[.]epartaise(/i)-

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.]

A new join published in Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:138f. revealed the sequence of the line to be -edi : [.]epartaisedi, which, in analogy to the syntactic structure of the passage, would be easily restorable as [s]e=partaisedi (thus also Gehrisch 2018a:73). Unfortunately, the traces of the missing sign published in a copy of a squeeze in Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:138 with references do not favor the letter ṣ. Therefore, no other restoration is suggested here.

The earlier interpretations such as those found in van den Hout 1995b:113f. “[s]p^?partaisedi” (for the correct reading as e not p, see also Schmidt 1868b:Tf. VII.3) and in DLL:14 and Neumann 2007a:58 "epartaisedi" are hereby discarded and the word is tentatively left as [.]epartaisedi.

The segmentation found in the edition of Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:23 “]epartai sedi” (following Kalinka 1901a:42) is superfluous and not supported by the overall structure of the passage, which contains a series of ablative/instrumentals.

[D.S.]

No proper meaning has been assigned: the connection with spparta- ‘Sparta’ proposed by van den Hout 1995b:113f. is very tempting but not supported by the traces of the first two signs. The connection with parza- ‘Persian’ attempted by Gehrisch 2018a:73 is phonologically untenable. The sequence -ais- is strange and may speak for a foreign word and thus perhaps for an ethnicon, but this remains unprovable for now.

[D.S.]

The exact stem is unclear, i.e. -e(/i)- (though an a-stem can be excluded). Pace Melchert (DLL:14) an s-stem is not likely, since we would expect the suffix -s- to be deleted in the abl./instr., see e.g. tuhes-.

[D.S.]