dẽt(i)-

This lexeme is found in various inscriptions, most of them datable to the Archaic period; cf. Gérard 2005a:20 (LW 54), Euler & Sasseville 2019a (LW 23, 24, 62).

[D.S.]

The word dẽt has often been interpreted as a verb in the previous literature (Brandenstein 1931b:31f.), although Meriggi 1935a:76-78 points out that the attestation dẽtn ẽmν ‘my dẽt’ is clearly nominal as well as dẽt (LW 46.1) by itself, where the verb of the clause is fašapid (followed by Gusmani 1960a:285 n. 40). Following the discovery of LW 54, Gusmani 1961a:198-200 could show that the new sequence qi=g dẽt must be interpreted as ‘whatever goods’, which then led to a similar interpretation for other already known passages. In Gusmani 1964a:99, all attestations are interpreted nominally. Melchert 1994a:187 takes dẽt in LW 23.6 as nom. sg. common gender, because of the following resumptive pronoun =aν (acc. sg. c.), which he assumes to refer to dẽt. However, we must disagree and take the person to whom the dẽt is handed over as the referent of =aν (thus Euler & Sasseville 2019a:132). Melchert (apud Gérard 2005a:113) and Sasseville 2017a:142 take the form dẽt as the consonantal collective to the mutated common gender noun dẽt(i)-, which would explain its agreement with the neuter, e.g. in a]λad dẽt (LW 46.1); for the neuter agreement in -d of the collective, cf. mλola srfastid (LW 5.3). The collective interpretation is omitted by Yakubovich 2017b:277f., who decides instead to take dẽt as an adverb functioning as a clause predicate meaning ‘belongs’. This is not supported by the overall attestations of the corpus and is definitely not required by LW 22.7, in which dẽt can be used appositionally in a nominal sentence. Despite the long-standing view of wanting to lexically separate dẽt from dẽtn, there is no passage that would require us to do so.

[D.S.]

On contextual grounds, Gusmani 1960a:285 argues that the dẽt(i)- refers to one’s goods that can be handed over to someone else (Gusmani 1964a:99, Dusinberre 2003a:230f. and Bouzid-Adler 2014a:14, 16 translate “property”). Within his analysis of a new Lydian sound law, Melchert 1994b:186f. brings further evidence to this meaning by etymologically equating Lyd. dẽt with Hitt. ^UDUiyant- c. ‘small livestock, sheep’ (followed by Gérard 2005a:128, Sasseville 2017a:142). This also confirms independently that Lydian dẽt(i)- refers to the mobile wealth of a Persian priest that is handed over to the Artemision at Sardis upon entering its cult as an official member (see Euler & Sasseville 2019a:130-139). In LW 54, it refers to the (mobile) possessions of a deceased man, which are subsequently given over to the cult of Artemis of Ephesus.

[D.S.]

For the appurtenance of dẽt(i)- c. to the paradigm of mutated stems, see Sasseville 2017a:142.

[D.S.]

HW 2nd ed. I:26-28