ãnτẽt

This lexeme occurs in two mutually interconnected texts found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis, invariably preceding direct speech.

[I.Y.]

indecl.	ãnτẽt	LW 23.5 (Sardis)
		LW 24.1, 17 (Sardis)

This form is traditionally analyzed as a verb, see e.g. Gusmani 1964a:73, and it is indeed probable that the final part of this compound contains an etymological verbal form. But there is no evidence that the compound as such was inflected for person, number, or tense. For the justified doubts about the synchronic status of ãnτẽt as a verbal form, see Gérard 2005a:101 n. 661. Also, cf. the discussion below.

[I.Y.]

The presence of the two nasal vowels in ãnτẽt indicates that we are dealing with a recent compound, as implied in the discussion by Eichner 1986b:213. 

[I.Y.]

A form such as ãnτẽt, which always precedes direct speech, is likely to represent one of three things: either an adverb with the meaning ‘thus’, ‘as follows’, or the final verbal form with the meaning ‘speaks’ (vel sim.), or both combined. The second interpretation is embraced in Gusmani 1980a:39 with reference to the likely parallelism between LW 23.5-6 ãnτẽt mitridaštas mitratališ kawes and the Old Persian formula θātiy Dārayavauš xšāyaθiya ‘(Thus) proclaims Darius the King’, which occurs many times in the Bisitun Inscription. Persian influence is particularly likely given that both Mitridašta- and Mitrata- apparently represent Iranian theophoric names. Yet, as long as the form ãn-τẽt can be analyzed as an etymological compound with the internal structure ‘thus-designates’ (cf. the reconstruction below), one can alternatively embrace the third solution and still retain the hypothesis of the Lydian inscriptions imitating Achaemenid phraseology. It is even likely that the compound ãnτẽt represents an ad hoc creation for rendering the meaning of the declarative verb in Achaemenid inscriptions, since ãn- is not otherwise used as a verbal prefix in Lydian. If so, there are no reasons to suppose that ãnτẽt had a full verbal paradigm and one can hence treat this form as an indeclinable adverb.

[I.Y.]

The form ãnτẽt can be analyzed as a compound of ãn ‘thus’ and cẽnit, a 3sg. pres. form of cẽni- ‘to designate (vel sim.)’. For the syncope in compounds, cf. the case of cẽ-qra- ‘designated property’; for the alternation between <c> and <τ>, see Gusmani 1969a:137. This compound was formed within Lydian, as the co-occurrence of two nasal vowels suggests, and probably in the Achaemenid period (cf. above).

The alternative etymologies of ãnτẽt relate it to Hittite verbal forms. The comparison with Hitt. ḫandā(i)-^(mi) ‘to determine’ was ventured in Carruba 1960a:45 n. 26, endorsed in Gusmani 1969a:139, but rejected in Melchert 1992a:39 as phonetically implausible. Yet, Melchert’s (ibid.) alternative reconstruction én-atsyónti, based on the comparison with Hitt. ḫazziye/a-^(mi) ‘to strike, inscribe’, is hardly an improvement, crucially because it implies the existence of a 3pl. pres. form, which is patently out of tune with the context in all three cases. Neither of these two etymologies attempts to relate ãnτẽt to the other forms attested within Lydian.

[I.Y.]