the anatolian and the proto-indo-european stop systems
TRANSCRIPT
The Anatolian and the Proto-Indo-European stop systems
Alwin Kloekhorst ([email protected])
More Hitches in Historical Linguistics
Gent, 16-17 March 2015
Hittite: geminate vs. single spelling
Hittite: geminate vs. single spelling
• Sturtevant’s Law (1932): geminate spelling, VC-CV, is consistently distinct from single spelling, V-CV.
Hittite: geminate vs. single spelling
• Sturtevant’s Law (1932): geminate spelling, VC-CV, is consistently distinct from single spelling, V-CV.
• geminates reflect PIE voiceless *p, *t, *ḱ, *kw
• singletons reflect PIE voiced *b, *d, *ǵ, *gw and voiced aspirated *bh, *dh, *ǵh, *gwh
Hittite: geminate vs. single spelling
• singletons:
a-ta-an-zi, a-da-an-zi ‘they eat’
~ Skt. ad-, Gr. ed-, < PIE *h1ed-
Hittite: geminate vs. single spelling
• singletons:
a-ta-an-zi, a-da-an-zi ‘they eat’
~ Skt. ad-, Gr. ed-, < PIE *h1ed-
• geminates:
pát-ta-n°, pád-da-n° ‘wing’
~ Skt. pat-, Gr. pet- < *peth1-
Hittite: geminate vs. single spelling
• singletons: lenis
a-ta-an-zi, a-da-an-zi ‘they eat’
~ Skt. ad-, Gr. ed-, < PIE *h1ed-
• geminates: fortis
pát-ta-n°, pád-da-n° ‘wing’
~ Skt. pat-, Gr. pet- < *peth1-
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Why not spelled with TA vs. DA?
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Why not spelled with TA vs. DA?
→ Because Hurrian has a similar system:
VttV = /tː/ = [tː] vs. VtV = /t/ = [d]
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Why not spelled with TA vs. DA?
→ Because Hurrian has a similar system:
VttV = /tː/ = [tː] vs. VtV = /t/ = [d]
→ Nowadays, no one believes in a Hurrian origin of Hittite cuneiform anymore
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Another problem:
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Another problem:
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Another problem:
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’
(also spelled e-uk-ta, so u is not a vowel, but labial articulation of the velar: /Kw/)
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Another problem:
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’
(also spelled e-uk-ta, so u is not a vowel, but labial articulation of the velar: /Kw/, which is supported by the use of postconsonantal ending -tta vs. postvocalic -t)
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Another problem:
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [egwta]
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Another problem:
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [egwta]
> **e-ek-ku-ut-ta [ekwta]
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Traditionally (e.g. Melchert 1994): voice distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [t] (< PIE *t)
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [d] (< PIE *d(h))
Another problem:
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [egwta]
> **e-ek-ku-ut-ta [ekwta]
or **e-ku-ta [egwda]
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [ekwtːa]
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [ekwtːa]
Proof:
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [ekwtːa]
Proof: PIE *kéiso > Hitt. ki-i-ša /kīsa/ ‘he becomes’
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [ekwtːa]
Proof: PIE *kéiso > Hitt. ki-i-ša /kīsa/ ‘he becomes’
PIE *kéish2e > Hitt. ki-iš-ḫa /kisHa/ ‘I become’
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [ekwtːa]
Proof: PIE *kéiso > Hitt. ki-i-ša /kīsa/ ‘he becomes’
PIE *kéish2e > Hitt. ki-iš-ḫa /kisHa/ ‘I become’
so, long /ī/ is shortened to /i/ in closed syllables
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [ekwtːa]
Proof: PIE *kéiso > Hitt. ki-i-ša /kīsa/ ‘he becomes’
PIE *kéish2e > Hitt. ki-iš-ḫa /kisHa/ ‘I become’
so, long /ī/ is shortened to /i/ in closed syllables
PIE *kéito > Hitt. ki-it-ta ‘he lies’, not **ki-i-it-ta
Fortis vs. lenis: phonetics?
Kloekhorst (2008): length distinction:
fortis Vt-tV, Vd-dV = [tː]
lenis V-tV, V-dV = [t]
e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [ekwtːa]
Proof: PIE *kéiso > Hitt. ki-i-ša /kīsa/ ‘he becomes’
PIE *kéish2e > Hitt. ki-iš-ḫa /kisHa/ ‘I become’
so, long /ī/ is shortened to /i/ in closed syllables
PIE *kéito > Hitt. ki-it-ta ‘he lies’, not **ki-i-it-ta
→ -tt- closes the syllable, i.e. [tː]
Sturtevant’s Law
• Hittite has two consonantal phonemes:
– fortis, spelled Vt-tV or Vd-dV ~ PIE *t
– lenis, spelled V-tV or V-dV ~ PIE *d(h)
Sturtevant’s Law
• Hittite has two consonantal phonemes:
– fortis, spelled Vt-tV or Vd-dV = [tː] ~ PIE *t
– lenis, spelled V-tV or V-dV = [t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Sturtevant’s Law
• Hittite has two consonantal phonemes:
– fortis, spelled Vt-tV or Vd-dV = [tː] ~ PIE *t
– lenis, spelled V-tV or V-dV = [t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Sturtevant’s Law only valid in word-internal intervocalic position.
Word-initial position
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *[tj-] Hitt. [ts-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *[tj-] Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *[dj-] Hitt. [s-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *[tj-] Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *[dj-] Hitt. [s-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *[tj-] Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *[dj-] Hitt. [dz-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *[tj-] Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *[dj-] Hitt. [dz-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *[tj-] Hitt. [ts-], [s-]
PIE *[dj-] Hitt. [dz-], [z-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *[tj-] Hitt. [ts-], [s-]
PIE *[dj-] Hitt. [dz-], [z-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *ti - Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *di- Hitt. [s-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *ti - pre-Hitt. *[tːj-] > Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *di- pre-Hitt. *[tj-] > Hitt. [s-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *ti - pre-Hitt. *[ttj-] > Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *di- pre-Hitt. *[tj-] > Hitt. [s-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *ti - pre-Hitt. *[ttj-] > Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *di- pre-Hitt. *[tj-] > Hitt. [s-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *ti - pre-Hitt. *[ttj-] > Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *di- pre-Hitt. *[tj-] > Hitt. [s-]
Word-initial position
Here also indications for long stops:
PIE *tieh2- > Hitt. zaḫḫ- [tsaxː-] ‘battle’
PIE *dieu- > Hitt. šiu- [siw-] ‘god’
PIE *ti - pre-Hitt. *[ttj-] > Hitt. [ts-]
PIE *di- pre-Hitt. *[tj-] > Hitt. [s-]
Hittite stop system
Hittite stop system
In all positions in the word:
Hittite stop system
In all positions in the word:
(1) fortis stops [tː]
Hittite stop system
In all positions in the word:
(1) fortis stops [tː]
(2) lenis stops [t]
Hittite stop system
In all positions in the word:
(1) fortis stops [tː] ~ PIE *t
(2) lenis stops [t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Hittite stop system
In all positions in the word:
(1) fortis stops [tː] ~ PIE *t
(2) lenis stops [t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Are these phonetic renderings specifically Hittite?
Hittite stop system
In all positions in the word:
(1) fortis stops [tː] ~ PIE *t
(2) lenis stops [t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Are these phonetic renderings specifically Hittite?
Or can we project them back to Proto-Anatolian?
Hittite stop system
In all positions in the word:
(1) fortis stops [tː] ~ PIE *t
(2) lenis stops [t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Are these phonetic renderings specifically Hittite?
Or can we project them back to Proto-Anatolian?
→ Yes, we can!
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
In PAnat., fortis consonants were lenited:
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
In PAnat., fortis consonants were lenited:
- after long accented vowel: V CCV > V CV
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
In PAnat., fortis consonants were lenited:
- after long accented vowel: V CCV > V CV (also after PAnat. */ō/ < PIE *ó)
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
In PAnat., fortis consonants were lenited:
- after long accented vowel: V CCV > V CV (also after PAnat. */ō/ < PIE *ó)
- between two unacc. vowels: VCVCCV > VCVCV
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
In PAnat., fortis consonants were lenited:
- after long accented vowel: V CCV > V CV (also after PAnat. */ō/ < PIE *ó)
- between two unacc. vowels: VCVCCV > VCVCV
This lenition is sometimes interpreted as voicing
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
In PAnat., fortis consonants were lenited:
- after long accented vowel: V CCV > V CV (also after PAnat. */ō/ < PIE *ó)
- between two unacc. vowels: VCVCCV > VCVCV
This lenition is sometimes interpreted as voicing, but it also affects long/geminate */sː/ < PIE *-ms-:
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
‘PIE’ *h2ómsei
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
‘PIE’ *h2ómsei ↓
pre-PAnat. */hōsːē/
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
‘PIE’ *h2ómsei ↓
pre-PAnat. */hōsːē/
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
‘PIE’ *h2ómsei ↓
pre-PAnat. */hōsːē/ ↓
PAnat. */hōsē/ lenition
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
‘PIE’ *h2ómsei ↓
pre-PAnat. */hōsːē/ ↓
PAnat. */hōsē/ ↓
Hitt. ḫāši /hāsi/ ‘gives birth’
lenition
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
‘PIE’ *h2ómsei ↓
pre-PAnat. */hōsːē/ ↓
PAnat. */hōsē/ ↓
Hitt. ḫāši /hāsi/ ‘gives birth’
→ Lenition is really degemination/shortening.
lenition
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
Therefore, lenition of fortis stops = shortening as well:
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
Therefore, lenition of fortis stops = shortening as well:
‘PIE’ *só-uetes-t-
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
Therefore, lenition of fortis stops = shortening as well:
‘PIE’ *só-uetes-t- ↓
pre-PAnat. */sōuetːest-/
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
Therefore, lenition of fortis stops = shortening as well:
‘PIE’ *só-uetes-t- ↓
pre-PAnat. */sōuetːest-/ ↓
PAnat. */sōuetest-/ lenition
1. Proto-Anatolian lenition rules
Therefore, lenition of fortis stops = shortening as well:
‘PIE’ *só-uetes-t- ↓
pre-PAnat. */sōuetːest-/ ↓
PAnat. */sōuetest-/ ↓
Hitt. šāuitišt- /sāuitist-/
‘one-year old calf’
lenition
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
In Luwian, intervocalic consonants are geminated after short accented vowel (Čop 1970, Kloekhorst 2006):
PAnat. *V CV > Luwian VCCV
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
In Luwian, intervocalic consonants are geminated after short accented vowel (Čop 1970, Kloekhorst 2006):
PAnat. *V CV > Luwian VCCV
e.g. *mélit- > CLuw. mallit- ‘honey’
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
In Luwian, intervocalic consonants are geminated after short accented vowel (Čop 1970, Kloekhorst 2006):
PAnat. *V CV > Luwian VCCV
e.g. *mélit- > CLuw. mallit- ‘honey’
*pérom > CLuw. parran ‘in front of’
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
In Luwian, intervocalic consonants are geminated after short accented vowel (Čop 1970, Kloekhorst 2006):
PAnat. *V CV > Luwian VCCV
e.g. *mélit- > CLuw. mallit- ‘honey’
*pérom > CLuw. parran ‘in front of’
This also affects lenis stops:
*nébhes > CLuw. tappaš- ‘heaven’
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
Is an inherent part of PAnatolian lenition rules
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
Is an inherent part of PAnatolian lenition rules:
PAnat. *V C(C)V > CLuw. VCCV
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
Is an inherent part of PAnatolian lenition rules:
PAnat. *V C(C)V > CLuw. VCCV
*V C(C)V > V CV
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
Is an inherent part of PAnatolian lenition rules:
PAnat. *V C(C)V > CLuw. VCCV
*V C(C)V > V CV
*VCVC(C)V > VCVCV
2. Čop’s Law in Luwian
Is an inherent part of PAnatolian lenition rules:
PAnat. *V C(C)V > CLuw. VCCV
*V C(C)V > V CV
*VCVC(C)V > VCVCV
Since Čop’s Law is really gemination/lengthening (mallit-, parran) all these rules must deal with real lengthening and shortening.
Proto-Anatolian stop system
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh
*éd
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ Hitt. [ét]
*éd
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ Hitt. [ét]
*éd ~ Hitt. [éːt]
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ Hitt. [ét]
*éd ~ Hitt. [éːt]
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ Hitt. [ét]
*éd ~ *[éʔt] > Hitt. [éːt]
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ *[ét] > Hitt. [ét]
*éd ~ *[éʔt] > Hitt. [éːt]
Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series *[t] ~ PIE *d(h)
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ *[ét] > Hitt. [ét]
*éd ~ *[éʔt] > Hitt. [éːt]
pre-Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ *[ét] > Hitt. [ét]
*éd ~ *[éʔt] > Hitt. [éːt]
*[ʔt] ~ PIE *d
*[t] ~ PIE *dh
pre-Proto-Anatolian stop system
fortis series *[tː] ~ PIE *t
lenis series
Kloekhorst 2012:
PIE *édh ~ *[ét] > Hitt. [ét]
*éd ~ *[éʔt] > Hitt. [éːt]
*[ʔt] ~ PIE *d
*[t] ~ PIE *dh
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
The place of Anatolian within the IE language family is debated.
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
The place of Anatolian within the IE language family is debated.
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
The place of Anatolian within the IE language family is debated.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
The place of Anatolian within the IE language family is debated.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“early Proto-Indo-European”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European”
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
The place of Anatolian within the IE language family is debated.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European”
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
A A
A
A A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
A A
A
A A
B
B
B B
B
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
A A
A
A A
B
B
B B
B
A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
A A
A
A A
B
B
B B
B
A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Indo-European
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
A A
A
A A
B
B
B B
B
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
“Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
B
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Consequences for valuing Anatolian evidence.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
B “Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Anatolian vs. Indo-European
Importance of Anatolian: it potentially retains the PIH situation.
Germanic Greek
Sanskrit
Proto-Anatolian
Lycian Luwian
Hittite
etc.
etc.
Slavic
“classic Proto-Indo-European” B
A A
A
A A
B
B B
B
A
B “Proto-Indo-Hittite”
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *? *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *? *d
/t/ < */t/ *? *dh
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
devoicing
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
devoicing
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
spontaneous gemination/lengthening
devoicing
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
devoicing
? spontaneous gemination/lengthening
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
devoicing
? spontaneous gemination/lengthening
Blevins 2004: no examples
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *t *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *d *d
/t/ < */t/ *dh *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
devoicing
? spontaneous gemination/lengthening
Blevins 2004: no examples Kümmel 2007: 1 ex.: Anatolian
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *? *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *? *d
/t/ < */t/ *? *dh
Anatolian stop system
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *d
/t/ < */t/ *t *dh
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *d
/t/ < */t/ *t *dh
innovation
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *d
/t/ < */t/ *t *dh
innovation
voicing
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *dh
innovation
voicing
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
voicing
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
voicing
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
voicing
spontaneous degemination/shortening
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
voicing development 1:
spontaneous degemination/shortening
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
voicing development 1:
automatic consequence: degemination/shortening
Anatolian stop system
PAnat. pre-PAnat. PIH PIE
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
voicing development 1:
automatic consequence:
degemination/shortening
Two scenarios
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
PIE *t > PAnat. *tː through gemination / lengthening
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
PIE *t > PAnat. *tː through gemination / lengthening
2. PIH = pre-PAnat.
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
PIE *t > PAnat. *tː through gemination / lengthening
2. PIH = pre-PAnat. [= we have to reconstruct a PIH stage]:
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
PIE *t > PAnat. *tː through gemination / lengthening
2. PIH = pre-PAnat. [= we have to reconstruct a PIH stage]:
PIH *tː > classic PIE *t through degemination / shortening
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
PIE *t > PAnat. *tː through gemination / lengthening
2. PIH = pre-PAnat. [= we have to reconstruct a PIH stage]:
PIH *tː > classic PIE *t through degemination / shortening
?
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
PIE *t > PAnat. *tː through gemination / lengthening
2. PIH = pre-PAnat. [= we have to reconstruct a PIH stage]:
PIH *tː > classic PIE *t through degemination / shortening
?
Two scenarios
1. ‘PIH’ = classic PIE [= there is no need for reconstructing PIH]:
PIE *t > PAnat. *tː through gemination / lengthening
2. PIH = pre-PAnat. [= we have to reconstruct a PIH stage]:
PIH *tː > classic PIE *t through degemination / shortening
?
Extra argument
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
2sg. *h1ési ‘you are’
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
2sg. *h1ési ‘you are’ (Skt. ási, Gr. εἶ, OLith. esì)
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
2sg. *h1ési ‘you are’ (Skt. ási, Gr. εἶ, OLith. esì)
< preform *h1éssi
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
2sg. *h1ési ‘you are’ (Skt. ási, Gr. εἶ, OLith. esì)
< preform *h1éssi (namely *h1és-si)
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
2sg. *h1ési ‘you are’ (Skt. ási, Gr. εἶ, OLith. esì)
< preform *h1éssi (namely *h1és-si)
degemination!
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
2sg. *h1ési ‘you are’ (Skt. ási, Gr. εἶ, OLith. esì)
< preform *h1éssi (namely *h1és-si)
Note: Hitt. e-eš-ši = /ʔéssi/!
degemination!
Extra argument
→ Independent evidence for degemination in
pre-‘classic PIE’:
2sg. *h1ési ‘you are’ (Skt. ási, Gr. εἶ, OLith. esì)
< preform *h1éssi (namely *h1és-si)
Note: Hitt. e-eš-ši = /ʔéssi/!
degemination!
Conclusion
Conclusion
Hitt.
/ʔéssi/
/tː/
/t/
/t/
Conclusion
Hitt. pre-PAnat.
/ʔéssi/ < */ʔéssi/
/tː/ < */tː/
/t/ < */ʔt/
/t/ < */t/
Conclusion
Hitt. pre-PAnat. Cl.PIE
/ʔéssi/ < */ʔéssi/ *h1ési
/tː/ < */tː/ *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *d
Conclusion
Hitt. pre-PAnat. PIH Cl.PIE
/ʔéssi/ < */ʔéssi/ *h1éssi *h1ési
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
Conclusion
Hitt. pre-PAnat. PIH Cl.PIE
/ʔéssi/ < */ʔéssi/ *h1éssi *h1ési
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
Conclusion
Hitt. pre-PAnat. PIH Cl.PIE
/ʔéssi/ < */ʔéssi/ *h1éssi *h1ési
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
voicing
Conclusion
Hitt. pre-PAnat. PIH Cl.PIE
/ʔéssi/ < */ʔéssi/ *h1éssi *h1ési
/tː/ < */tː/ *tː *t
/t/ < */ʔt/ *ʔt *ʔd
/t/ < */t/ *t *d
innovation
degemination/shortening
voicing
Conclusion
The relationship between the Anatolian stop system and the Proto-Indo-European one can
only be explained by the Indo-Hittite hypothesis
References
Blevins, J., 2004, Evolutionary phonology. The emergence of sound patterns, Cambridge.
Čop, B., 1970, Eine luwische orthographisch-phonetische Regel, Indogermanische Forschungen 75, 85-96.
Kloekhorst, A., 2006[2008], Čop’s Law in Luwian revisited, Die Sprache 46, 131-136.
Kloekhorst, A., 2008, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden.
Kloekhorst, A., 2012, The Phonological Interpretation of Plene and Non-Plene Spelled e in Hittite, The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics (edd. B. Nielsen Whitehead et al.), 243-261.
Kümmel, M.J., 2007, Konsonantenwandel, Wiesbaden.
Melchert, H.C., 1994, Anatolian Historical Phonology, Leiden.
Sturtevant, E.H., 1932, The development of the stops in Hittite, Journal of the American Oriental Society 52, 1-12.
Thank you for your attention