See Din‡ - Innocente 1999, 65-72. According to Innocente, it should be read in one word, presumably a name. She also considers a possible reading ²dales. Cf. s.v. perbeda-.
G-125 ]rono-oy : eneparkes ²-ei¢es
M-01d midas / smateran / tvemes ²eneparkes¢ ...
G-01C e]n·[e]/p/arkes ²v[
31. ... mankan ian estaej bratere / maimarhan poukroj manisou eneparkej detoun / [
W-05b [e]daes ²por ²mater[an] or mater[ey];
88. ... pour ke ouanaktan ouranion diounsin;
Dok. (126) por koro (dat.)
< *pr• (cf. Gr. p£r, Goth. faur, etc.), Lejeune 1972: 340, fn. 57, Lubotsky 1989b: 151f. Cf. further Brixhe 1993: 333, 1997: 55.
Also porniyoy· (Dask2) may contain this preposition.
For protuj two explanations have been proposed. One takes protuj as the predicate of the sentence with the meaning `made, erected', cf. Meister 1909: 319, fn. 4 (3sg. sigm. aorist `er gab hin, er weihte'), Haas 1966: 106 (`erbaute'). The obvious flaw of this analysis is the absense of the augment and the ending -ej, which are characteristic for the Phrygian aorist forms.
According to the others, protuj is an adverb or a preverb. Ramsay 1905: 115 assumed an adverb `in front', probably having Gr. prÒ in mind; Diakonoff - Neroznak 1985: 131 saw in protuj a preverb `against', derived from *proti, whereas Bajun - Orel 1988: 140 considered it identical to Gr. Hom. prot…, Skt. pra´ti. Connection with prot… is improbable because in the Greek inscriptions of Phrygia we find pos-/poj instead of proj-/prÒj, which is to be explained by the fact that in Phrygian this adverb had the form poj (cf. Brixhe - Neumann 1985: 176, who point at pos-ekanej in the inscription No. 116, but see s.v. aipos-). Moreover, the proposed meaning of this adverb does not suit the context: a monument does not stand in front or against something.
Therefore it seems more plausible to take protuj as an adverb of time, meaning something like `before, in advance', Gr. prw~ton. It was not unusual to prepare a grave and erect a monument before the death of the person to whom the grave was dedicated (XXX). As far as the formation of the adverb is concerned, we may compare Gr. prw~twj and other adverbs in -wj (cf. Lubotsky 1993a: 130, fn. 3).
The same word may be attested in ]protosou[ 31, but the context of the broken part is unclear.
|
Help | ||||||
|
|||||||