*tbi^?at

Reconstructed from a personal name attested in a graffito on a tomb stela from Lyrbe of unknown date (Zinko & Zinko 2016a:377f., Zinko & Zinko 2019a:427f.).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.

tbi?atmemś

S11, 2

The attestation follows Zinko & Zinko 2016a:380, Zinko & Zinko 2019a:429 checked against the photographs in Zinko & Zinko 2016a:379 Abb. 5. Schürr 2016b:149 n. 4 reads the third sign as ‹u› (‹w› in his transcription), which is in fact a more fitting reading, but it does not lead to an attested name. Thus, provisionally, the reading ‹i› is followed here (cf. also Simon 2019g:384).

[Zs.S.]

The second sign of the word, N24 was convincingly identified as ‹b› [β] by Pérez Orozco 2003a:107 based on the analysis of the personal names ebpel / Εὐέμπολος (S6) and ϑanpijś / Ἀθηνοβίου (S1) and thus followed here (also by Zinko 2016a:361 and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:422, 429f.; cf. also the discussion by Rizza 2019a:545–547).

[Zs.S.]

Zinko & Zinko 2016a:380, Zinko & Zinko 2019a:429f. segment the second line of S11 as tbiat memś, i.e. ‘Tbiat, son of Mem’. If this is correct, then there is no compelling reason to include tbiat in this dictionary, since it is unknown whether an existing Sidetic word underlies this name. Nevertheless, Simon 2019g:385f. argues that tbi^?atmemś is a compound name (cf. also Schürr apud Simon 2019g:386 n. 6) and then tbi^?at could be a real Sidetic word. Either way, the comparison of Zinko & Zinko 2016a:380, Zinko & Zinko 2019a:429f. with the Cilician personal name τβιου (gen. sg.) is probably correct (but cf. under Form). The implied suffix -at- is indeed well-known in related languages (Simon 2019g:384 with refs., it is unclear if this was meant by Zinko & Zinko 2016a:380 [cf. also Zinko & Zinko 2019a:430] claiming that tbiat “formal (…) entspricht” the Sidetic name kuarśat). The stem employed in Cilicia as a personal name (cf. above) was convincingly explained from *dwiyo- ‘second’ by Valério 2015a:343 (followed in Simon 2019g:386 n. 6), which, accordingly, applies here, too.

[Zs.S.]