ifi-

This lexeme occurs once in 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.]

3sg. pret. act.

fadifil

LW 24.4 (Sardis)

The segmentation given above implies the presence of two prefixes, fa- and d(a)-. For an alternative segmentation fa-(d)ifi-l, implying the status of d < *i̯ as a hiatus breaker, cf. Melchert 1994b:186.

[I.Y.]

This verbal form occurs in the declaration of the priest Mitridaštas. As already seen in Meriggi 1935a:74 n. 10, its topic is the transfer of property. Mitridaštas is referred there in the capacity of an indirect object. According to Meriggi, Mitridaštas acts there as the receiving side, and the third singular form fadifil, is accordingly translated ‘entrusted’. This translation is taken over in Gusmani 1964a:115, but now it is no longer satisfactory, as per Melchert 1994b:186, n.12, since the priest Mitridaštas turns out to be the giving side in the relevant transaction (cf. in particular LW 24.6 pidν ‘I gave’ below in the same declaration).

The alternative translation of ifi- as a verb of taking is supported by the arguably cognate verb ifro-, as again indicated in Melchert 1994b:186, n. 12. Melchert’s hesitation with regard this interpretation is possibly linked to the use of amu, as opposed to amu=dãν, for the indirect object in the relevant sentence, while ‘from me’ must be translated as amu=dãν according to Melchert 1997a:37f. An attempt to obviate this difficulty is the translation of TL 24.3-4 ak=it nãqid šerliš šrmliš amu fadifil as ‘whatever the high priest demanded of / imposed on me’ (Melchert 1997a:38). This solution, however, is no improvement, not only because it obfuscates the connection with Lyd. ifro- but also because the overall context of LW 23-24 makes it clear that the temple authority was not in a position to demand anything of Mitridašta, who had a higher rank. Furthermore, the postposition dãν has been shown not to mean ‘from’ but rather reinforce the locative or temporal meaning, with the nuance ‘chez, apud’ in the instance of its use with animate heads (Yakubovich 2019c:303f.). There is therefore no obstacle to TL 24.3-4 ak=it nãqid šerliš šrmliš amu fadifil as ‘whatever the temple authority received from me’.

[I.Y.]

Since only the 3sg. pret. form of the relevant stem is preserved, it is impossible to say whether we are dealing with the leniting or non-leniting verbal i-stem in this case.

[I.Y.]

For the lemma head see Lyd. *if-.