ifrl(i)-

This lexeme occurs once in a fragmentary line of a legal-economic text found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis and datable to the late 6^th-early 5^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

nom. sg.

ifrliš

LW 24.22 (Sardis)

From the morphological viewpoint, this form an also be analyzed as a relational or possessive adjective, but no suitable head noun is available for it in the admittedly fragmentary context.

[I.Y.]

In the immediately preceding part of the inscription, the temple administrator pledges his whole property to the priest Mitridašta, presumably as a sort of insurance for his investment into the temple of Artemis. Then follows the sentence ‘(There is) no […] ifrl(i)- applicable to him/it’ (cf. under dẽt(i)-). This contextual information must be reconciled with the etymology of ifrl(i)-, which is universally regarded as related to the verbal stem ifro- (Gusmani 1964a:131, following Grumach 1934a and Vetter 1959a). According to Melchert 1994b:196 n. 12, ifro- means ‘to confiscate (?)’, while the derivative ifrl(i)- can mean ‘confiscatable (?)’. While the former interpretation suits well the context and the proposed Anatolian etymology of ifro-, the second one appears more problematic, not only since ifrl(i)- is apparently a noun but also since the previous context suggests temple administrator’s property can actually be confiscated in the instance of a financial default. The translation ‘exemption’ would allow to maintain the same etymology (cf. Lat. exemptio ‘taking out, removal’), while yielding a better sense: the temple administrator can forfeit his whole property, he has no personal exemption.

The early attempts to translate ifrl(i)- as ‘violator’ were not based on the holistic understanding of the relevant inscription (cf. Gusmani 1964a:131). A more recent endeavor to assign a negative sense to this noun was undertaken in Schürr 2000b:125, where the relevant sentence is provided with the translation: ‘No [other person shall …] the property to him as ifrl(i)-, (namely) [to] Mitridašta.  This interpretation suffers from two faults. On the one hand, dẽt(i)- is rendered there as direct object ‘property’, although such a direct object is otherwise attested as dẽtν in line 20 of the same inscription. On the other hand, the proleptic construction ‘to him … to Mitridašta is not expected in Lydian, where pronominal clitics generally have the anaphoric function, and would be particularly outlandish in a situation when the (reconstructed) verbal form follows both the proleptic pronoun and the doubled noun.

[I.Y.]

Lyd. ifrl(i)- is derived from an unattested nominal stem with the help of the suffix -l(i)-, which is most commonly used for the formation of relational and possessive adjectives, but is also deployed on nominal derivation (cf. šerl(i)- and mẽtl(i)- in the same inscription).

[I.Y.]

For the lemma head see Lyd. *if-.