da-^(di)

This lexeme is found in a grave inscription in an obscure passage, but one should also compare the Lyc. A reduplicated form dda- (under Derivatives) and the Lycian B corresponding verb da-^(di).

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.

dadi

TL 118.5 (Limyra)

One should also compare the lexeme la-, whose attestations are likewise read with the initial letter d sometimes instead of l, both of which can be easily confused.

[D.S.]

Neumann 1984b:95 (and Neumann 2007a:67) interprets the segment eridadi as eri + de + adi ‘he makes’ (tentatively followed by Melchert (DLL:16)). Differently, Neumann 2007a:35 suggests eri + dadi (to the verb da-) (likewise Eichner 2007a:107 n. 20, Sasseville 2021a:305), which is more adequate. For a new edition of the inscription, see Christiansen 2020a:252.

[D.S.]

The verb eridadi (eri + dadi) refers to a damaging action that can be performed within a precinct. Neumann 2007a:35 suggests ‘to take away’ based on an etymological comparison with Hitt. dā-/d-^(ḫi) ‘to take’ (followed by Gehrisch 2018a:157 ‘to receive’, differently Neumann 1984b:95 ‘to do away’; see under Stem). Christiansen 2020a:253 refrains from translating the passage, which she defines as “unclear”. Based on the association with the Lycian B verb da-^(di) ‘to give’ (clearly attested in Lycian A as reduplicated ddawu ‘I give’), Sasseville 2021a:306 suggests the same basic meaning ‘to give’, but admits that the function of the Lycian preverb eri, which could modify the semantics, is still obscure. If eri means ‘away’, the meaning ‘to give (things) away’ would be contextually plausible, but would need further support.

[D.S.]

For the verbal stem class, see Sasseville 2021a:304f.

[D.S.]

1. dda-

2. ddewe-

3. ddewi-^(ti)

This lexeme is found once in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91) as well as on 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.]

3pl. pret. ind. act.	date	TL 55.3 (Antiphellos)
3sg. impv. act.	dadu	TL 44d.36 (Xanthos)

For the assignment of these forms to the lexeme da-^(di), see also Schürr 2005a:136 (and Schürr 2018b:66) and Sasseville 2021a:305. The form date represents a case of nasal reduction for expected *dãte (Schürr 2005a:136, Sasseville 2021a:305, contra DLL:113). This claim is supported by its verbal stem class (see Sasseville 2021a ibid.).

[D.S.]

Friedrich 1932a:71 transliterates a word divider based on the autography of Kalinka 1901a:54, whereas Schürr 2005a:121, 125 does not transliterate an erroneous word divider in da{:}te, but rather records it as date, taking the possible dots as being non genuine. The erroneous word divider led Gehrisch 2018a:107, 110 astray.

[D.S.]

In TL 44d.30, the subjects of the verb dadu are deities, the direct object something beneficial, and the indirect object the Lycian king. Based on these observations, Sasseville 2018a:310 assigns the meaning ‘to give’ to the lexeme da-^(di), which is contextually supported, comparing further a parallel formula in a Greek inscription from Xanthos (left untranslated in Schürr 2018b:96). Gehrisch 2018a:91, 95 translates it with ‘to take’ based on the etymological approach with Hitt. dā-/d-^(ḫi), which is contextually and syntactically unattractive; for the relationship between Lycian da-^(di) and the Hittite verb, see under Reconstruction. The semantics are also adequate for the syntax of TL 55.3, in which it is also used with a direct and indirect object. Contra Shevoroshkin 2014a:250, who equates da-^(di) with Lyc. A ta-^(di) ‘to place’.

[D.S.]

For the stem formation, see Sasseville 2021a:304f.

[D.S.]

1. dewe/i-