dum(ν)

The attestations of the variant dum are limited to the poetic inscriptions from Sardis. The variant dumν is attested in the poetic inscription LW 14, found at the Sardis cemetery, and the fragmentary text LW 44, found in the Lower Hermos valley.  All the relevant inscriptions can be dated to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

indecl.	dum	LW 10.3 (Sardis)
		LW 12.9 (Sardis)
		LW 14.1 (Sardis)
		LW 22.2 (Sardis)
		LW 80.18 (Sardis)
	du(m)	LW 12.2 (Sardis)
	dumν	LW 14.14 (Sardis)
		LW 44.18 (Manisa)

It is not fully clear whether the variants dum and dumν can be assigned to the same lemma, or whether dumν has to be segmented as dum=ν (thus Gusmani 1964a:100). An argument for the segmentation is the co-occurrence of dum=iš and dumν=it in the same inscription LW 14. On the other hand, it is not clear what function can be assigned to =ν occurring after dum, while all the other alleged occurrences of the clitic =ν collected in Gusmani 1964a:177 received alternative explanations. For a formally impossible analysis of both dum and dumν as nominal forms, see Meriggi 1935a:86 n. 31 and Carruba 1969a:55.

[I.Y.]

The lexeme dum(ν) invariably occurs in clause-initial position, and this distributional consideration pleads for its function as a conjunction. The adversative force was assigned to it in Vetter 1959a:26f, while the interpretation ‘while’ was preferred in Gusmani 1964a:99f. Neither of these interpretations was, however, supported through historical analysis. As argued in Yakubovich 2005b:81f., the typical position of dum at the beginning of the second clause in the inscription favours the interpretation of this lexeme as an additive conjunction. This last interpretation also derives support from etymological considerations, on which see below.

[I.Y.]

According to Yakubovich 2005b:82, Lyd. dum is cognate with the Hittite additive complex anda=ma, where anda is the local adverb, which acquires additive meaning when placed clause-initially, and =ma is the contrastive clitic. This etymology is corroborated by the existence of the Lydian verbal prefix da- and postposition dãν, which are cognate with the Hittite local adverbs anda and andan respectively. Hitt. anda can be further compared in its additive value with HLuw. /anta/ ‘also, in addition’.

The etymology of the second member of the reconstructed univerbation is, however, more problematic. On the one hand, Yakubovich 2005b followed Heubeck 1959a:74 in assuming the synchronic existence of the Lydian contrastive particle =(u)m cognate with Hitt. =ma. In the light of our present knowledge, this evidence all but disappears, since all the instances of the postulated contrastive =um can be alternatively interpreted as occurrences of the first-person clitic pronoun. On the other hand, there is a distinct possibility that dumν represents the earlier form of dum (see under phonological interpretation). If this is the case, then dumν can be interpreted as *anda=man, where the first part is still the cognate of Hitt. anda and HLuw. /anta/ ‘also, in addition’, while *=man is presumably cognate with CLuw. mān ‘if, whether… or…’.

Summing up, the analysis of the first element of dum(ν) is reasonably assured, but the origin of its second element is more problematic.

[I.Y.]