zasa-^(ti)

This lexeme is found in a grave inscription.

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. ind. med.

zasãni

TL 150.9 (Rhodiapolis)

The grammatical interpretation of this word has been very much debated in the literature. Thus, Meriggi 1936b:274 regards it as a finite form. Hajnal 1995a:133 suggests instead an infinitive (followed by Melchert (DLL:87), Serangeli 2018a:323 (with doubts), Serangeli 2019a:236f.), which seems strange, since the clause includes an infinitive (kumezeine) already; contra Neumann 2007a:430 “a substantive”. Sasseville 2021a:58f. interprets it instead as a medio-passive form in -ni (cf. sijẽni), a comparison that had already been made in the literature (see Neumann 2007a:430 with further literature), before the Lycian medio-passive was elucidated by Melchert 1992c. Overall, the medio-passive interpretation accounts much better for the syntax of the sentence.

[D.S.]

The verb has an indirect object, Xssẽnzija ‘(PN)’, and the infinitive phrase xadrñna uhazata kumezeine ‘to sacrifice yearly xadrñna’ depending on it. It has been translated as ‘to deliver, furnish’ by Melchert (DLL:87), Hajnal 1995a:163 n. 186, ‘a portion to deliver’ by Serangeli 2018a:323, all following the convincing etymological connection with za-^(ti) ‘to give as a share’. Sasseville 2021a:58f. translates ‘it is assigned’ in the medio-passive, which provides a better translation of the overall clause and does not contradict the etymology.

[D.S.]

While the iterative formation in -s-^(ti) built on the verb za-^(ti) had been recognized (DLL:87), Sasseville further adds that the factitive character betrayed by the vowel -a- in -ã-ni strongly suggests the following derivational chain, i.e. *zas-^(ti) → *zasa- c. → zasa-^(ti). The scenario of Serangeli 2018a:325, in which the -a- vowel is explained as “anaptyptic”, creates paradigmatic chaos vis-à-vis regular asñne (inf.) and is therefore less satisfactory.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see Lyc. ta-^(di).