cẽni-^(t) (τẽni-^(t))

The five attestations of this lexeme are all associated with the texts found in Sardis but belong to the compositions of various genres. Most of the texts are broadly dated to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE, except for TL 80, which is dated more precisely to the 4^th century BCE. 

[I.Y.]

1sg. pres. act.	cẽnu	LW 10.20 (Sardis)
3sg. pres. act.	cẽnit	LW 80.8 (Sardis)
3sg. pres. act.	šiτẽnit	LW 13.10 (Sardis)
3sg. pres. med.	cẽntλ	LW 22.8 (Sardis)
1pl. pres. act.	τẽnwν	LW 13.11 (Sardis)
inf.	cẽnal	LW 10.8 (Sardis)

For the grammatical identification of cẽntλ as a medio-passive form, see Melchert 2006b. The form cẽnal is usually taken as 3pl. pret. (Gusmani 1964a:89), but the discovery of cẽnit, with the divergent vocalism of the second syllable, necessitated a complicated phonological scenario for the development of cẽnal (Melchert 1992a:42). It would be easier to account for this discrepancy if cẽnal represented a non-finite form, an outcome of a secondary derivation. Even more importantly, the relevant clause in LW 10.8 has another and less ambiguous candidate for the finite verbal form, namely nãrs. The combination of these factors prompts the analysis of cẽnal as an infinitive. For a different formal account, see Gérard 2005a:109.

[I.Y.]

Although the graphemes <c> and <τ> must reflect different sounds in most cases (Gérard 2005a:58-60), in this case we are possibly dealing with a purely graphic analogical influence of ši-τẽnit on τẽnit (the two forms occur in adjacent lines in the same inscription). The graphic analogy proposed here reduces the pattern to the same alternation of c- vs. -τ- that can be observed in its derivative ẽn-τawlo- (Gusmani 1969a:137). Note that the occurrences of word-initial τ- are generally rare in Lydian (Yakubovich 2005b:77 n.11).

[I.Y.]

The contexts that appear to be the most promising for determining the meaning of cẽni- are LW 10.20 and LW 22.8. The first context indicates that the verb is ditransitive and probably features the ancestors as direct object. In the context of a burial inscription, this is most easily compatible with the meaning ‘to dedicate, entrust’. In fact, this is the translation that was first offered for cẽni- in Meriggi 1935a:97 n. 55 and that dominated the subsequent discussion, including Gusmani 1964a and Gérard 2005a. The situation changed with Melchert’s identification of the middle form of the same root in LW 22, in a clause that apparently refers to financial arrangements. The translation ‘is required’ was tentatively offered in Melchert 2006b:1165, but contextual analysis suggests that the same clause includes an indirect object functioning as a likely beneficiary (Yakubovich 2017b) and therefore the translation ‘is due’ is arguably more appropriate. Consequently, the transitive forms of the same verb could have the general meaning ‘to designate’, which naturally could be further specialized as ‘to dedicate’ within the religious context.

[I.Y.]

The stem cẽni- contains the imperfective suffix -e͂ni-, a cognate of Hitt. -anna-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) (Gérard 2005a:109). The preservation of cẽnit, as opposed to šawẽnt and wc-paqẽnt, which display syncope in the same morphological environment, may be due to the poetic character of LW 80. The suffix -e͂ni- does not trigger the lenition of the personal endings in 3sg. pres. The verb cẽni- represents the only Lydian verb attested thus far, which can be combined with both active and medio-passive endings. The stem under discussion can be combined with the prefix ši-.

[I.Y.]

1. cẽqra-
2. ãnτẽt

Fro the lemma head see Lyd. *ta-^(di).