*ýbr

Reconstructed from a personal name attested in Egypt, dated to the mid-7^th c. BC (tomb of Montuemhat in Thebes during the rule of Psammetichus I).

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:362 (no photograph is available).

Based on several Carian names (ardybyrś, dtýbr, dýbr, kśatýbr, kudtubr, smδýbrs, šoδubrś), Adiego 1993b: 224-227, Adiego 2007a:353, 362, 375, 376, 413, 419 assumed a Carian name element -(d)ybr-. Valério 2015a:334f. proposed to separate dtýbr, dýbr, and kśatýbr, since they share an element °ýbr, supported by *ybr attested in its derivative underlying the personal name ybrs (C.Hy 1, cf. also Réveilhac 2023b:263 and see s.v.), and which would have been consistent with his preferred segmentation of ardybyr as ard-ybyr and smδýbrs as smδ-ýbrs. However, Réveilhac 2023b:260–268 plausibly argued that with the exception of dýbr, all of these words contain a Carian word *ty/ýbr ~ *tubr (with *d- after [r] and [n], due to the different vocalism it requires further research whether we are indeed dealing with a single word only, see s.v.), duly noting that smδýbrs and šoδubrś remain ambiguous (cf. also Schürr 2013c:28), since the proposed first members end in *-nt- (a further ambiguous case is Ζερμεδυβερος, which can be analysed both with *ybr [Schürr 2013c:28] and with *ty/ýbr via the well-attested secondary loss of the nasal, Réveilhac 2023b:267). Réveilhac 2023b:263 offered three possible explanations for dýbr: a compound d-ýbr (following Valério 2015a:334, for the well-attested first member see most recently Simon forthcoming and s.v. id- > d-) or a secondary, analogical form of *týbr based on the above mentioned secondary variant with *d-. While his third possibility is not linguistically comprehensible (“[t]he initial ‹d› might have emerged from an interchange with ‹t›, following the neutralization of the two underlying phonemes in the initial position”), there is indeed a third possibility, a Carian word *dýbr (cf. also Valério 2015a:334) Considering that a root *ybr existed in Carian (as per above), the most economical and most regular solution is a compound d-ýbr as proposed by Valério, and, accordingly, at least this case is to be booked here as the attestation of *ybr.

[Zs.S.]

Neumann 2007a:399 cautiously (‘[v]iell.’) explained this element from Hittite warri-/warrai- ‘helpful, help’ and Hieroglyphic Luwian wa/i+ra/i-ia- ‘to help’. However, as Valério 2015a:335 rightly pointed out, this is not formally possible.

Schürr 2009c:103 explained ybrs of C.Hy 1 (see s.v.), which is in fact a derivative of *ybr, as a cognate of the verbs Luwian upa-, Lycian ube- ‘to grant, to furnish’ (for their meaning see s.vv.) via *-ubara, assuming an i-mutated stem with subsequent Umlaut (note that this verbal stem exists in Carian, too: ýb-). This is formally possible, and semantically speaking, it would be fitting for personal names, but the semantic details require further research. At this juncture it must be mentioned that id- > d-, the first member of d-ýbr, is nowadays usually identified as a theonym (for an extensive critical discussion see Simon forthcoming), and if šoδubrś really belongs here (cf. above), we would have two structurally parallel theophoric names (as šoδubrś seems to contain the name of Šanta, as per Réveilhac 2023b:419), for which a meaning ‘granted by the god X’ or similar could be envisaged.

Finally, Réveilhac 2023b:263 connected it with “uppara- / ο(υ)πρα- / ο(υ)βρα-”. This is, however, a conflation of two different words, Luwian *uppara- / Pisidian *ουπερ- / Luwic ο(υ)πρα- ‘superior (?)’ on the one hand, and ο(υ)βρα- of unknown meaning on the other, as shown by their different stops (Melchert 2013c:44 [for the separation of both stems see already Schürr 2009c:107 n. 23] and here, s.vv.). A connection with *ybr is possible only with the latter, and thus, this is not helpful in determining the meaning.

[Zs.S.]

1. ybrs