ON LYCIAN INSCRIPTIONS. 



251 



No. 16. 



There are so many words in this inscription 

 which appear to require correction, and so little 

 that is yet understood, that no transcript of it has 

 been given. 



The first short line seems to have been aban- 

 doned by the sculptor on account of its incor- 

 rectness, and he has begun again in the next 

 line. The same has happened with the inscrip- 

 tion No. 14 of Sir C. Fellows's Plate 36. 



The beginning of the inscription is clear 

 enough : — 



ewuenu : gopu mute prinafatu : sggotraze mune itepetute : 



This - tomb ivhich made Sggotraze which he inscribed to 



sggotraze : se \adu : euwe se tedeemes euwes 

 Sggotraze and wife his and children his 



We have here a termination in s to the dative 

 plural, instead of the lengthening of the last 

 vowel, tedeemes euwes being used instead of the 

 usual form tedeeme euweye. There is only one 

 other inscription, No. 17, which has a similar 

 form. So great a change in the declension of 

 the language makes it probable that these two 

 inscriptions are of a different date from the 

 others ; and as the change is an approach to the 



