pλtarwo-

The attestations of this adjective are limited to two burial inscriptions found in Sardis. One of them was made in the first half of the 4^th century BCE, while another one can be dated only more loosely, to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

nom./acc. sg.	pλtarwod	LW 1.4 (Sardis)
		LW 8.3 (Sardis)
		LW 8.10 (Sardis)
	pλtarwo[d]	LW 1.6 (Sardis)

According to Melchert 1997b:136, who ultimately followed Danielsson 1917a:6 n. 1, both pλtarwod and its cognate ẽntarfλo- are 3pl. pres. verbal forms. According to Gusmani 1964a:83f., who followed Vetter 1959a:9 both forms are adjectival. But the Aramaic correspondence of pλtarwod, the derivational relationship between pλtarwod and ẽntarfλod, and the syntax of the passage all plead for the analysis of pλtarwo- as a noun.

[I.Y.]

The Aramaic version of the and Lydian and Aramaic bilingual shows prbr zy ‘l sprb znh prbrh ‘the paribāra-, which is paribāra- with regard to this monument’ (line 3) and zy prbr l-m‘rt’ zny ‘what is paribāra- to this grave’ (lines 5-6) as the correspondences to Lyd. kud (…) išt ešλ wãnaλ pλtarwod. It stands to reason that pλtarwod represents a counterpart of the Aramaic foreign word prbr rendering Achaemenid Iranian paribāra-. The precise meaning of the Iranian word, attested only in foreign transmission, remains debated, but there seems to be a consensus that prbr refers to some external part of the grave complex, as assumed in Gusmani 1964a:83f. The structural similarity between Iranian paribāra- and Greek περιφέρεια ‘line around the circle, outer surface’ is worth taking notice, although we are surely dealing here with historically independent formations.

The derivational relationship between pλtarwo- and the adjective ẽntarfλo- ‘belonging’ favors the nominal rather than adjectival interpretation of the former lexeme. On the syntactic level, it is conducive to translating kud (…) išt ešλ wãnaλ pλtarwod as ‘where the pλtarwod with regard to this grave is’, which is consistent with the meaning of kud in other contests.  The noun under discussion takes the dative complement and encodes the relationship between two locations. Both the separation of the prefix pλ- ‘forth, out’ and the assumed meaning of the Aramaic quasi-equivalent prbr (cf. above) speak in favor of the adessive rather than possessive semantics of pλtarwo-, in contrast to ẽntarfλo- ‘belonging’, hence the proposed translation.     

[I.Y.]

Synchronically, this is an o-stem, accented on the vowel.

[I.Y.]

The comparison between pλtarwo- and ẽntarfλo- prompts the segmentation pλ-tarwo-, as per Gusmani 1964a:184. The prefix pλ- represents a regular cognate of Luw. /pari/, displaying the same correspondence as the Lydian ending -tλ of 3sg. pres. med. vs. its Luwian counterpart /-ttari/ proposed in Melchert 2006b. Furthermore, pλ-tarwo- can be compared with CLuw. parittarwalli(ya)- ‘of the peripheral, external’. This falsifies the analysis of Schürr 2000b:125f., who proposes the segmentation pλt-arwo- on insufficient grounds. The agnostic approach to the stricture of pλtarwo- is espoused in Gérard 2005a:90 n. 577.

[I.Y.]

For the lemma head see Lyd. pλ.