pisñ(o)

A hapax, attested in a bilingual decree of the satraps Idrieus and Ada (thus between 351/350 – 344/343) from Sinuri.

[Zs.S.]

dat. sg. ?

pisño

C.Si 2, 2

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:398 checked against the photograph of Robert 1950a:Pl. II. &III. The word is attested in the sequence pisñoimδa clearly set apart with word dividing signs. The further segmentation of pisñoimδa depends on its interpretation, which diverges widely among researchers, see the discussion under Meaning, including the justification of the choice of dat. sg.

[Zs.S.]

Based on the structure of the inscription of C.Si 2, there is a general and justified agreement that the sequence pisñoimδa contains a verb, but everything else is heavily debated. While some scholars saw the verb in °mδa (see the discussion s.v.), Adiego 2000a:141, Adiego 2007a:304, 325, 398 identified the verb in pisñoi as a 3pl. pret. verb pisñ from pi- ‘to give’ (see s.v.) with an -s- iterative suffix and two clitic pronouns (=o for the direct object and =i for the indirect object). However, as Simon 2020d:399‒403 argued, this analysis cannot be upheld for several reasons: setting aside some syntactical problems, there is no evidence for the existence of a verb ñmaiλo of similar structure which served as the base of Adiego’s analysis (see s.v., note that it does not have an identical structure and thus, Adiego’s assumption of the clitic pronouns is completely ad hoc). Furthermore, Adiego’s analysis leads to an unparalleled 3pl. pret. ending -ñ, which is formally irregular in Anatolian (the expected form is ‹δ(V)› <*-nto, Simon 2020d argues that it is even attested).

Alternatively, Simon 2020d:403‒405 argues that since the structures of C.Si 2 and C.Ha 1 are identical (benefactor(s) + recipient [here pisño] + (i)mδ(a) + direct object) and one of the possible segmentations, pisño, is formally identical to a dative singular (which is the expected case), we are dealing here with the recipient of the donation by the benefactors (the two satraps) of the C.Si 2 inscription (other theoretically possible syntactic functions, e.g. ‘as a gift’, can be excluded since then the recipient would have not been mentioned in C.Si 2, which is hardly credible in case of a granting decree). Accordingly, pisño would be a personal name, which is well known from Hittite Anatolia as Pišeni (Laroche 1966b:147 No. 1023; Schürr 2001d:108, Schürr 2001c:63f., Schürr 2010c:202 already cautiously identified this term in the form of pisñoi as a personal name, but without arguments).

[Zs.S.]

If the analysis of pisñ(o) as a personal name given above is correct, its obvious comparison is delivered by the Hittite word pešn- / pišen- ‘man’ (see already Schürr 2001d:108, Schürr 2001c:63f., Schürr 2010c:202). However, since the Hittite word was also used as a personal name and there are cases of Western Anatolian names borrowed from Hittite or Luwian during the Hittite rule of Western Anatolia (see the discussion in Yakubovich 2010d:96‒99), it cannot be decided if we are dealing with a personal name based on local vocabulary or with a borrowed personal name.

[Zs.S.]