*pibii̯a-

1. /pibassa-⁽ⁱ⁾/

1. pipišša-⁽ⁱ⁾

This lexeme is found in various grave inscriptions as well as on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.	pibijeti	TL 44b.44 (Xanthos)
		TL 149.3 (Rhodiapolis)
		TL 149.5 (Rhodiapolis)
	pibiti	N 320.18-19 (Xanthos)
		N 320.21-22 (Xanthos)
		N 342a.2 (Tlos)

The number assignment of pibiti in N 320.18-19 and 21-22 is debated. Laroche 1979c:106f. treats them as singular, while Hajnal 1995a:31f. interprets them as plural forms (followed by DLL:49, hesitant Neumann 2007a:268). In the first instance, it is arñna ‘Xanthos’ (nom. sg. with Laroche 1979c:119, loc. sg. Hajnal 1995a:31f.), which would be the subject of the verb. Since the subject is a city (or its citizens, regardless of whether arñna is the subject or not), one can expect a constructio ad sensum, which is why plural number cannot be ruled out here. However, the sentence is coordinated with sm̃mati ‘binds, obligates’, which is clearly singular. Therefore, a singular interpretation is more likely for pibiti. The new inscription published by Korkut & Tekoğlu 2019a has an additional attestation of pibiti, where the subject is awaha nom. sg. c. and, thus, interpretation as a singular interpretation should be given preference (contra Christiansen 2019b:114).

[D.S.]

The meaning of the verb pibije-^(ti), already recognized as a reduplicated formation of pije-^(ti), was elucidated properly when the trilingual inscription was discovered; in that text it corresponds to Greek διδόναι ‘to give’ (Laroche 1979c:66, 69).

Oettinger 1976b:32 n. 39 and Heubeck 1985a:44 point out that the functional difference between pije-^(ti) and pibije-^(ti) has to do with iterativity, since pije-^(ti) refers to a single instance of the action of giving, whereas pibije-^(ti) refers to the repeated giving (occurring e.g. with uhazata ‘yearly delivery’ (cf. TL 44b.44-45, N 320.18-19).

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

2sg. impv. act.

pibi

TL 44c.42 (Xanthos)

Gusmani 1968c:2 n. 2 interprets pibi as an imperative form of the verb pibije-^(ti), which is more frequently attested in Lycian A (followed by DLL:124, Shevoroshkin 2011b:141, Schürr 2016d:167). For the meaning of pibije-^(ti) ‘to give’ see under the Lycian A lemma. The interpretation of the Lycian B form as an imperative is supported by the other imperative form slãma (see under lemma) occurring in the coordinated clause. As Schürr 2016d:175 rightly points out, one expects the word waxsi, standing directly before pibi and representing some kind of offering to the gods, to be the direct object of the verb. Since the Lycian poem contains many spelling mistakes, it is tempting to emend waxsi to waxsa^!, i.e. (nike) waxsa^! pibi ‘(don’t) give the waxsa!’. Still, any such emendation must be considered tentative until further contextual evidence is found.

[D.S.]

The 2^nd person singular imperative form pibi might come from a contracted *pibije! For the occasional contraction in this lexeme see under the Lycian A lemma.

[D.S.]

This verb occurs once at the end of a text found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis and datable to the Achaemenid period.

[D.S.]

3sg. pret. med. (?)

piferst

LW 23.22 (Sardis)

For the grammatical assignment, which is a debated matter, see under Meaning.

[D.S.]

Numerous attempts were made to compare the forms piferst (LW 23.22) and dacuwerst (LW 23.1) and to separate the ending -(e)rs in both forms (Gérard 2005a:104). This is however not persuasive, because the -t must be part of the ending, i.e. -rst. To separate a particle =t not bound to Wackernagel’s Law would be left unsupported in the present Lydian corpus. Carruba 1969b:41 tries to see the verbal suffix -ši-, analyzing the word as pifer-s-t, although the verbal suffix is always spelled with -š- and never with -s- (for which see Sasseville 2021a:505f.). Instead, Sasseville 2021a:382f., 386f. suggests that -rst represents the missing ending of the 3^rd singular preterit medio-passive, reflecting the combination of the ending -rs (3pl. pret.) with -t (< *-to, 3sg. med.).

If the grammatical assignment is correct, this yields the stem pife-, which was analyzed as the reduplicated form of pi(d)- ‘to give’ in Gusmani 1964a:80 and Shevoroshkin 1988b:301. Likewise, Euler & Sasseville 2019a:133 n. 28 and Sasseville 2021a:386f. take Lyd. pife- to be a direct cognate of Lyc. pibije-^(ti) ‘to give’ and HLuw. */piba-/, the derivational base of /pibassa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to give, grant’. If the medio-passive inflection for piferst is correct, it must be interpreted as a medium because of the direct object =ad. The semantics of ‘to grant’ or ‘to approve’ are conducive to elucidating the two last sentences of the inscription as suggested in Euler & Sasseville 2019a:130-133, 139:

ak=mλ=i[t] qed ẽṇud ẽṭaṃs ụν ak=ad artimus piferst (LW 23.20–22)

‘Whatever is valid in writing for him (scil. Mitridaštas), (that is) the decree here, Artemis has approved it.’

A similar contextual interpretation was already by Gusmani 1964a:80. However, considering the fact that piferst is a hapax legomenon and that the significance of the context may still be debated, the meaning ‘to approve (?)’ as well as the grammatical interpretation of piferst should be used tentatively.

[D.S.]