laλẽn(t)-

This lexeme is attested once in an inscription found at the cemetery of Sardis and datable to the 5^th or 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

nom./acc. sg.

laλẽn(=)

LW 10.11 (Sardis)

Traditionally laλẽns is taken as nom. sg. c. (Gérard 2005a:112 with ref.). Such an analysis, however, is fraught with morphosyntactic difficulties, since laλẽns must form a syntagma with the preceding word šλẽcaḍ (q.v.), apparently an adjective. The hypothesis that laλẽns ‘saying’ governs the substantivized form of šλẽcaḍ (Gusmani 1964a:198f.), besides being ad hoc, contradicts what we know about the morphology of -nt- stems in Lydian. Judging by the better-attested adjective sfardẽnt(i)- ‘Sardian’ [cf. Gusmani 1964a:203], the stem of a hypothetical participle ‘saying’ could only be **laλẽnt(i), and so one would expect **laλẽntiš, or perhaps **laλẽnτ with a contraction, in nom. sg. c.

The alternative solution became possible with the discovery of the Lydian emphatic particle =s (q.v.). One can now assume that it was attached to laλẽn, nom./acc. sg .of the nominal -nt- stem laλẽnt- n. The advantage of the proposed new analysis is twofold. On the one hand šλẽcaḍ laλẽn=s can now be analyzed as a regular adjectival phrase, parallel to šλ̣ẽcad qirad in LW 10.15. On the other hand, the morphophonology of laλẽn=s, with the preservation of -n- can be accounted for on the assumption of the analogy to the oblique stem laλẽnt-, in contrast to its loss in historical -n- stems (see e.g. Lyd. šadmẽ-).

[I.Y.]    

The form is situated before a special sign that occurs only in the inscription LW 10 and is broadly taken as a punctuation mark (Gusmani 1964a:254).

[I.Y.]

The meaning ‘to speak’ was offered for the base *laλe- in Bossert 1946a:54 on the assumption of the historical relationship of laλẽns with Hitt. lāla- ‘tongue’. The analysis laλẽn(t)- as a speech act derives further support from contextual analysis on the assumption of the new morphological segmentation proposed above. The clause featuring the word under discussion has the structure: “Let me ko- for them ciward (acc.) as šλẽcaḍ laλẽn=s (acc.)”. What follows is apparently a direct speech punctuated by quotation marks (thus already Meriggi 1935a:100. It is, therefore, likely that both accusatives in the clause under discussion refer to this verbal act. The use of the emphatic particle with the second accusative phrase is compatible with the assumption that it specifies the meaning of ciward (q.v.), being roughly equivalent to English ‘namely’ in this context.              

[I.Y.]

The -nt- stem laλẽnt- can be, in principle, derived from either verbal stem *laλi-^(d) or nominal stem *laλ(i)-. Under the first scenario, we may be dealing with a denominative verb that is similar in its formation to Gk. λαλέω ‘to speak’, while its derivative can be analyzed as a historical patient-oriented participle (“what is spoken, said”). Under the second scenario, one has to reconstruct a possessive adjective with a suffix comparable to Luw. -i(ya)- as intermediate stage in the derivation. This adjective, literally, “that of the tongue” could be substantivized yielding the noun ‘word’ or ‘speech’. Then one has to reconstruct the addition of the suffix -nt- ‘having X’ and the second iteration of substantivization. What speaks against the first alternative is the apparent lack of solid parallels for the denominatives based on the word for ‘tongue’ in other Anatolian languages. What speaks against the second alternative is the overall complexity of the derivation. The matter remains uncertain.

[I.Y.]

For the Lemma Head see PAnat. *lala-.