*pii̯oneh₂-

This lexeme is found 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.), and in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

1sg. pres. ind. act.	pinau	TL 55.6 (Antiphellos)
2sg. pres. ind. act. (?)	pñnasi	TL 55.2 (Antiphellos)
3sg. pres. ind. act.	pinati	TL 44c.36 (Xanthos)

The word pñnasi can be formally interpreted as the 2^nd person singular of the verb pina-^(ti). The interchange of -ñ- and -i- in this position is found also in xñna- vs. xina- ‘grandmother’. The only problem with this interpretation is that pñnasi would be the only identified 2^nd singular form in the inscription. Thus, more work on the context is required. Schürr 2005a:150 hesitates regarding the word division between pñnasi and what precedes it and suggests for (-)pñnasi an analysis as a genitival adjective, which is formally possible, but for the word division chosen here, see under lemma sttrm̃me/i-.

[D.S.]

The meaning of the verb pina-^(ti) has been elucidated by Eichner 1993a:144, who compares it etymologically with Hitt. peyanā(i)-^(mi) ‘to give as a reward’ (followed by Hajnal 1995b:18f., DLL:124, Sasseville 2015a:287, Schürr 2016d:168; cf. Neumann 2007a:274). This is contextually supported for each of the two attestations. In the first one, the direct object of the verb pina-^(ti) is leli ‘speech’:

trqqiz=kke=pe me=de zppli xixbati qetbeleimis si=ke tesi uwedris erẽpliz sebe leli pinati masasi tulije<l>i (TL 44c.34-36)

‘The Storm-god, on the other hand, summons for the zppli and for this oath all invigorating deities and then he grants speech in the assembly of gods.’

In the second attestation, the direct object is kapsaqẽ, a compound consisting of kapsa + qẽ. A similar compound with -qẽ as second member seems to occur within the same text, i.e. kñ^!ta<q>ẽ, depending on whether the emendation is correct; for which see under lemma. The obtained compound kñtaqẽ (kñta + qẽ) is the direct object of the verb xis-^(ti) ‘to offer in sacrifice’, which means that -qẽ should refer to something that can be offered within a religious context. Therefore, the verb pinau (with its direct object -qẽ) can be compared to the verb xis-^(ti), which makes the attributed meaning ‘to grant’ entirely adequate.

seb(e) erbbi ḳm͂qi=ke lbbeweli ) kapsaqẽ pinau {u}tm͂qrimi mlu neriu (TL 55.6)

‘Then, for the war and the km̃qi lbbeweli, I grant a kapsaqẽ as tm̃qrimi sororal votive offering…’

In sum, the assigned semantics of Lyc. B pina-^(ti) are supported both contextually and etymologically.

[D.S.]

The verb pina-^(ti) is a denominative in -a-^(ti) derived from a non-attested noun *pina- c. ‘reward (vel sim.)’. On Lycian factitives and the conversion process, see Sasseville 2015a:287f.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found four times in the text of an official agreement found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis and roughly datable to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

1pl. pres. act.

wcpinwν

LW 22.13 (Sardis)

The 1sg. pres. act. interpretation wc-pinwν was proposed in Meriggi 1935a:97 on the assumption that =ν represented a pronominal clitic. This interpretation is still regarded as an option in Gusmani 1964a:224, but it is clearly untenable because Lyd =aν ‘him, her, it’ always appears in the Wackernagel position. The 1pl. interpretation of wcpinwν goes back to Gusmani 1960a:297.

[I.Y.]

The context requires a ditransitive verb, hence the general meaning ‘to give’, which imposes itself on etymological grounds, also enjoys a degree of contextual support, cf. already Gusmani 1964a:224 and Carruba 1969a:73. Pace Heubeck 1959a:44f., the morphological segmentation wc-p-in-wν appears to be unlikely, since the grounds for the segmentation of the prefix p(a)- in Lydian remain insufficient. The imperfective interpretation ‘to keep giving’ is consistent with the proposed derivational analysis by Yakubovich 2017b:281 and essentially based on the assumption that the verb refers to the regular future obligations of one of the parties involved in the agreement LW 22. Cf. another likely imperfective inãnt used in the present tense later in the same inscription (LW 22.15).    

[I.Y.]

The stem pin- represents a derivative of pi(d)- ‘to give’, cf. already (Carruba 1960a:36 n. 1). An advantage of interpreting the suffix -n- as imperfective is that it apparently does not change the argument structure of the base verb. The connection with Hitt. piyanā(i)-^(mi) ‘to reward’, with the likely implication of denominative derivation, is less probable, since the Hittite verb is not ditransitive, but cf. under Reconstruction for a different morphological analysis.

[I.Y.]