iprehe/i-

This lexeme is attested twice on the non-sepulchral inscription TL 26. Because the right half of the inscription is broken off, iprehe/i- only occurs in fragmentary contexts.

[D.S.] [O.B.]

acc. sg.	iprehi	TL 26.3 (Tlos)
		TL 26.17 (Tlos)

An interpretation as dat. sg. has also been suggested, see under Meaning.

[D.S.] [O.B.]

The meaning given here follows Neumann 1999a:51, Neumann 2007a:152f, DLL:29. In line 17 of TL 26, iprehi is followed by kbi[, probably to be emended to kbisñni on account of the immediately preceding putu kbisñn (with elision of the final -i, maybe because of the i- in the following word, see Neumann 1999a:51). The syntagm iprehi kbisñni, as well as putu kbisñni, may be readily compared to wawã trisñni ‘a three-year-old bovine’, which occurs in line 18 of the same inscription and in TL 44b.55. The element kbisñni would in this case be understood to mean ‘two-year-old’ (cf. kbi(je) with further derivatives). It is clear for all cases of wawã trisñni that the term denotes an object of sacrifice – the same may hence be assumed for iprehi kbisñni, i.e. ‘a two-year old iprehi’. It thus seems likely that iprehe/i- refers to a sacrificial animal. The specification ‘of the open country’ rests on etymological considerations (see under Stem). According to Neumann 1999a:51, a good guess for a precise meaning would be ‘wild boar’, as these were present at the time in Lycia and often hunted by the local aristocracy. The meanings ‘wild animal’ and ‘wild sheep’ or another non-domesticated animal cannot be excluded, however (Neumann 2007a:153).

Conversely, Carruba 1980a:280f interprets iprehe/i- as either a deity or place name in the dative, i.e. the recipient of the sacrifice rather than the sacrifice itself. This is followed and expanded upon in a number of articles by Schürr (Schürr 1991-1993a, Schürr 2001d, Schürr 2006a, Schürr 2013a). According to Schürr, iprehe/i- is a deity whose name stems from the Greek name of the island Imbros. The literal meaning of iprehe/i- would thus be ‘the Imbrian’ (Schürr 2006a:122). This deity is further connected to Apollo (Schürr 2006a:124, Schürr 2013a:220, thus also Oettinger 2015c:130-133). Under this analysis, the kbisñni ‘two-year-old’ following iprehi would constitute a separate syntactic argument, i.e. the direct object of the clause in the accusative, contextually understood to be a bovine in reference to an earlier emended wawã on line 16 (a full translation of the passage with this analysis may be found in Schürr 2006a:123).

While neither of the meanings proposed for iprehe/i-, i.e. sacrificial animal or deity, can strictly speaking be proven due to the fragmentary nature of the attestations, credence is given here to the former interpretation. The main argument remains the striking parallelism between iprehi kbisñni ‘two-year-old iprehi‘ and wawã trisñni ‘three-year-old bovine’. Moreover, it is not entirely clear in Schürr’s reading why the wawã in wawã trisñni should be repeated later in line 18, if we allow kbisñni on the preceding line already to be understood as a bovine (although this could be attributed to some unknowable element in the broken off text at the end of line 17). Note finally that the identification by Shevoroshkin 1968b:507 with iprehe/i- as a person of lower social status is outdated (based on Hitt. ^LÚḫippara- ‘serf (vel sim.)’, which is unrelated to the Lycian form: Hitt. ḫ- would imply Lyc. x-)

[D.S.] [O.B.]

Meriggi 1936b:265 analyzed iprehi as a genitival adjective in -ehe/i- to a base *ipre/i- also attested in the personal name Ipresida (TL 29.1, TL 69.1, N 334.1). Note that Meriggi connected the base to epre/i- ‘back, rear’, but this is impossible due to the divergent vocalism. A formation with the suffix -ehe/i- is now generally accepted, however (Schürr 1991-1993a:171, Neumann 1999a:51, Oettinger 2015c:130). Under either semantic interpretation (see Meaning), iprehe/i- should furthermore be analyzed as a substantivized adjective. By way of the etymological connection to Hitt. gimra- and Luw. im(ma)ra(/i)- made by Carruba 1980a:280f, the putative base *ipre/i- probably meant ‘open country’ (thus also Melchert 1994a:283, Neumann 1999a:51, Adiego 2011a:329, Oettinger 2015c:130).

[D.S.] [O.B.]

1. Ipresida- (PN) (Carruba 1980a:281)

Lyc. iprehe/i- is built to a base *ipre/i-, which in connection to Hitt. gimra- and Luw. im(ma)ra(/i)- probably meant ‘open country’. The lack of a nasal in the Lycian form is not problematic since a pre-Lyc. nasalized *ĩ is regularly denasalized, thus virtually *impre/i- > *ĩpre/i- > *ipre/i- (cf. Adiego 2011a:329). The -p- arose by epenthesis in the sequence *-mr- (Carruba 1980a:280f, Melchert 1994a:315).

Conversely, Schürr 1991-1993a:171 disconnects *ipre/i- from the Anatolian comparanda, and instead links the sequence ipr- to the Greek name for the island of Imbros. Schürr gives the following reasons for this: (a) Imbros is situated in a non-Luwic speaking area, (b) the association to open landscapes fits poorly with the mountainous terrain of Imbros, and (c) the sound change *imr- > *imbr- is ad hoc for Lycian. The first two points (a, b) beg the question why we should derive *ipre/i- from Imbros in the first place. Furthermore, a shift from a meaning ‘field’ to ‘mountain’ is in either case not as far-fetched as claimed by Schürr (see Adiego 2011a:330). The last point (c) does not raise any serious concerns (see above and Adiego 2011a:329f). Consequently, Schürr’s objections to connecting Lyc. *ipre/i- to Luw. im(ma)ra(/i)- should not be considered conclusive.

[D.S.] [O.B.]

For the lemma head see Lyc. A *ipre(/i)-.