eli

This lexeme is attested in the trilingual inscription of the Letoon dated to 337 BCE (Wagner 2011a:156 with further literature).

[D.S.]

indecl.

eli

N 320.12 (Xanthos)

Laroche 1979c:66 (and Gusmani 1975e:75) analyzes the clitic chain as se=deli=ñtãtẽ, comparing the element deli with Lyc. B qelideli (translating the verb with “réservé” in Laroche 1974a:119). He recognizes the univerbated verb ñtãtẽ as a haplographical variant of ñtta- (syncopated from ñte-ta-; cf. TL 42b). Likewise, Melchert (DLL:13) reads s(e)=ed(e)=eli=ñtãtẽ, but sees in eli a preverb preceded by the enclitic pronoun =ede. Differently, Carruba 1977a:296 sees instead a verb liñtãtẽ preceded by the particles se=de (judged to be very plausible by Neumann 2007a:314 and Gehrisch 2018a:194, who further assumes an etymology with the Hittite verbal root link- ‘to swear’). Rieken & Yakubovich 2022a:270f., 277 suggest instead a division eliñ-tãtẽ (followed by Melchert 2018b), comparing the CLuw. adjective āla/i- ‘distant’, and translate the Lycian preverb with ‘away’. They argue morphologically that the locative of the adjective, i.e. *ali, would have been univerbated with the postposition *en (in analogy to Luw. /tawiyan/ “in the eye” and in combination with other adverbs such as CLuw. pariyan). However, the retention of a sequence **-iñ either word-finally or before -t- in Lycian is unparalleled (cf. 3pl. pres. -iti < *-inti) and phonologically unexpected. If we adduce independent evidence, e.g. elihala- (← eli + ha-^(di) + -ala-), the analysis as eli-ñtãtẽ remains the most plausible one.

Nonetheless, this does not affect the etymological approach defended in Rieken & Yakubovich 2022a and, thus, the preverb might still mean ‘away (?)’, or more precisely ‘away from oneself over to the other (?)’; see CLuw. āla/i-.

[D.S.]

The meaning of Lyc. eli ‘away (?)’ is not entirely provable due to the lack of more examples, but see under Graphic Features.

[D.S.]

1. elihala-