binq

Hapax in a stone inscription of unknown date in Sinuri.

[Zs.S.]

acc. sg.?

binq

C.Si 1

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:359. Adiego 2007a:139, 359 claims that the reading of the last letter is “not absolutely certain” (indicated already on the drawing by Deroy 1955a:316), but the photos of the block and of the squeeze published by Robert 1950a:Pl. 1 are quite clear from this point of view, hence the reading is assured.

[Zs.S.]

Hajnal 1995b:18 claims that this word is to be translated as ‘ich schenkte’, which he reconstructs as *píyannāḫa (1sg. pret.) comparing Hitt. piyanna- “imperfective form of ‘to give’” and Lycian B pina- ‘to present, offer’(see s.v.) (cautiously followed by Neumann 2007a:274 [“vielleicht”]; but strictly rejected in Simon 2011b:542 n. 17 [“ad hoc und hilft nicht weiter”]). Without commenting on Hajnal’s views, Adiego 2007a:359 assumed a verbal form, with question mark. However, there are several problems with Hajnal’s claim. First, initial voiced stops are not expected in Carian, since it seems to have participated in the pan-Anatolian devoicing of initial stops (Adiego 2007a:259) and, thus all initial voiced stops in Carian seem to be secondary (although this still needs a separate investigation), which is hard to motivate in case of binq. Second, whichever etymology for the assumed cognates (Hitt. pai-/pi-, Luw. pai-/pi(ya)- ‘to give’) is accepted (the traditional one assuming an univerbation with a preverb *pe- or the more appropriate derivation from *h₁p-ói-/*h₁p-i- by Kloekhorst 2006c, EDHIL:615f., see the discussion s.v.), all etymons show a PIE *p, which requires the initial stop of binq to be secondary, which is again hard to explain. In both cases one may argue that if Carian bebint is a cognate (as it was indeed claimed, see s.v.), it would show a reduplicated form with a regularly lenited second [b], which triggered the assimilation of the initial stop (type Latin bibere), and this form analogically influenced the initial consonant of the unreduplicated form. Although this is not impossible, currently there is no evidence that bebint is a cognate (see s.v.). Third, although there is a considerable debate regarding the exact origin of Carian ‹q›, there is a general agreement that ‹q› continues a phoneme with a labial element and/or a phoneme followed by /w/ or /u/ (Simon 2011b:542–545, Simon 2017f:386f.; Brosch 2016a; Kloekhorst 2018b:73, all with further refs.), contrary to *-a assumed by Hajnal, and only Simon allows the continuation of a lenited *-h₂-, too. Fourth, although the context is unclear (yrik̑ñ : binq : sñaidλo, C.Si 1, line 2), yrik̑ is well attested as a second member of compound names (Adiego 2007a:330, 434; Simon 2017g:117f.), thus it is possible (although need not be) that yrik̑ is a personal name here, too, and not an object, what Hajnal claims. All in all, Hajnal’s claim can safely be excluded.

Considering that yrik̑n is probably an accusative followed by binq, which can theoretically be segmented as bin=q, i.e., an accusative with =q, which is attested in the meaning ‘and’ (see s.v.), we are perhaps dealing with a co-ordinated phrase ‘yrik̑ (acc.) and bi (acc.)’, whatever the third word (see s.v.) means (the word dividers cause no problems, since clitics are treated together with their host, see in detail Simon forthcoming). The remaining question, which cannot be solved at the moment, is if these words are personal names or substantives.

[Zs.S.]