uni

This word, if complete as is, is attested in the inscription of 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.).

[D.S.]

Kalinka 1901a:41 recognizes a word divider between uni and tẽpe, i.e. uni : tẽpe (likewise Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:26 and most of the literature). However, Schmidt 1868b:Tafel VII.2 did not draw any word divider in his autography. Likewise, Schürr 2018b:60, 63 does not read any word divider, i.e. unitẽpe. However, based on a photo shown to me by Birgit Christiansen, there may be some traces of a word divider left, but they are very difficult to see. Therefore, the word divider is provisionally kept, but with a question mark. Regardless of whether there is a word divider or not, uni and tẽpe may or may not be taken as one word; cf. under Meaning.

[D.S.]

If uni is a complete word, it can be compared with the Hittite demonstrative pronoun uni (thus Korolev & Shevoroshkin 1969a:527) and interpreted as a frozen indeclinable form; cf. Lyd. uν. This is entirely plausible, but definite proof is still lacking. Differently, Melchert (DLL:133) sees a substantive une/i- in the dative/locative singular, which is also entirely possible, but remains unprovable.

Schürr 2018b:84 reads unitẽ=pe (thus already Bugge 1901a:52, Gusmani 1968c:17) and sees a preterite verbal form of a verb cognate to HLuw. /uni-^(ti)/ ‘to know’ (likewise Shevoroshkin 2011b:153, but 2sg. impv. uni ‘know!’). This is however contradicted by the syntax, for which the sentence already has a verb conjugated even in the present tense. Thus, not even an asyndeton would offer a solution for the interpretation as a preterite verbal form.

[D.S.]