puh-^(ti)

This lexeme is found on a pedestal for a statue (N 327) (reemployed in the Roman era for Caesar as the new god) and is placed in the spot where one would expect the signature of the artist (Bousquet 1992a:193). It is also tentatively restorable in two more inscriptions.

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. act.	puhtti	N 327.2 (Xanthos)
	[pu]httij(=)	N 324.15 (Xanthos)
	[puhtti]j(=)	N 318.8 (Xanthos)

Melchert (DLL:53) suggests restoring the same verb at N 318.8 because of the formula, which also occurs at N 327 as well as in N 324.15 (followed by Neumann 2007a:290).

[D.S.]

For this Lycian verb, no meaning has been suggested by Bousquet 1992a:193, Melchert (DLL:53) or Gehrisch 2018a:202. Sasseville 2021a:504f. sees a verbal derivative in -h-^(ti) (= CLuw. -š(š)a-⁽ⁱ⁾) built on the Lycian verb pu-^(di) ‘to engrave, inscribe’. This would imply for N 327 that it is Nixede, the artist, who inscribed or engraved the xθθanahi (see under lemma xθθã(n)-), whereas for N 318 the name is lost in the lacuna of line 7.

Regarding the tentative restoration at N 324.15, the context does suggest that a certain type of sacrifice is imposed by writing:

m(e)=ẽne hri=tubedẽ : h[.....] [ma]rtti : mereheje : xñtla[.......] [pu]httij=ẽne=de : ẽti : uhi [… pas]bas [u]hazata : se=de=ñte : muha[s : kum]ezidi : ebeis (N 324.13-17)

“It was agreed that […] the xñtla-chief orders to Merehi […] and he [ins]cribes [… lives]tock as a yearly delivery within the year and further he makes the sacrifices (to) these gods here.”

The use of puh‑^(ti) parallels that of ppuwe-^(ti) in the Letoon inscription, where the rites to be performed are the direct object of the verb, i.e. ‘to inscribe (rites into the stele)’.

The approach on puh-^(ti) is both contextually and etymologically supported and is thus kept here.

[D.S.]

For the stem formation in -h-^(ti), see Sasseville 2021a:504f.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head, see Lyc. pu-^(di).