sof

This word is found in a funerary inscription that has not yet been accurately dated.

[D.S.]

1sg. pres. act. (?)

sof

LW 18.3 (Sardis)

Bossert 1944a:125 classifies Lyd. sof as a verbal form in the 1sg. pres., implying a variant -w / -f (followed by Carruba 1969a:74 and Melchert 1994a:352). Though attractive, it is possible that we are dealing with an abbreviated verb form instead (thus Schürr 1999a:168). Carruba 1963a:492 suggests that sof could go back to pre-Lyd. *sou and sees the -u as the original imperative marker (apparently withdrawn in Carruba 1969a:74). However, this is not supported by the bulk of the Lydian data.Concerning the fate of the imperative mode in Lydian, see recently Sasseville 2021e. Gusmani 1964a:205 leaves the grammatical interpretation of the word open.

[D.S.]

Meriggi 1935a:112f. hesitates whether the clause with sof is a beneficial or curse formula, but it is noteworthy that the two preceding clauses read: e[.] wãnaν qišredν ni(d)=m=it fẽnšλi[pidν^?] “I took care of this rock-carved grave and [I] did not violate (it).”. Therefore, we do not expect a curse formula for ak=ms=in sof. Carruba 1969a:74 suggests the meaning ‘to bless’, which is a mere guess, not yet supported by an etymological link. Shevoroshkin 1969a:255 compares it etymologically with Hitt. šuppi- and posits the meaning ‘pure’ for Lyd. sof, which is syntactically and morphologically awkward. Annick Payne (pers. comm.) adduces an etymological connection with HLuw. /suwa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to fill’, which is phonologically and morphologically attractive. However, the indirect object =ms ‘them (dat.)’ (scil. the deceased family?) is strange, since one would expect the object of filling to be in the accusative, unless it is omitted. In any case, more evidence is needed.

[D.S.]