esaν

This lexeme is attested once in a burial inscription found in Sardis and traditionally dated to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

The noun under discussion refers to something belonging or related to the tomb owner, which can potentially be damaged by an evil-doer. The fact that it appears in coordination with kãna- ‘wife’ falsifies the conjecture of Brandenstein 1929a:283 that it refers to an element of the tomb (at the time when this suggestion was made, Brandenstein 1929a was not yet aware of the meaning of Lyd. kãna-). For several decades, the hypothesis that esaν means ‘to the children’ (Gusmani 1964a:103f.) enjoyed universal acceptance. Besides the context, the other pillar of Gusmani’s interpretation was the comparison with Hitt. ḫāšša- ‘descendant’, commonly reconstructed as *h₂ómso- vel sim. (Gérard 2005a:45). Yet, this etymology is no longer acceptable in view of the new evidence for the sound change *h₂ > k in the history of Lydian, at least in the position before non-high vowels (see kof(i)-, kastãν, kastaλc(i)-, and cf. Oettinger 2021a). Without etymological support, Gusmani 1964a’s interpretation represents a mere guess, and if another contextually plausible solution can be corroborated through comparative evidence, it should be arguably given preference.

The polysemy ‘being, existence; property’ is attested through Persian hasti, a derivative of Proto-Iranian *as-/*ah- ‘to be’. If a similar polysemy can be postulated for the history of Lydian language, then esaν can have the meaning ‘property’ and at the same time be derived from the cognate Anatolian root *h₁es- ‘to be’. A curse against an evil-doer who attempts to damage or steal the property of the deceased appears quite logical in the context of a burial inscription, and the collocation ‘to my wife or to my possessions’ does not strain credulity either. Yet, given all the assumptions underlying the proposed interpretation, it can only be treated as the best available alternative. Should instances of the semantic change ‘being’ > ‘offspring, progeny’ emerge, one can revert to Gusmani 1964a’s suggestion.

[I.Y.]

The dative plural forms in -aν are compatible with a variety of barytonic stems in Lydian, thus esa- or es(i)- being to most obvious alternative, while the possible derivation from the verbal stem *es- (see Lyd. el) is in principle compatible with these both interpretations. Therefore, the stem assignment must be left unresolved for the time being.

[I.Y.]