†ślem

Hajnal 1995b:24 n. 31, Hajnal 1998a:86 with n. 17 proposed that the word (or phonological unit) biδślemsa of E.Ab 30 contains a substantivized participle biδślem and an enclitic deictic pronoun =sa, biδślem itself would be a compound of biδ ‘Gabe’ (< “*/pii̯ennatā-/”) and ślem- ‘Ehrung’ (< “*/sollēimmo/ī-/” ‘erhöht’), comparing the latter with Lycian A hlm̃mipijata. Setting aside the segmentation of sa, which is not impossible, but does not illuminate the text (cf. s.v.), the proposed analysis of biδślemsa is completely ad hoc: (1) the interpretation of the segment biδ as ‘Gabe’ can surely be excluded (see s.v.) and thus, there is no evidence for segmenting biδślem in the proposed way; (2) the Lycian A compound hlm͂mipijata- ‘income-gift’ [see s.v.] has a different morphology and thus, it does not prove anything; (3) the initial sibilant remains irregular; and (4) in general, the meaning, structure, and syntactic role of biδślemsa is completely unknown.

[Zs.S.]