ed(i)-

This demonstrative pronoun is found in various types of inscriptions, although it is used remarkably often in LW 44, a poetic inscription.

[D.S.]

nom. sg. c.	edš	LW 10.13 (Sardis) LW 44a.6 (Magnesia on Mt. Sipylos) LW 44a.13 (Magnesia on Mt. Sipylos)
nom./acc. sg. n.	edt	LW 44a.14 (Magnesia on Mt. Sipylos)
	ed(t)	LW 23.17 (Sardis)
dat. sg.	edλ	LW 44a.17 (Magnesia on Mt. Sipylos)
unclear	ed[ … ]	LW 44a.11 (Magnesia on Mt. Sipylos)

Thus, also Gusmani 1964a:101, Gérard 2005a:95. Schürr 2003b:116 n. 13 questions whether the -t in edt (LW 44a.14) is the actual ending or an independent particle, i.e. ed=t=in, whereas Melchert 2001e clearly prefers the particle interpretation. However, this would cause the nom./acc. sg. n. of the pronoun to be endingless. There could be another instance of the neuter pronoun found in the univerbation (cf. edkok), which is listed here in the table, although the following k would likewise cause the -t to be dropped. On the dissimilation process of the ending -t, see Gérard 2005a:95. There may be two additional attestations on a lead piece from Miletus, i.e. 1 -kus edus[, 2 -pus edu[ (LW/N 117), depending on how one divides the words. Still, the ending -us on the other hand would be quite obscure, but the vowel -u- could be anaptyctic.

[D.S.]

On contextual grounds, Brandenstein 1931b:52 posits that edš is a pronoun modifying together with the following genitival adjective the substantive qašaas in LW 10.13: edš wastνunliš qašaas ‘this/that qašaas of the wastνun’. His interpretation of a pronoun ed- is followed by Gusmani 1964a:101, Gérard 2005a:95, Payne & Wintjes 2016a:69). Outdated Meriggi 1935a:85f., who interprets it as an indefinite pronoun ‘some, any’. The inscription LW 44 contains several attestations of this pronoun. In the last clause, the pronoun edλ is translated as ‘this/that one’ with anaphoric reference (Gusmani 1961a:198, Gusmani 1964a:101, Gérard 2005a:95, Probert 2018a:278). In line 6, edš fedtros seems to be an attributive use, i.e. ‘this/that fedtros-official’. In line 13, it must refer anaphorically to asturkos in the preceding sentence, which likewise refers to a (divine) individual.

[D.S.]

The nominative singular in -š seems to indicate an i-mutated paradigm, i.e. ed(i)-, for which see Sasseville 2017a.

[D.S.]

Gérard 2005a:95 (with reference to Kronasser 1956a:144) compares Lyd. ed- to the segment ed- in Hitt. edani, edaš, ediz. Differently, Melchert (apud Gérard 2005a:95) suggests that the Lydian -d- has arisen from intervocalic *-i̯-, i.e. *i̯-/ei̯-V- (on the Indo-European pronoun, see Weiss 2020a:360f.). Based on the current state of research, either hypothesis is possible. More comparative evidence is needed.

[D.S.]