THE SYNTAX OF THE NEW PHRYGIAN INSCRIPTION No. 88

Abstract

. For the interpretation of Phrygian inscriptions we have at our disposal two sources of syntactic information: syntactic constructions attested in Phrygian and peculiarities of the Greek language of the "Phrygian" area of Asia Minor. In the present article I would like to demonstrate how we can use this information for the analysis of Phrygian inscriptions, taking as an example inscription No. 88, which was published for the first time by Calder (1928: 216f). This inscription contains a Greek and a Phrygian part: As usual, the Greek part contains an epitaph, from which we learn that the grave has been made by Mnophilos and his wife Mania for their prematurely deceased children, App and Ouenaouia, and for themselves. The message at the end of the inscription, concerning the burial of Szn, the husband of Ouenaouia, "may be a later addition" (Calder 1928: 217).The Phrygian part constitutes a malediction against the violator of the tomb. Its protasis,        , is quite transparent and can be translated `whoever brings harm to this premature tomb of Venavia',  standing for Gr.   and  being gen.sg. of the name mentioned in the Greek part of the inscription (cf. Haas 1966: 94). 1The rest of the inscription, viz. 1Haas translates `wer diesem frhzeitigen Grabe der Ouen<a>ouia etwas U bles zufgt' (the omitted -a-in the name Ouenaouia is a misprint). The only correction which must be made to Haas' analysis regards the interpretation of . Haas takes it as a pronomen indefinitum *kʷid, belonging to , but, as Brixhe has shown (1978a: 8ff.), () is a particle, always making part of the apodosis and standing immediately before the participle / adjective of the predicate. Haas 1976a: 77 tacitly corrected the translation himself: "Wer diesem allzufrhen Grabe der Venavia    ". For more details on the particle () I refer the reader to Lubotsky 1989.

Lexicon of the Phrygian Inscriptions

“…εκατηας (16.1 = 116) was identified by Brixhe and Neumann (1985, 175) The DN διουνσιν ( 6.1 = 88) can be added to the list of Greek onomastics in Phrygian, since it is clearly related to Διόνῡσος. However, its spelling is problematic, as it seems to show a syncope διόνῡσ-> *διονσ-> διουν-and the thematic ending spelled with -ι-instead of the common -ου-seen in σεμιν (53.1 = 76 and 61.1 = 100) for σεμουν (see Lubotsky 1989b, 153, against Brixhe 1999, who did not rule out a "théonyme autochtone"). 4.6.1.5…”

“…atque, so ακ-goes back to PIE *h2ed 'near, at' with assimilation of its stop before κε. On the other hand, Lubotsky (1989b, 150, followed by Brixhe 1997 preferred to consider that ακ works as the preposition (as the common αδ ~ ατ) governing the following sg.dat. pronoun οι.…”

THE SYNTAX OF THE NEW PHRYGIAN INSCRIPTION No. 88

“…The first three words,  <> , must constitute a curse `let him be condemned' uel sim., parallel to the usual    (for the particle  cf. Lubotsky 1989, for  see below).  is most probably the acc.sg.…”

“…The parallelism of two constructions,     and ()     (14, 53, 99) `let him become accursed by Tiyes' uel sim., for which see Lubotsky 1989, suggests that   must be analysed as the preposition  + acc.sg. of a deity, whereas  is a verbal form (so already Gusmani 1958: 903).…”

“…When used as a sentence conjunction,  appears after the first word of the second clause. (For the analysis of the malediction formulae with   and   see Lubotsky 1989).…”