=pe

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.), as well as on a dedicatory inscription of Arbinas (beginning of 4^th c. BCE).

[D.S.]

indecl.	p(e)	TL 29.12 (Tlos)
		TL 84.4 (Sura)
		N 324.18 (Xanthos)
		N 324.27 (Xanthos)
	ppe	TL 44b.37 (Xanthos)

Neumann 2007a:264 suggests recovering the particle in ttleitipuwa, which he analyzes as ttleiti=p(e) uwa, but his view is not followed here; see under Lyc. puwa-.

Pace Melchert (DLL:49), the word sequence sẽñnepẽnẽ is better interpreted as sẽ=ñne=p(e)=ẽnẽ; see (†)pẽnẽ.

Pace Hajnal 1995a:166 n. 201, me=pẽti=hãxxati is better read as me=p(e)=ẽti=hãxxati; see under ẽti.

Pace Bousquet 1992a:185, the sequence tibetipewẽ is not to be interpreted as tibe=ti=pewẽ but rather as tibe=ti=p(e)=ewẽ (hesitant DLL:48); see under =ewẽ.

The doubling of the consonant p after another consonant, as in trqqas=ppe, corresponds to the regular development of Lycian consonant clusters.

[D.S.]

The interpretation of the Lycian A particle =pe is largely dependent on the one of Lycian B =pe, for which see below. Lyc. A =pe is therefore called an emphasizing particle by Melchert (DLL:48). Except for TL 44b.37, where it is attached to the name of the Storm-god in the middle of the sentence for emphasis, all other instances of =pe are found in the sentence initial clitic chain, which renders its assumed function less certain, although it does not exclude it.

[D.S.]

1. nepe
2. nipe

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.). It is also attested in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

indecl.	pe	TL 44c.32 (Xanthos)
		TL 44c.34 (Xanthos)
		TL 44c.63 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.5 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.11 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.13 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.35 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.36 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.38 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.41(x2) (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.43 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.44 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.46 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.63 (Xanthos)
		TL 55.5 (Antiphellos)
	p(e)	TL 44c.50 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.49 (Xanthos)
	p̣{:}e	TL 55.3 (Antiphellos)

Pace Neumann 2007a:264 unitẽpe is treated here not as unitẽ=pe, but rather as uni and tẽpe; see under lemmata.

[D.S.]

Bugge 1899a:60 suggests that =pe is a copulative particle (followed by Meriggi 1936b:280f. “also” and Meriggi 1980a:379f.), which is a mere guess. Carruba 1977a:307 (and Carruba 1970c:80 “matching Hitt. -pát”) compares the use of =pe with the negations nepe and nipe (see under Lycian A lemma above), proposing an emphatic function such as “indeed”. An adversative function ‘but’ has also been posited, see Schürr 2003b:115, Schürr 2005a:146f. and Gehrisch 2018a:83. However, this is entirely excluded by the fact that =pe, in contrast to the other conjunctions, is not restricted to the particle chain but can appear after any word of the sentence. This speaks a priori for an emphatic particle rather than a conjunctive one. Nonetheless, in combination with the particle =ke ‘and’, a contrastive function, like a change of scene, can be detected, see Sasseville 2021d:178f. =kke=pe “on the other hand”. In any case, more work is needed on the functional analysis of this particle, which is still largely impeded by the lack of understanding of several contexts.

[D.S.]

1. I. nepe

Various inner-Anatolian etymologies have been suggested, e.g. to CLuw. adversative =pa, to Hittite emphatic -pát or to the Hittite locatival particle =apa (cf. Carruba 1970c:80, DLL:48, Neumann 2007a:264, EDHIL:190f., Schürr 2018b:75), none of which is more cogent than another. More research on the synchronic function of this Lycian particle is required before establishing an etymology.

[D.S.]