epenẽtija-^(ti)

This lexeme is attested in a grave inscription.

[D.S.]

3sg. pret. act.

epenẽtijat(e)(=)

TL 48.7 (Xanthos)

The interpretation of the sequence epenẽtijatte as epenẽtijat(e)=te follows Sasseville 2021a:105, 281 n. 30, which implies that xudiwazade is a verb and that epenẽtijat(e)=te padrm̃ma is a new sentence. Differently, Hajnal 1995a:185 sees a univerbation of a noun *epenẽtija with a verb *tate ‘he set up’ (instead of expected tade with lenited ending). Eichner 2017a:292f., in turn, suggests a medio-passive form in -tte comparable to Hitt. -ttati, with syncope and assimilation of *-td- > Lyc. -tt-, which is far-fetched and not supported by the general preservation of the Lycian cluster -td- (see tdi in the relative pronoun ti-, and tddãta).

[D.S.]

Scholars have offered various interpretations regarding the segmentation of the word, e.g. Kalinka 1901a:97 “epenẽtij=atte”, Laroche 1974b:133 “epen=ẽ=tijatte“, Neumann 2007a:58 “epe(n)=ẽtij=atte”, Gehrisch 2018a:104 “ep(i)=enẽ=tijatte”, which are all untenable from a phonological, phonotactic or syntactic point of view.

[D.S.]

Melchert 1989b:43f. suggests that the verb epenẽtijatte represents as a factitive in -ij-a-^(ti), to a base that would match Hitt. ḫappinant- ‘provided with sales, rich’, and, therefore, assigns the meaning ‘to act as sales agent’ to the Lycian lexeme (followed by Hajnal 1995a:185, DLL:14, Schürr 2004b:194f.). Although his assigned meaning is extremely tempting from a contextual point of view, the etymological comparison is highly doubtful, since it requires the loss vs. retention of initial ḫ- (< *h₃) in Lycian vs. Hittite/Luwian, which remains not only unexpected, but also unproven (likewise not followed by Kloekhorst 2006a:102f., Shevoroshkin 2012a:462, Eichner 2017a:293Note that Rieken 1999a:317 reconstructs the root of the Hittite cognate with *h₂  instead of *h₃, which would automatically dismantle the connection with the Lycian words.). Therefore, the etymological connection is not accepted here, and pending more evidence, no meaning will be given to Lyc. A epenẽtija- here; cf. Eichner 2017a:293 “to buy”, despite doubts regarding Melchert’s etymological connection.

[D.S.]

As per Melchert 1989b:43f., the word is surely a factitive in -a-^(ti), although the geminate -tt-, unexpected for the stem class, has created confusion in the literature, see under Forms. Another morphological interpretation (cf. under Meaning) that does not seem to have been suggested so far is the preverb epe followed by an otherwise unattested root *nẽt- and the chain of suffixes -ij-a-. Pending more evidence, no decision here will be made.

[D.S.]