qe(si)-

This lexeme is found in a variety of inscriptions, all found Sardis and datable between the 6^th and 4^th centuries BCE.

[I.Y.]

nom. sg. c.	qesiš	LW 22.7 (Sardis)
nom./acc. sg. n. (?)	qed	LW 23.21 (Sardis)
	qed	LW 10.18 (Sardis)
		LW 13.12 (Sardis)
		LW 22.14 (Sardis)
		LW 23.8 (Sardis)

The formal relationship between qesiš and qed is based on non-trivial derivational assumptions, as discussed below in this lemma; cf. the stance of Gusmani 1964a:180-184, who treats qe- and qesi- separately but stresses that there is some connection between the two stems. The strongest argument for such a connection is, of course, their complementary distribution (cf. further under qe(si)=k).

[I.Y.]

As observed already in Grumach 1934a:191 and Meriggi 1936a:284, LW 23.8 qed fasfẽnu can hardly be separated from LW 23.14 qyd fasfẽnu and LW 24.18-19 nã-qid fasfẽnu. Therefore, qe(si)- must mean something reasonably similar to q(i)- ‘which’. Yet, as it seems unlikely that that the Lydian language possessed two relative pronouns with exactly the same meaning, one should look for the original semantic difference between the two lexemes, perhaps to be bleached in some contexts. A convenient starting point seems to be LW 22.7, where qesiš modifies the noun datros(i)-, designating a particular kind of service (or perhaps transfer) to be determined by authorities (see Yakubovich 2017b:278f.). The context is more compatible with the qualitative determination (Gk οἷος), quantitative determination (Gk. ὅσος), or both embedded into the pronoun under discussion than with its mere relative function.

According to Gérard 2005a:97, who follows Carruba 1969a, qe(si)- represents a free choice pronoun ‘whatever, whichever’, but this is rather the function of nã-qi- and qi=k (q.v.). Note that the generalizing element =k can also be appended to qe(si)- (cf. further under qe(si)=k).

[I.Y.]

The pronoun qe(si)- clearly represents a derivative of the relative pronoun qi-. Yakubovich 2019c:308f. postulates the underlying stem qed-, preserved in the neuter forms, and proposes the derivation *qedVs > *qeds- > *qedsiš > qesiš. Going a step further, one can perhaps assume the change *-y- > -d- in this stem, while the earlier stem *qeyV- would prompt a typological comparison with Gk. οἷος, τοῖος.  For an earlier derivational hypothesis, which is based on the assumption that qe(si)- is a free choice pronoun, cf. Carruba 1969a:63.

[I.Y.]