pjdl

Hapax in a votive inscription of unknown provenance (but probably from Egypt and not Caria, see Schürr 1999b:30, Schürr 2010e:134 and Simon 2019e:289, Simon forthcoming [cf. also Gander in Çörtük & Gander & Holler 2018a:115f.] contra Meier-Brügger 1994a:113; Adiego 2007a:160, Adiego 2010b:171, Adiego 2019a:32f.), its dating to the 6th c. is not assured (Gusmani 1978c:67, not “late 6th – 5th century BC”, contra Adiego 2019a:32).

[Zs.S.]

nom. / acc. sg.

pjdl

C.xx 1

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:396 checked against the photograph of Gusmani 1978c:Tafel II. On the reading of the last letter see Adiego 2007a:160 (contra his own unjustified question mark in Adiego 2007a:396 and Adiego 2010b:171). The grammatical definition is the implication of the meaning established by Melchert 1993d:80f., see under Meaning. Since it is an apposition it may or may not be in congruence with its base word, the votive object in acc. sg.

[Zs.S.]

Melchert 1993d:80f., Melchert 2002b:309f., Melchert 2010f:183 (followed by Yakubovich 2005a:248; Adiego 2007a:282, 396 [cautiously], Adiego 2010b:172; Gander in Çörtük & Gander & Holler 2018a:116 [cautiously]) suggested to understand pjdl as an apposition to snn orkn ‘this o. [a bowl type] (acc. sg.)’ of the votive inscription in the meaning ‘gift, offering’ (sc. “…offered/offers this o. as a gift”) deriving it from *piyod^hlom since all typical parts of a votive inscription (the dedicator, the dedicated object [snn orkn], the verb of dedication [ýbt] and the recipient [ntro]) are already expressed by other words.

Alternatively, Janda 1994a:178 proposed that pjdl is a verb and compared it with Lydian pill ‘he gave’ (see s.v.). However, first, he did not provide any explanation how the inscription could contain one more verb of dedication (he claimed that he understands ýbt differently but did not provide any detail). Second, -l as a 3sg. pret. ending is a Lydian innovation, which is not expected in Carian and clearly contradicted by the attested Carian ending -t (Adiego 2007a:321, cf. also Simon 2020d:409).

Finally, Schürr 1999b:31 suggested that the dedicatee (ntro) is not Apollo, as it is generally assumed, but a priest of Apollo (cf. also Schürr 1998a:158 and Melchert 2002b:309, but retracted in Melchert 2010f:183) and, accordingly, pjdl would be his name. Although contextually also this solution is possible, it faces a morphological problem: In this case, ntro should be a derivative of Ntr(o), which is possible only with the zero appurtenance suffix (Adiego 2007a:269f.) and which implies that -o is the dat. sg. ending. However, dative singulars in -o are usually interpreted as -o stems with a zero ending (e.g. Melchert 2010f:183f.), even if this is not an entirely settled question. Accordingly, it is more probable that ntro refers to Apollo himself and thus, pjdl cannot be his personal name. Strictly speaking pjdl could be an epithet of Apollo and then a dative ending is expected on pjdl, which would be zero. Although this is in accordance with the general views on the Carian dative singular ending (as per above), the probable suffix *-d^hlom forms instrumental nouns, which is semantically not fitting a divine epithet.

All in all, since it is Melchert’s analysis that provides the contextually and formally most fitting solution, it is followed here.

[Zs.S.]