nes-^(ti)

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of 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.]

3sg. pret. act.

nestte

TL 44d.51 (Xanthos)

Thus also Neumann 2007a:214, Gehrisch 2018a:95, and Sasseville 2021a:453. Differently, Melchert (DLL:123) interprets nestte as a noun in the dat./loc. pl.

[D.S.]

Sasseville 2021a:453 equates Lyc. B nes-^(ti), which must be a formation in -s-^(ti) (= Hitt. -ške/a-^(mi)) (see under Stem), to Hittite naiške/a-^(mi) ← nāi-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) ‘to turn, (+parā) to send’. The root etymology was already suggested by Shevoroshkin apud Neumann 2007a:241 and Gehrisch 2018a:95. The verb appears to be used intransitively with a dat./loc. sg. mlati (a sanctuary (?)). On contextual grounds, the meaning ‘to return (?)’ is suggested (see Sasseville ibid.).

[D.S.]

As pointed out in Sasseville 2021a:453, the root of the verb cannot be nes-, which would have caused the original cluster *-st- to be reduced to -s-; cf. Lyc. A es-^(ti) ‘to be’. The stem-final -stte thus speaks for a formation in -s-^(ti) from a radical base ne- (a verbal suffix corresponding to Luw. /-zza-/ and Hitt. -ške/a-^(mi)). Assuming an original root nes- together with the imperfective suffix -s-^(ti), i.e. *nes-s-^(ti), could lay to rest the phonological problem, but is obviously difficult to prove. Despite the morphological match with Hittite naiške/a-^(mi), we will refrain from providing a Proto-Anatolian reconstruction due to the tentative nature of the interpretation. One should also notice that HLuw. /niyazza-⁽ⁱ⁾/, which correspond to the same formation, has the weak instead of the strong stem, which may be a late re-formation following the generalization of the weak stem */niya-⁽ⁱ⁾/ across the paradigm.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see Lyc. B *nije-^(ti).