Topics in Anatolian Historical Grammar Prof. Dr. H. Craig Melchert

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 C. Diphthongs 1. Unaccented *-oi > -e securely in enclitic OH 3PDat -šše < *-soi. 2. Accented *-oi > -e securely in pronominal AnimNPl -e < *-oi in kē ‘these’, apē ‘those; they’ and also NeutN-APl kē and apē, as per Jasanoff 2008: 145-8. Also likely in pē ‘hin-’ < *poi, as per Eichner (1973: 78) contra Melchert (1994: 133). NB HLuvian †pa-si-ya- ‘throw away’ does not exist! Attested pa-sa-yá-tu-' (KAYSERİ §18) highly unlikely to spell /passya-/. Preform *poi accounts for shape of pēḫute/a- ‘carry, bring’ and compatible with all other verbs with pē-, including pai- ‘go’ (but all attested forms easily derivable from *pói-h 1 i- with accented preverb and zerograde root, contra Kloekhorst 2008: 616-8 with unbelievable spelling interpretations and needless complex sound changes). New suggestion by Puhvel (2011: 191-2) that Luvo-Hittite pašku(wa)- ‘forsake, abandon’ continues *pa-sk(e)u- (cf. Goth. Afskiuban ‘idem’) not nece. Incompatible: could show variant *po-. NB still no certain Hittite-Luvian equations. In any case, no evidence for *pe-. 3. Unaccented *-ei probably results regularly in OH P3Sg -e in war(a)šše ‘plucks, harvests’ < virtual *wórsei (see also OH/OS mazze ‘resists’), but evidence is less than robust. 4. Accented *-ei: no sure examples. 5. Unaccented *-ai > Hittite -e certainly in OH Pres1Sg -ḫḫe < *-h 2 ei [-Hai]. 6. Accented *-ai: no sure examples. 7. Accented *-ōi in amphikinetic neuter nouns in -āi with shifted accent, as in ḫaštāi ‘bone; bones’ < *h 2 esth 2 ōi etc. 8. Accented *-ēi > -ē(i) in kulēi ‘fallow land’ < virtual *k w lh 1 -ēi < *k w élh 1 -o- (see Oettinger 1995: 211-14) and in utnē ‘land’ < *ud-nēi < *wédeno- (see Oettinger 2000: 185ff.). Derivation of NeutN-APl kue < *k w ēi (Melchert 2004: 140) possible, but *k w ói as in kē and apē (see above I.C.2) more likely. II. Interior Vowels in Final Syllables A. Short Vowels 1. Short *i appears as i whether accented or unaccented: kuiš, kuin, kuit and likewise šalliš, šallin, šalli etc. 2. Short *u appears as u whether accented or unaccented: g(a)nut ‘by the knee’ < virtual *gnú-t and daššuš, daššun, daššu. 3. Accented short *e > ē in Inst kēt < *kéd (Melchert-Oettinger 2009: 60) and in Pret1Pl and Pret2Pl -wen (NB exx. such as , -ten < *-wén, *-tén (Yoshida 1997: 191-2). 4. Unaccented short *-en# > -an in supine -škewan (Yoshida 1997: 192) and local particle -an < cliticized *en. Unaccented *-es# > -iš in nēpiš ‘sky, heaven’ < *nébhes (perh. better example is šaudišt- ‘new-born (animal)’ < *sóm-wetes-t- *‘of the same year’. 5. Accented short *o > ā in AnimNSg kāš, apāš and NeutN-ASg apāt. Accented *-óm# > /-o:n/ (spelled -u-un) in AnimASg kūn, apūn (Kloekhorst 2008: 99, revising
4 Melchert 1994: 186-7). NB makes very problematic derivation of mān ‘how; as; if, when’ < *móm and equation with Lycian mẽ ‘as; thus’! Dubious derivation < Inst *méh 2 m [mām] by Dunkel (1997: 72-4). 6. Unaccented short *o > a in NeutN-ASg -an < *-om, as in pēdan ‘place’ < *pédom (NB iugan ‘yoke’ < *yugóm must then be analogical in either vocalism or accent) and in Pret1Sg *-an < *-om, remade as -an-un. 7. Accented *-óms# > /-o:s/ (in ku-u-uš and a-pu-u-uš), as per Kloekhorst (2008: 99), revising Melchert (1994: 186-7). Fate of unaccented *-oms (and *- s) remains less than certain. Kloekhorst (2008: 56-7) assumes -ú-uš is regular spelling for AnimAPl in OH, thus /-us/, replaced by /-os/ in NH, based on later spellings with -u-uš. But NB that neither *-oms nor *- s should ever have been spelled plene! Of 10 exx. of -ú-uš cited by Kloekhorst, 8 (including all OS and MS) are of type ta-lu-ga-ú-uš, ḫar-ša-ú-uš, kap-pí-ú-uš, entirely parallel to ta-lu-ga-e-eš, ap-pé-ez-zi-e-eš (cf. ḫaan-te-ez-zi-ú-uš missed by Kloekhorst), argued convincingly by Kloekhorst (forthcoming) to reflect use of -e- to mark [y] after -Ci- sign. Thus use of ú surely parallel, to mark hiatus-filler ([Ɂ] or [w]), not vowel quality. Change to use of u likely to align with real quality of following vowel, not OH to NH sound change, as per Kloekhorst (see below III.B.1 for similar change with /-on/). Clinching evidence wrongly dismissed by Kloekhorst (2008: 168): APl a-ku-u-uš-š=a ‘also sea-shells’ (OH/OS) to u-stem aku-! Shows even *-ums > *-ųs > *-ōs > /-o:s/ (shortened when unaccented). Thus in all likelihood also same result for *-oms and *- s. B. Long Vowels 1. Accented long *ē > ē in hysterokinetic collectives in *-ēr (still likely ḫašduēr ‘brushwood, twig; splinter’—see Rieken 1999: 346-7—and certain in *ḫappēr ‘transactions, business’ required by ḫappiriya- *‘market-place’ > ‘city’—Rieken 1999: 317). Also in AnimNSg ḫaštērz(a) ‘star’ < *h 2 stēr+s. 2. Accented long *ō > ā in amphikinetic plurals such as widār ‘waters’ < *wedōr (with shifted accent that cannot be due to the “k w etwores-Regel”!). Shortened to a when unaccented: OH/MH NSg antuwaḫḫaš ‘human’ < virtual *én-dhweh 2 -ōs. 3. Accented long *ā > ā in duwān parā ‘long before’ < *[dwa:m] (by Stang’s Law from underlying ASg *dwéh 2 m ‘distance, long time’). See Melchert 2008. 4. Unaccented long *ō > a in NSg keššar(=šiš) < *ghésōr ‘hand’. 5. Unaccented long *ā > a probable in pēran ‘in front’ < *pérām ~ Grk. πέρᾱν ‘across, opposite’ with Dunkel 1997: 72 contra Melchert 1994: 135. C. Diphthongs Long *-ōis with secondary accent > amphikinetic NSg -āiš (but ASg -āin unlikely to be regular continuant of *-ōy- ). PIE status of rare matching -āuš < *-ōus uncertain. III. Sonorants A. Final Non-Syllabic 1. Final *-m merges with final *-n as -n (see various examples cited under II. above). Date of merger (Common Anatolian or pre-Hittite) difficult to determine.
Page 1 and 2: Universität zu Köln Institut für
Page 3: 2 4. Accented *-u: no certain examp
Page 7 and 8: 6 ēšta ‘was’ < *h 1 és-t. Ge
Page 9 and 10: 8 References Agbayani, Brian, and C
Page 11 and 12: 10 ——. 2008. The Origin of the
Page 13 and 14: 2 No explanation is offered by Sihl
Page 15 and 16: 4 zarwaniya- ‘of horn’ (C) < *k
Page 17 and 18: 6 requires a preform with fixed mid
Page 19 and 20: 8 no conditioned change of posttoni
Page 21 and 22: 10 contrasting example to prove tha
Page 23 and 24: 12 Appendix: Evidence for Three Set
Page 25 and 26: 14 References Bader, Françoise. 19
Page 27 and 28: 16 Starke, Frank. 1990. Untersuchun
Page 29 and 30: 2 (1) HKM 18:18-20 (MH/MS) nu=mu k
Page 31 and 32: 4 For (“CAPERE”)u-pa- as ‘bri
Page 33 and 34: 6 Appendix 1 Provisional Analysis o
Page 35 and 36: 8 3. /o:/ < *uh 2 wa-šu-u-(ḫa)
Page 37 and 38: 10 Hackstein, Olav. 2007. Ablative
Page 39 and 40: 2 B. Evidence for basic types 1. Op
Page 41 and 42: 4 presents with 3Sg -atär/-etär o
Page 43 and 44: 6 2. Effects of change of state oft
Page 45 and 46: H. Craig Melchert Università di Ro
Page 47 and 48: 3 As to Grk. γέγωνε ‘shout
Page 49 and 50: Hittite ḫi-Verbs of the Type -āC
Page 51 and 52: 3 would like to attribute the alter
Page 53 and 54: 5 wappu- ‘river-bank’ reflects
Page 55 and 56:
7 totally exclude laḫḫiya- < l
Page 57 and 58:
9 *n e h 2 - > naḫḫ-. However,
Page 59 and 60:
11 attempts Tischler (1983: 8-9). P
Page 61 and 62:
13 We may thus assume that the preh
Page 63 and 64:
15 Kimball, Sara. 1988. Analogy, Se
Page 65 and 66:
H. Craig Melchert University of Sie
Page 67 and 68:
3 E. Ergo not coincidental that onl
Page 69 and 70:
On Wh-(Non)-Movement and Internal S
Page 71 and 72:
On the Hittite Preposed Relative Cl
Page 73 and 74:
2.1. Movement driven by features On
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Focus structure and Q-word question
Page 93 and 94:
Hittite Q-word questions 947 di¤er
Page 95 and 96:
Hittite Q-word questions 949 This q
Page 97 and 98:
Hittite Q-word questions 951 Figure
Page 99 and 100:
4.2. Identifying focus and Q-word q
Page 101 and 102:
Hittite Q-word questions 955 (T I )
Page 103 and 104:
Hittite Q-word questions 957 with i
Page 105 and 106:
quires a lexically expressed subjec
Page 107 and 108:
Hittite Q-word questions 961 In (3)
Page 109 and 110:
Hittite Q-word questions 963 revers
Page 111 and 112:
Hittite Q-word questions 965 uris
Page 113 and 114:
Hittite Q-word questions 967 27. In
Page 115:
Hittite Q-word questions 969 É. Ki
Page 127 and 128:
kaiå eœlonto iërÈa SimÌan Kond
Page 129 and 130:
H. Craig Melchert 57th R.A.I. Unive
Page 131 and 132:
3 (7) TÜNP 1 (text after Hawkins 2
Page 133 and 134:
5 MU.ḪI.A-uš ušneškemi kāša
Page 135 and 136:
H. Craig Melchert Naming in Anatoli
Page 137 and 138:
3 (a) /pi:hamma/i-/ ‘resplendent;
Page 139 and 140:
5 4. Ethnica (in contrast with Hitt
Page 141 and 142:
7 5.2. Adverb+Noun (with deity or t
Page 143 and 144:
9 (36) */Tarhu(nta)-tsalma-/, i.e.
Page 145 and 146:
11 8.3 m Tarḫu(n)miya- (Maşat, H
Page 147 and 148:
13 ——. 1994. Über die chronolo
show all

Topics in Anatolian Historical Grammar Prof. Dr. H. Craig Melchert

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?