seems the less difficult
course to derive them from the Greek Y. Again X and E (m and n) have a
resemblance to the Greek derivatives of Samech which seems too close to be
accidental; when we consider how probable it is that m and n were placed next
to m and n in the place known to have belonged to Samech. This consideration
to my mind- outweighs the not very extraordinary resemblance to the Cypriote
forms.
Thus the Cypriote derivation is no case necessary; in 4 cases it is either
untenable or decidedly less probable (V, + or A x; ^>); 4 cases may be called
indecisive (T, 887 Y, W); in 2 cases the resemblance in sound to the Cypriote is
counterbalanced by the identity in shape and perhaps in alphabetical order with
the Greek letters.
Note o n the n umbering o f the Lycian inscription s.
Since many of the inscriptions quoted above are unpublished, and no
authoritative System of numbering has yet been adopted7 I have employed a
provisional arrangement of my own. Wherever it is possible I have kept the
numbers given by Schmidt in his Corpus, except in the single instance of his
10*
as F, and in any case has very little resemblance to x. Nor does any sibilant
resemble x. The derivation from O is preferable.
5. W (a form of T) has more resemblance to the Cypriote T (ti) than to the
Greek and Lycian T, but the otlier derivation is quite probable.
6. ^ (probably a form of B) has only a slight resemblance to the Cypriote
4 (be7 pe, cpe). The Greek derivation is preferable.
7. 'f or T (nasalized a) has very little resemblance to the Cypriote X (a)
and none at all to T (na).
8. 88 (nasalized ä) has very little resemblance to X- (e). A late form T has
a resemblance to a Cypriote variant T (which however is not given in most
tables); but exceptional and especially late variants cannot properly be used as
means of comparison; 88 is not like i$' (ne).
9. X (sonant m) has a resemblance to the Cypriote X (me) of which a trun-
cated and presumably later variant has actually the shape X.
10. E (sonant n) has a certain resemblance both to T (na) and to (ni).
The last four are those 011 which the question chielly turns. In the case of
and 88 the shape so strongly sug’gests that they are differentiated from a common
original Y, and they have so little resemblance to the Cypriote a and e7 with which
moreover they do not really correspond in sound, that it seems the less difficult
course to derive them from the Greek Y. Again X and E (m and n) have a
resemblance to the Greek derivatives of Samech which seems too close to be
accidental; when we consider how probable it is that m and n were placed next
to m and n in the place known to have belonged to Samech. This consideration
to my mind- outweighs the not very extraordinary resemblance to the Cypriote
forms.
Thus the Cypriote derivation is no case necessary; in 4 cases it is either
untenable or decidedly less probable (V, + or A x; ^>); 4 cases may be called
indecisive (T, 887 Y, W); in 2 cases the resemblance in sound to the Cypriote is
counterbalanced by the identity in shape and perhaps in alphabetical order with
the Greek letters.
Note o n the n umbering o f the Lycian inscription s.
Since many of the inscriptions quoted above are unpublished, and no
authoritative System of numbering has yet been adopted7 I have employed a
provisional arrangement of my own. Wherever it is possible I have kept the
numbers given by Schmidt in his Corpus, except in the single instance of his
10*