the hittite consonants spellings, phonetics and phonology

The Hittite consonants Spellings, phonetics and phonology

Alwin Kloekhorst, Leiden University ([email protected])

Hrozný and Hittite: The First Hundred Years

12-14 November 2015 Charles University, Prague

Voiceless vs. voiced stops

• the cuneiform script distinguishes voiceless and voiced stops:

& TA besides æ DA

> PA besides ] BA

( KI besides H GI

R TU besides Ä DU

etc.

In Hittite: often interchangeable

‘they eat’: a-ta-an-zi a-da-an-zi

‘they must be’: a-ša-an-tu a-ša-an-du

‘to open’: ki-nu-uz-zi gi-nu-uz-zi





Hrozný (1917: 1894):

“Es muß erst untersucht werden ob, bzw. inwiefern es sich bei dem Wechsel zwischen t und d bloß um eine graphische Erscheinung handelt”.





Sturtevant (1933: 35):

“[Hittite shows] a pretty complete confusion of the voiced and voiceless orders. We must conclude that [the Hittites] did not hear the distinction which Akkadian presented between b and p, d and t, g and k; to them each pair stood for a single sound”.





Communis opinio since then:

the use of e.g. TA vs. DA is in principle random.

TA vs. DA

TA vs. DA

• several recent articles that do claim a difference between TA and DA

(Kloekhorst 2010; Kloekhorst 2013)

TA vs. DA



This talk:

TA vs. DA



This talk: - recapitulate

- give new data and interpretations

TA vs. DA: initial position


Kloekhorst 2010: Old Hittite corpus


TA-words reflect *tV-, *dV-, *dhV-



DA-words



DA-words: 1. dā-i, e.g. da-an-zi ‘they take’ < *dh3énti




2. dai-i, eg. da-a-i ‘he places’ < *dhh1óiei





Distribution: TA ~ PIE *TV-






DA ~ PIE *THV-






DA ~ PIE *THV-

In Akkadian, DA can have the value ṭa = [tʔa]






DA ~ PIE *THV-


da-an-zi

da-a-i






DA ~ PIE *THV-


da-an-zi = “ṭa-an-zi”

da-a-i = “ṭa-a-i”






DA ~ PIE *THV-


da-an-zi = “ṭa-an-zi” = [tʔántsi]

da-a-i = “ṭa-a-i” = [tʔāi]






DA ~ PIE *THV-


da-an-zi = “ṭa-an-zi” = [tʔántsi] < *dh3énti

da-a-i = “ṭa-a-i” = [tʔāi] < *dhh1óiei

TA vs. DA: intervocalic position

TA vs. DA: intervocalic position Kloekhorst 2013: Old Hittite texts


geminates:


geminates: (-)Vt-ta(-) 233x

(-)Vd-da(-) 11x



(-)Vd-da(-) 11x

pád-da-aḫ-ḫi ʻI digʼ

[p]ád-da-ni ʻbasketʼ

pád-da-a-ni ʻbasketʼ

[p]ád-da-ni-i ʻbasketʼ GIŠpád-da-[ni] ʻbasketʼ GIŠpád-da-r° ʻbasketʼ

píd-da-a-i ʻhe fleesʼ

ud-d[a?-]a?-ar ʻwordsʼ



(-)Vd-da(-) 11x

pád-da-aḫ-ḫi ʻI digʼ < *bhodhh2V-



[p]ád-da-ni-i ʻbasketʼ GIŠpád-da-[ni] ʻbasketʼ GIŠpád-da-r° ʻbasketʼ





(-)Vd-da(-) 11x




[p]ád-da-ni-i ʻbasketʼ < *péth2r, *pth2én- GIŠpád-da-[ni] ʻbasketʼ GIŠpád-da-r° ʻbasketʼ





(-)Vd-da(-) 11x





píd-da-a-i ʻhe fleesʼ < *pth1óiei




(-)Vd-da(-) 11x





píd-da-a-i ʻhe fleesʼ < *pth1óiei

ud-d[a?-]a?-ar ʻwordsʼ < *uth2ōr

TA vs. DA: intervocalic position ar-ma-ni-ia-at-ta ‘he becomes ill’ < *h1rmnioto

ḫa-an-da-a-(e-)et-ta ‘it fits’ < *°ieto

ḫa-at-ta-an-ta ‘intelligent’ < *h2etent-

i-e-et-ta ‘he goes’ < *h1ieto

i-ia-at-ta ‘he goes’ < *h1ioto

kat-ta(-an) ‘below, down’ < *ḱmto(m)

ki-iš-ta-an-zi-at-ta-at ‘he was hungry’ < *°ioto°

ki-it-ta ‘he lies’ < *ḱeito

ku-ut-ta-aš ‘wall (gen.sg.)’ < *ǵheutos

lu-uk-kat-ta ‘the next morning’ < *leukoto

nu-u=t-ta ‘and to you’ < *nu=tuo

še-ep-pí-it-ta-aš ‘grain (gen.sg.)’ < *sepitos dŠi-i-ua-at-ta-aš ‘sun-deity (gen.sg.)’ < *dieuotos

ú-e-et-ta[-an-da-an-ni] ‘period of a year’ < *uetent-


spelling of geminates:



distribution:



distribution: (-)Vt-ta(-) < PIE *-VtV-




(-)Vd-da(-) < PIE *-VTHV-





phonetic interpretation:

(-)Vt-ta(-) = [Vtːa]







(-)Vd-da(-)







(-)Vd-da(-) = (-)Vṭ-ṭa(-)







(-)Vd-da(-) = (-)Vṭ-ṭa(-) = [Vtːʔa]


spelling of singletons:



always interchange: °V-ta(-) ≈°V-da(-)



always interchange: °V-ta(-) ≈°V-da(-) < *Vd(h)V





DA cannot be [tʔa] here, so rather [da]





DA cannot be [tʔa] here, so rather [da]

°V-t/da(-) = [Vda]

TA vs. DA: after n

TA vs. DA: after n


°n-TA °n-DA

TA vs. DA: after n


°n-TA °n-DA

e-ša-an-ta (7x) ‘they sit (down)’ e-ša-an-da (3x)

TA vs. DA: after n


°n-TA °n-DA


-- ‘into’ an-da (54x)

TA vs. DA: after n


°n-TA °n-DA



ši-pa-an-ta-an-zi (5x) ‘they libate’ --

TA vs. DA: after n


°n-TA °n-DA



ši-pa-an-ta-an-zi (5x) ‘they libate’ --

1 2 3

TA vs. DA: after n

Etymologically distributed:

TA vs. DA: after n


1. °n-t/da(-) < *-nt-,*-ndh-

TA vs. DA: after n


1. °n-t/da(-) < *-nt-,*-ndh-

2. °n-da(-) < *-nTH-

TA vs. DA: after n


1. °n-t/da(-) < *-nt-,*-ndh-

2. °n-da(-) < *-nTH-

3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd-

TA vs. DA: after n


1. °n-t/da(-) < *-nt-,*-ndh- = [-nda-]

2. °n-da(-) < *-nTH-

3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd-

TA vs. DA: after n


1. °n-t/da(-) < *-nt-,*-ndh- = [-nda-]

2. °n-da(-) < *-nTH- = [-ntʔa-]

3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd-

TA vs. DA: after n


1. °n-t/da(-) < *-nt-,*-ndh- = [-nda-]

2. °n-da(-) < *-nTH- = [-ntʔa-]

3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd- = [-nta-]

TA vs. DA: after n


1. °n-t/da(-) < *-nt-,*-ndh- = [-nda-] cf. °V-t/da(-) = [Vda]

2. °n-da(-) < *-nTH- = [-ntʔa-]

3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd- = [-nta-]

TA vs. DA: after n



2. °n-da(-) < *-nTH- = [-ntʔa-] cf. (-)Vd-da(-) = [Vtːʔa]

3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd- = [-nta-]

TA vs. DA: after n




3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd- = [-nta-] cf. (-)Vt-ta(-) = [Vtːa]

TA vs. DA: after n




3. °n-ta(-) < *-nd- = [-nta-] cf. (-)Vt-ta(-) = [Vtːa]

So in both environments three kinds of stops

Back to TA vs. DA: initial position


1. ta-


1. ta- 2. da-


1. ta- 2. da- 3. t/da-


1. ta- = [ta-] 2. da- 3. t/da-


1. ta- = [ta-] 2. da- = [tʔa-] 3. t/da-


1. ta- = [ta-] 2. da- = [tʔa-] 3. t/da- = [da-]

Overview thus far

In all three environments:

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)

In all three environments: consistent TA

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)

ta- (-)Vt-ta(-) °n-ta(-)

In all three environments: consistent TA = voicelessness

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)

ta- = [ta-] (-)Vt-ta(-) = [Vtːa] °n-ta(-) = [nta]


consistent DA

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)


da- (-)Vd-da(-) °n-da(-)


consistent DA = glottalization

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)


da- = [tʔa-] (-)Vd-da(-) = [Vtːʔa] °n-da(-) = [ntʔa]



both TA and DA

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)



t/da- °V-t/da(-) °n-t/da(-)



both TA and DA = voicedness

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)



t/da- = [da-] °V-t/da(-) = [Vda] °n-t/da(-) = [nda]




lenis

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)



t/da- = [da-] °V-t/da(-) = [Vda] °n-t/da(-) = [nda]




Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)



lenis t/da- = [da-] °V-t/da(-) = [Vda] °n-t/da(-) = [nda]




fortis

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)







two phonemes

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)







Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)

fortis ta- = [ta-] (-)Vt-ta(-) = [Vtːa] °n-ta(-) = [nta]






Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)


ejective da- = [tʔa-] (-)Vd-da(-) = [Vtːʔa] °n-da(-) = [ntʔa]





How does this work in other environments?

Overview thus far

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)


ejective da- = [tʔa-] (-)Vd-da(-) = [Vtːʔa] °n-da(-) = [ntʔa]


TA vs. DA: after obstruents


Kloekhorst 2013: spelling after ḫ, k, p, and š in Old Hittite



ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -



→ full absence of DA

ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -




Apparently, no voiced or glottalized stops here.

ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -





But after labiovelars:

ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -





But after labiovelars: e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’

ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -





But after labiovelars: e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’

vs. a-ku-ta-al-l° ‘vessel’

ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -





But after labiovelars: e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [-kwtːa-]

vs. a-ku-ta-al-l° ‘vessel’

ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -





But after labiovelars: e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [-kwtːa-]

vs. a-ku-ta-al-l° ‘vessel’ = [-kwta-]

ḫ k p š

TA 2 9 2 137

DA - - - -

Back to our overview

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-)

fortis ta- = [t] (-)Vt-ta(-) = [tː] °n-ta(-) = [t]

ejective da- = [tʔ] (-)Vd-da(-) = [tːʔ] °n-da(-) = [tʔ]

lenis t/da- = [d] °V-t/da(-) = [d] °n-t/da(-) = [d]


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





Where to put e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [-kwtːa-] ?

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





Where to put e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ = [-kwtːa-] ?

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)

fortis ta- = [t] (-)Vt-ta(-) = [tː] °n-ta(-) = [t] -ku-ut-ta(-) = [tː]




Where to put a-ku-ta-al-l° ‘vessel’ = [-kwta-] ?

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





Where to put a-ku-ta-al-l° ‘vessel’ = [-kwta-] ?

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)



lenis t/da- = [d] °V-t/da(-) = [d] °n-t/da(-) = [d] -ku-ta- = [t]


No evidence for ejectives after obstruents.

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)






Probably merged with the fortis stops

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)






Probably merged with the fortis stops

e.g. *h1égwh-th2e > e-ku-ut-ta [ʔékwtːa] ‘you drank’

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)


ejective da- = [tʔ] (-)Vd-da(-) = [tːʔ] °n-da(-) = [tʔ] --


Phonological interpretation?

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)




Distinction between fortis and lenis:


Distinction between fortis and lenis: 1. [tː] vs. [t] (CTa)

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)

3. [tː] vs. [d] (VTV)


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)




Distinction between fortis and lenis: 1. [tː] vs. [t] = original

2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)

3. [tː] vs. [d] (VTV)


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] = secondary

3. [tː] vs. [d] = secondary

Phonological interpretation

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)

/tː/ fortis ta- = [t] (-)Vt-ta(-) = [tː] °n-ta(-) = [t] -ku-ut-ta(-) = [tː]

/tːʔ/eject. da- = [tʔ] (-)Vd-da(-) = [tːʔ] °n-da(-) = [tʔ] --

/t/ lenis t/da- = [d] °V-t/da(-) = [d] °n-t/da(-) = [d] -ku-ta- = [t]

Phonological interpretation

Valid for Old Hittite period:

what about younger texts?

Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)




Intervocalic position in MS and NS


Words spelled in OS texts with (-)Vd-da(-) = /Vtːʔa/



padda- ‘to dig’ paddan- ‘basket’ piddai- ‘to flee’ uddan- ‘word’




MS and NS MS and NS MS and NS MS and NS

TA

DA





TA 0

DA 32





TA 0

DA 32

% DA 100%





TA 0 3

DA 32 42

% DA 100% 93%





TA 0 3 6

DA 32 42 37

% DA 100% 93% 86%





TA 0 3 6 11

DA 32 42 37 193

% DA 100% 93% 86% 94%





TA 0 3 6 11

DA 32 42 37 193

% DA 100% 93% 86% 94%

Words spelled in OS texts with consistent (-)Vt-ta(-) = /Vtːa/





TA 0 3 6 11

DA 32 42 37 193

% DA 100% 93% 86% 94%


katta ‘down’ kitta(ri) ‘he lies’ nutta ‘and you’





TA 0 3 6 11

DA 32 42 37 193

% DA 100% 93% 86% 94%



MS and NS MS and NS MS and NS

TA ± 700 ± 200 230

DA 0 3 1

% DA 0% 1,5% 0,4%





TA 0 3 6 11

DA 32 42 37 193

% DA 100% 93% 86% 94%



MS and NS MS and NS MS and NS

TA ± 700 ± 200 230

DA 0 3 1

% DA 0% 1,5% 0,4%

Also in MH and NH times a phonemic difference between fortis /tː/ and ejective /tːʔ/ !


Interesting consequences


Interesting consequences, e.g. apadda(n) ‘there, thither’



- unattested in OS texts.




- in MS and NS texts spelled 11x with TA, 92x with DA





(DA % of 91%)





(DA % of 91%)

→ /ʔapatːʔa(n)/





(DA % of 91%)


Etymology (Melchert 2008: 369-70):





(DA % of 91%)


Etymology (Melchert 2008: 369-70): *h1obhédhh2e





(DA % of 91%)


Etymology (Melchert 2008: 369-70): *h1obhédhh2e

Independent confirmation

Position after n in MS and NS


OS


OS

consistent TA (fortis)

ši-pa-an-ta-an-zi [nt]


OS



both TA and DA (lenis)

e-ša-an-t/da [nd]


OS




e-ša-an-t/da [nd]

consistent DA (ejective)

an-da(-an) [ntʔ]


OS MS/NS




e-ša-an-t/da [nd]


an-da(-an) [ntʔ]


OS MS/NS


ši-pa-an-ta-an-zi [nt] > ši-pa-an-t/da-an-zi [nd]


e-ša-an-t/da [nd]


an-da(-an) [ntʔ]


OS MS/NS




e-ša-an-t/da [nd] > e-ša-an-t/da [nd]


an-da(-an) [ntʔ]


OS MS/NS




e-ša-an-t/da [nd] > e-ša-an-t/da [nd]


an-da(-an) [ntʔ] > an-da(-an) [ntʔ]


OS OH MS/NS MH/NH


ši-pa-an-ta-an-zi [nt] ši-pa-an-t/da-an-zi (lenis)

[nd]


e-ša-an-t/da [nd] e-ša-an-t/da

consistent DA (ejective) (ejective)

an-da(-an) [ntʔ] > an-da(-an) [ntʔ]

Word-initial position in MS and NS


OS


OS


ta-ma-iš [t-]


OS


ta-ma-iš [t-]


t/da-an-tu-ki-is-n° [d-]


OS


ta-ma-iš [t-]




da-an-zi [tʔ-]


OS MS/NS


ta-ma-iš [t-]




da-an-zi [tʔ-]


OS MS/NS


ta-ma-iš [t-] > t/da-ma-iš [d-]




da-an-zi [tʔ-]


OS MS/NS




t/da-an-tu-ki-is-n° [d-] > t/da-an-tu-ki-iš-n° [d-]


da-an-zi [tʔ-]


OS MS/NS




t/da-an-tu-ki-is-n° [d-] > t/da-an-tu-ki-iš-n° [d-]


da-an-zi [tʔ-] > da-an-zi [tʔ-]


OS OH MS/NS MH/NH


ta-ma-iš [t-] > t/da-ma-iš (lenis)

[d-]


t/da-an-tu-ki-is-n° [d-] > t/da-an-tu-ki-iš-n°

consistent DA (ejective) (ejective)

da-an-zi [tʔ-] > da-an-zi [tʔ-]

OH vs. MH/NH

OH vs. MH/NH

OH Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)




OH vs. MH/NH

OH Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)




MH/NH Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)

/tː/ fortis -- (-)Vt-ta(-) = [tː] -- -ku-ut-ta(-) = [tː]



Conclusions for TA vs. DA


- the signs TA and DA are not used randomly



- they in fact spell different sounds




- consistent TA spells voicelessness





- consistent DA spells ejectivity






- alternation TA / DA spells voicedness







- Hittite knew three dental phonemes:








- fortis /tː/

- ejective /tːʔ/

- lenis /t/








- fortis /tː/

- ejective /tːʔ/ (phonetics depend on environment)

- lenis /t/








- fortis /tː/

- ejective /tːʔ/ (phonetics depend on environment)

- lenis /t/

- Not only in OH, also in MH and NH!

Questions for the future


- what are the details regarding TE, TI vs. DE/I and TU vs. DU?



- how does it work for KA vs. GA and KE/I vs. GE/I?



- how does it work for KA vs. GA and KE/I vs. GE/I?

- should we in vocabularies now distinguish between t, d, and ṭ?

References

Hrozný, F., 1917, Die Sprache der Hethiter, Leipzig.

Kloekhorst, A., 2010, Initial stops in Hittite (with an excursus on the spelling of stops in Alalaḫ Akkadian), Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100, 197-241.

Kloekhorst, A., 2013, The signs TA and DA in Old Hittite: evidence for a phonetic difference, Altorientalische Forschungen 40, 125-141.

Melchert, H.C., 1994, Anatolian Historical Phonology, Leiden.

Melchert, H.C., 2008, Problems in Hittite Pronominal Inflection, Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Volume 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics (edd. A. Lubotsky et al.), 367-375.

Sturtevant, E.H., 1932, The development of the stops in Hittite, Journal of the American Oriental Society 52, 1-12.

Thank you


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)

3. [tː] vs. [d] (VTV)


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)

3. [tː] vs. [d] (VTV)

Doubly marked


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)

In word-initial position, original distinction was length:


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)


PIE *tiV- > zV- [tsV-]

PIE *d(h)iV- > šV- [sV-]


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)


PIE *tiV- > pre-Hitt. *[tːiV-] > zV- [tsV-]

PIE *d(h)iV- > pre-Hitt. *[tiV-] > šV- [sV-]


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)


PIE *tiV- > pre-Hitt. *[ttiV-] > zV- [tsV-]



Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)


PIE *tiV- > pre-Hitt. *[tiV-] > zV- [tsV-]

PIE *d(h)iV- > pre-Hitt. *[diV-] > šV- [sV-]


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)


PIE *tiV- > pre-Hitt. *[tiV-] > zV- [tsV-] **[sV-]

PIE *d(h)iV- > pre-Hitt. *[diV-] > šV- [sV-] **[zV-]


Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] (Ta-, nTa)





Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d]





Ta- (-)VTa(-) -nTa(-) -CTa(-)





2. [t] vs. [d] = secondary




the hittite consonants spellings, phonetics and phonology

Documents