im(n)- >? mn-

Well-attested in Caria (at least from Sinuri, the provenance of C.xx 2 is unknown) from at least between 351/350 – 344/343 (C.Si 2, the decree of Idrieus and Ada; the date of C.xx 2 is unknown [Gusmani 1978c:67 contra Adiego 2019a:32]) and Egypt (at least Sais, the provenance of E.xx 7 and C.Ha 1 [on its Egyptian origin see s.v. psnλ(o)] is unknown) from the Saito-Persian period, i.e. 664-332 (E.Sa 1, O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:49; C.Ha 1 is from c. 500 [Jucker & Meier(-Brügger) 1978a:105–108 contra Adiego 2019a:31; and E.xx 7 is dated to the first Persian rule of Egypt, i.e. last quarter of the 6th c. – 5th c. [O. Masson 1976a:83]), on dedicatory and similar inscriptions.

[Zs.S.]

3sg. pret. act.	mδ	C.Ha 1
	mδane	E.Sa 1
		E.xx 7
		C.xx 2
3pl. pret. act.	imδa	C.Si 2, 2

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:382, checked against the photographs Jucker & Meier(-Brügger) 1978a:Pl. 2 (C.Ha 1); Robert 1950a:Pl. II &III (C.Si 2); Gusmani 1978c:Taf. IV (C.xx 2); O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:Pl. VI (E.Sa 1; this part of E.xx 7 is not available in photo). On the segmentation imδa instead of mδa of Adiego and whether mδ(ane) and imδa are different verbs or the same see under Meaning.

Adiego (Bárta & Adiego 2021a:307) adds °mδane from the sequence k/umδane in a newly found inscription from Abydos, but k/umδane is defined as a unit by word dividers and thus, Adiego’s segmentation implies that k/u is a proclitic word (cf. Simon forthcoming), for which, however, there is no evidence yet. Adiego 2007a:382 includes also the sequences °mδa° in C.Si 2, 4f., but as discussed in detail in Simon 2020d:406, it cannot be decided currently if this segmentation is correct. According to Adiego 2007a:322, also the sequence “mlane” (attested in E.Th 10, E.Th 12, E.Th 44, E.Th 47 and possibly in E.Th 35) belongs here as a “possible variant” in Thebes based on the assumption that ‹δ› was spelled as ‹l› in Thebes. However, this assumption is false (Simon 2020d:405, admitted by Adiego 2007a:222, too) and the combinatory analysis of the attestations of “mlane” implies a form lane (Simon 2020d:405, admitted by Adiego 2007a:322f.) and thus, there is no reason to include these cases here.

The grammatical definition of these forms depends on their heavily debated meaning, see the discussion under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of these forms is heavily debated and thus, the interpretation chosen here shall not be taken as the definitive solution. The proposed interpretations are as follows:

Melchert 1993d:81f. saw in mδork of C.Ha 1 a compound noun meaning ‘wine-bowl/cup’ and connected it Cuneiform Luwian maddu- ‘wine’ (see s.v.), which is, however, phonologically impossible (Simon 2020d:400 n. 6). Melchert apud Adiego 2007a:322f. (cf. also Melchert 2002b:308) has tacitly withdrawn this hypothesis and suggested that mδ / mδa / mδane (to which he has added “mλn”, which is phonologically not possible, see s.v. uiomλn) is a verb meaning ‘to vow, to offer’, a cognate of Hittite mald- ‘to vow, solemnly pronounce; dedicate, give’ (cautiously followed by Simon 2008b:461, but cf. below), which is phonologically not possible (his assumption of a change ld > nd is ad hoc). Most recently, Melchert 2021b:112 (cf. already Melchert apud Adiego 2007a:322f.) has explicitly withdrawn also this hypothesis in favour of the analysis given by Adiego:

Adiego 2000a:140, Adiego 2007a:324, Adiego 2010b:173 suggested analysing it as a sequence of particles: m=δ= ‘introductory particles’ + 3^rd sg. enclitic pronoun(s), either =n= (acc.) + =e (dat.) (Adiego 1994a:54f.) or =ne (acc.), the latter being “perhaps more plausible” (Adiego 2007a:324,based on Schürr 1996a:66). Hajnal 1995b:25 n. 33 analysed m=δ= as *mo- + nV + tV, but without providing any meaning (later he abandoned this analysis and assumed a particle chain *m-n- with a 3rd sg. pret. verb da- ‘to put, place’ with enclitic pronouns [Hajnal 1997b:154–156], which is syntactically highly problematic [see the discussion in Simon 2020d:407] and phonologically not possible).

However, as it was pointed out in a detailed discussion by Simon 2020d:400–404, nothing excludes a verbal interpretation a priori, and Adiego’s suggestion is undermined by the word order with too many frontings before the alleged sentence initial particle chains and implies unlikely verbal forms and endings in C.Si 2 and C.Ha 1 (see also s.vv. pisñ(o) and psnλo).

Since the sequence pisñoimδa in C.Si 2must contain a verb, where pisño is a substantive (probably a personal name, see s.v.) in dative as demonstrated by the parallel structure of C.Ha 1, and C.Si 2 requires a 3pl. pret. verbal form, which formally perfectly fits imδa, Simon 2020d:403–410 proposed to interpret it as the 3pl. pret. form of a verb im(Vn)- ‘to give’, which fits the grant decree inscription (this meaning was already assumed by Schürr 1996a:66, who translated mδa=ne as ‘gab ihn’, similarly Tremblay 1998a:124 [“mδ ‘donner, faire’”]). Since no geographical, chronological, functional or semantic differences could have been found between mδ and mδane by Simon 2020d:408–410 (accepting the fitting meaning given by Schürr), he proposed that we are dealing with different 3rd sg. pret. forms of the same verb, with two competing endings, the difference of which had already disappeared. This is cross-linguistically well-attested and finds a parallel (but with a still existing distribution) in the closely related Lycian.

As for the relation of both underlying verbal stems, im(n)- and mn- (or, more generally, im(Vn)- and (V)m(V)n-), Simon 2020d:409 pointed out that both their identity and their difference are entirely possible (note that their identity needs a trivial simplification of the double *-nn- in imδa and the loss of the initial i- in mn-, which is well attested in the history of Carian). Thus, this issue requires further research.

[Zs.S.]

Simon 2020d:409 n. 59 pointed to the similarity of im- ‘to give’ and PIE *h₁em- ‘nehmen’ (with an example on the semantic change). It requires further research if this is more than mere similarity, especially in terms of the different vocalism and regarding the inclusion of the forms with mn- as per above (the -n- of these forms might be connected with the Luwian imperfective suffix -anna-). But this applies only if agreement can be reached about the verbal category of this word.

[Zs.S.]