prñnezi(je)-

This lexeme is well attested in grave inscriptions.

[D.S.]

dat. sg.	prñnezi	TL 11.2 (Pinara)
		TL 31.2 (Kadyanda)
		TL 36.6 (Xanthos)
		TL 43.2 (Xanthos)
		TL 44b.56 (Xanthos)
		TL 121 (Limyra)
		TL 149.4 (Rhodiapolis)
unclear	prñneẓị	N 325.8 (Xanthos)
gen. adj. nom. sg. c.	prñnezijehi	TL 1.5 (Telmessos)
	prñnezijehi	TL 150.3 (Rhodiapolis)
	p[r]ṇ̃nezijeh[i]	TL 28.5 (Tlos)
	prñ<n>ezijehi	N 356a.5 (Tlos)
	prñnezij[ehi]	TL 116.2 (Limyra)
	pṛṇ̃[n]ezijeh<i>	N 334.6-7 (Tlos)
gen. adj. nom. pl. c.	prṇ̃nezijehi	TL 6.2 (Karmylessos)

For the gen. adj. nom. pl. c. in TL 6.2, see recently Christiansen 2020a:181 and for TL 28.5, see Neumann 1982a:154f. (followed by DLL:52). The question of what the genitival adjective in N 334 is coordinated with is open (cf. Christiansen 2020a:193), although ikuweh tedi : se=prñ[n]ezijeh<i> should literally mean ‘father of Ikuwe and of the house member(s)’.

Contra Melchert (DLL:52), we do not divide the attestations into two lexemes, i.e. prñneze/i- and prñnezi(je)-. All forms of prñnezi are compatible with the dative singular of prñnezi(je)- and there is no contextual justification for the assumption of two separate lexemes. Therefore, it is more economical to assume a single one until proof of the contrary.

For the strange spelling and restoration of prñna[z]i (N 341.3-4), see Christiansen 2020a:203f.

[D.S.]

In TL 6, Lyc. prñnezijehi is translated with Gk. οἰκεῖοι ‘of the house, domestic’. Even though the connection between prñnezi(je)- and the Lycian word for ‘house’ prñn- has always been clear and confirmed by the bilingual inscriptions, the exact translation of the lexeme has been debated (see Neumann 2007a:285 for a summary of the older literature). Laroche 1974b:135f. defends the idea that prñnezi(je)- refers to all members of the family, therefore translating it with Fr. ‘maisonnée’ (thus also Gusmani 1961b:44, Meriggi 1978c:253). Some scholars prefer to translate it with ‘member of the household’, which leaves the exact function or relation of the person open (thus Houwink ten Cate 1961a:87f., Bryce 1986a:73f., DLL:52, Gehrisch 2018a:19). Differently, Neumann 2007a:285f. assumes that prñnezi(je)- means ‘household’ and the genitival adjective is substantivized with a meaning ‘member of the household’, which is formally possible, but faces contextual difficulty (differently Neumann 2003a:282 “prn͂nezi = die zum Haushalt gehörige Person”). Another perspective is to assume that the term prñnezi(je)- refers only to the servant(s) of a household, especially since the members of the family are otherwise clearly stated by their exact kinship term. It is also noteworthy that this prñnezi(je)-, if the passage is rightly understood, may have a name, as in TL 11.2 hrppi prñnezi : ehbi : urebillaha ‘for his prñnezi Urebillaha’See Christiansen 2020a:182f. Differently Schürr 2012b:22 n. 21, who takes urebillaha as a title in apposition to the name of the grave owner, although titles normally follow the personal name or the patronym., or that it can have other people belonging to him, e.g. in TL 44b.56 prñnezi : se=lihbeze : eh[b]ije ‘for the prñnezi and his lihbeze’. Therefore, it would be appropriate to assume that the prñnezi(je)- refers to the household servant of a wealthy family. This one or these ones and their sons could in turn become wealthy enough to have their own rock-carved grave built as in TL 1, TL 6, TL 116, TL 150 and TL 28/N 356. Nonetheless, definite proof is still lacking.

[D.S.]

The noun prñnezi(je)- c. is a substantivized adjectival derivative in -i(je)-, derived in turn from a substantivized adjective in -(e)-ze/i- matching the Hittite suffix -(e)-zzi(ja)- (thus already Gusmani 1961b:44 n. 2, Sasseville 2021a:67f.). There is some consensus that the base *prñneze/i-, which is not securely attested (see above), might mean ‘household’ (Pedersen 1945a:29, DLL:52).

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see Lyc. A prñna(?).