xba-^(ti)

This verb is found in a grave inscription form Limyra.

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.

x̣bati

TL 106.2 (Limyra)

Contra Neumann 2007a:115, the word xbati does not belong to the paradigm of xba(i)-^(di) ‘to water’, which inflects according to the lenited mi-conjugation (thus also DLL:81). The root of the verb xba-^(ti) should not be confused with that for ‘water’ as in the toponym xbane ‘Kyaneai’.

[D.S.]

For a new edition of the inscription, see Christiansen 2020a:251.

[D.S.]

The status of xbati as a verb is not generally accepted. Hajnal 1995a:121 n. 145 takes xbati as a verbal form, but leaves it untranslated. Differently Neumann 2012a:407, who sees xbati as the subject of the sentence, whereas Christiansen 2020a:251 interprets xbati as an indirect object without giving any translation. The most convincing syntactic and semantic analysis is that suggested by Hajnal (ibid.) and Melchert (DLL:81), who translate ‘to inflict’. However, we disagree with the scholars who take zum͂mẽñneti as a unitary word despite the unsurmountable morphological difficulties. Instead, it is taken here as an embedded relative clause (cf. Gehrisch 2018a:146f., who also sees a relative clause, but with a different analysis of the clitic chain).

se=i=zum͂mẽ xbati : zum͂mẽ=ñne=ti : θurtta : señnaha : epñte : ladã : ẽmi : se=tideimis : ẽmis …

(TL 106.2-3)

‘and thereupon inflicts slander, whatever (would count) as slander for them, on the θurtta señnaha and afterwards my wife and my children…’

Etymological support can be drawn from CLuw. ḫap(a)i-^(di) ‘to attach, bind’ (as suggested by Carruba 1977a:299, Schürr 2016d:177f.).

[D.S.]

The verb xba-^(ti) inflects like a factitive verb in -a-^(ti). Therefore, one could posit a non-attested derivational base *xba- (or *xaba- c.), from which the denominative verb would have been derived.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see PAnat. *Hep-.