Phrygian etymological database (in progress) [Lubotsky] :

Phrygian da- Query method Match substring

   3sg.act.: daket 26 56 67, spelling variants doket 54, doke[t] 44 {1};
daket Vez 11;
+ ad: 3sg.act. addaket 2 10 12 18 33-4 43 45 57 59 62 69 76 79 82 88 90 101 119-20 124, [a]ddaket 80, a[d]daket 3, ad[d]aket 77-8, add[a]ket 86, [a·d]daket 39, addak[et] 29 38 55 125, [ad]dake[t] 117; [ad]d·[ak]et 123; [adda]ket 70; [a]ddaket 53; addake 62 (?); ad[da]ke 60; addakek 32; addakem 35; adaket 4 14 20-1 28 36 61 72 87 93-4 97 99 102 111-2 115 118; ada[k]et 105, adake[ 68; ad[a]ke 51; adoket 106 {1}, od[daket]? 27;
3sg. (not in a malediction; pret.?) addaket 48;
3pl. act. adaken 5;
3sg. med. addaketor 40 63; [ad]a·ketor 121; [adda]kkitor? 72;
3pl.pf. dakaren 98, [[dakar 18 ??]];
3sg. s-aor. edaes M-01a, M-01b, M-02; d·a[s] M-01f (?); ed·?[a]e·?s W-02; [e]daes W-05b; ²edaes ² B-01.2; e·da·e·[s] ² P-04c; edaej 116 (2x) {2};
+t-: ²t-edaes W-08;
3sg.med. edatoy Vez 2,
+t-: t-edatoy W-01a,
+tit-: tit-edat·[oy] Vez 1 (?)
daYet W-01b, deYeti N-101 (?)

   Evidently, the root goes back to PIE *d^heh₁. We can reconstruct several stems: pres. *d^heh₁-k-et, aor. *(h₁e-)d^hŒ¢h₁-s-es, 3pl. pf. *d^heh₁-k-Œr (+ -ent).
For a discussion of (ad)daket see Brixhe 1979a: 180ff, Lubotsky 1997: 127. Since addaket occurs in a preterital context in 48 (doum(e) ke oi ou(e)/ban addaket orou/an `the "father" has established the monument for his religious community'), it seems attractive to assume that addaket of the malediction formulae is a kind of preterite, too.
The forms t-edatoy W-01a, edatoy Vez 2 also occur in a preterital context, but their analysis is problematic, since the augment e- seems to be incompatible with the primary medial ending -toy.

   nom.sg. midas M-01d; midas[? G-137; mid·as (I†kiztepe)
dat.sg. midai M-01a; mi·0000">d·a·[- T-02b (?)