*=pi

This particle is attested in the dialect of Ištanuwa and also in the Luwian dialect attested in Palaic transmission, which Sasseville 2021a:368-371 treats together with the one of Ištanuwa.

[D.S.]

indecl.	pí-i˚	KUB 32.18 iv 9’	(CTH 752, MS)
		KUB 32.18 iv 11’	(CTH 752, MS)
		KUB 32.18 iv 13’	(CTH 752, MS)
	pí	KUB 35.142 iv! 5’	(CTH 772, NS)
		KUB 35.142 iv! 6’	(CTH 772, NS)

Pace Yakubovich 2010d:65, 172 n. 18, the word u-un-za-pí-ia-an-mi, which occurs in two lines in a row, can hardly be separated as ūnza and piyan=mi with a dislocated pronoun. It is more preferable to see a particle chain ūnza=pi=an=mi, with the enclitic pronoun =an agreeing with tapan.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[D.S.]

Starke 1990a:606 recognizes the existence of a Luwian particle =pi (followed by CLL:175), although the fragment he adduces (KBo 49.84) is considered here to be Palaic. Sasseville 2021a:370 compares Pal. =pi with Ištanuwa Luw. =pi and assumes an emphatic function, although this is not yet verifiable.

[D.S.]

Attested in a stele of unknown meaning and date from Kaunos (cf. Adiego 2007a:301) and perhaps in a bilingual decree also from Kaunos from the end of the 4^th c. BC (Adiego 2007a:155 with refs.).

[Zs.S.]

bi

C.Ka 2.5

Problematic:

bi	C.Ka 2.6
	C.Ka 5.16
]bi	C.Ka 2.8

Attestations following Adiego 2007a:358 (checked against the available photographs). Its segmentation in C.Ka 2.5 is assured by its position between an accusative and a conjunction (otrš bi sb) as well as by the parallel phrase of C.Ka 5.9 otrš sb (…), see Adiego 2007a:302. Also the second part of the phrase seems to be parallel (otrš bi sb ak̑tmsk[…]δbi vs. C.Ka 5.9-10 otrš sb ak̑t[ms]kmtabsims), which led Adiego 2007a:302 to segment bi in C.Ka 2.6 as well. This is, however, problematic since the number of the missing letters between ak̑tmsk[ and ]δbi is unknown and the δ points to the presence of another word.

Adiego 2007a:358 rightly remarks that the segmentation of bi in C.Ka 5.16 is less certain, since the text of the line 16 (ouobimslmnlia) is entirely opaque.

Adiego 2007a:358, 437 cautiously (“perhaps”) calls attention also to acephalic ]bi in C.Ka 2.8. Its connection, however, cannot be verified due to the fragmentary context.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 2007a:302, 358 suggests a conjunction or a particle used postclitically, since it follows an accusative in C.Ka 2. The proposal of a conjunction is less probable since in the same passage it is followed by the conjunction sb ‘and’ (see s.v.[203]). In case of a particle Adiego proposes either “a particle reinforcing the coordination” (‘both … and …’ or ‘not only … but also …’) or a postposition (e.g. ‘for’ or ‘with’). Since the proposal of the coordination is based on the doubling of the particle (…=bi …=bi), which was shown to be problematic above, this solution is less probable. Unfortunately, the text is opaque and thus the context (presumably meaning ‘themselves and (their) descendants’, see s.vv. otr[308] and ak̑tmsk[) does not help (yet) clarifying its meaning. If the connection with Lycian -ppi in hrppi ‘on (preverb); for (preposition)’ (see s.v.) proposed by Adiego 2007a:302 is valid, it may shed some light on the meaning of this particle.

[Zs.S.]

This particle is well attested across the Palaic corpus.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv). It is noteworthy that the particle =pi can be spelled with pí or in the New Hittite copy also with pát, which can be read as pì.

[D.S.]

The function of the particle =pi is still unclear; cf. Carruba 1970a:67. Yakubovich 2005c:116f. suggests tentatively that it is an emphatic particle but does not exclude a coordinating function. More research is needed.

[D.S.]