Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon
Hittite Historical Phonology
1.1 Proto-Indo-European phoneme inventory
In the present book I have
worked with the following reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European
phonological system (based on Beekes 1995: 124):
stops p t ḱ k kw
b d œ g gw
bh dh œh gh gwh
laryngeals h1 h2 h3
liquids l r
nasals m n
semivowels i u
vowels e o
It should be
noted that despite the fact that I have used the traditional symbols for the
reconstructed stops, I follow Kortlandt (2003: 259) who argues that the
traditional ‘voiceless’ series (*p, *t, *ḱ, *k and *kw)
in fact were plain fortis stops [p:, t:, kj:, k:, kw:],
the traditional ‘voiced’ series (*b, *d, *œ, *g, *gw)
were lenis (pre‑)glottalized stops [pˀ, tˀ, kˀj, kˀ, kˀw] and the traditional ‘aspirated voiced’
stops (*bh, *dh, *œh, *gh, *gwh)
were plain lenis stops [p, t, kj, k, kw]. Note that the
stops therefore have “neither voicedness nor aspiration as distinctive
features” and that “[t]he phonetic distinction between fortes *T: and
lenes *T was probably a matter of consonantal length” (ibid.).
1.2 Proto-Anatolian phoneme inventory
Although in this book it was
not my aim to provide a historical treatment of the Anatolian family as a
whole, it is in some cases convenient to use Proto-Anatolian reconstructions,
especially when a word can be reconstructed for the Proto-Anatolian stage, but
not for Proto-Indo-European. I work with the following phoneme inventory.
stops fortis p t ḱ k kw
lenis b d œ g gw
‘laryngeals’ ʔ H Hw
liquids l r
nasals m n
vowels i, ī u, ū
ē o, ō
The reconstruction of
only two rows of stops is based on the fact that in none of the Anatolian
languages evidence can be found for a distinction between the PIE ‘voiced’ and
‘aspirated’ series, which makes it likely that these merged in the pre-PAnatolian
period already. The PIE palatovelars and normal velars have different reflexes
in Luwian and Lycian (e.g. *ḱ > Luw. z,
Lyc. s vs. *k > Luw. k, Lyc. k), and therefore
must have been distinct in PAnatolian as well.
In Kloekhorst 2006b I
have treated the reflexes of the PIE laryngeals in initial position in the
Anatolian languages. There I have suggested that for PAnatolian there is only
evidence for two ‘laryngeals’ word-initially, namely */ʔ/ and */H/, which is valid for word-internal position as
well. Moreover I have argued that since the Hittite phoneme /Hw/
< *h2u corresponds to the Lycian phoneme q = [kw]
< *h2u it is likely that this phoneme, /Hw/,
was PAnatolian already.
Because the old PIE
laryngeal system collapses (in the positions *#He- and *CRHV PIE
*h3 merges with *h2 into PAnat.
*/H/; in all other positions *h3 merges with *h1
into PAnat. */ʔ/), the allophonic
colouring of pre-PAnat. *e due to adjacent *h2
and *h3 becomes phonemicized, yielding the PAnat.
phonemes */a/ and */o/ (the latter ultimately merging with the reflex of PIE *o).
Note that Lycian shows different
reflexes of *a (namely a) and *o (namely e), which
proves that at the PAnatolian level the vowels /a/ and /o/ were distinct.
1.3 Hittite phoneme inventory
The history of the cuneiform
scripts starts with the Sumerians’ desire to keep track of business
transactions: around 3200 BC the first economic records and inventories were
made on lumps of clay by drawing pictures of specific objects together with
strokes and cones to represent numbers. Although these pictographs were
initially used only as a one-to-one representation of the objects they
depicted, in the course of time they not only received a broader semantic
notion (e.g. the sign ‘mouth’ could be used for ‘to speak’ and ‘word’ as well),
but also could be used more or less phonetically (e.g. the sign ‘mouth’ was
pronounced ka, and could be used for writing words with a similar
phonetic shape). Together with the fact that the pictographs became more and
more stylized and in the end were not well recognizable as the original object
anymore, a breeding ground was laid for this system’s development into a
phonetic script. Around 2350 BC the Sumerian script was adopted by the Akkadians,
who reshaped it into a writing system in which the phonetic representation of
the language served as the basis, although logograms, i.e. signs that represent
a certain notion without referring to it phonetically (the abstracted
descendants of the Sumerian pictographs), were still used on a large scale.
script that is used by the Hittite scribes is derived from an Old-Babylonian
cursive type that is known from Northern Syria (e.g. Alalaḫ). How exactly the practice of
writing found its way from there to îattuša is not fully clear. Just as in Akkadian, the writing system
is basically phonetic. Nevertheless, a word can be
written logographically with so-called sumerograms (i.e. the logograms that are
derived from the Sumerian script, e.g. DINGIR ‘god’) or with akkadograms
(i.e. as if in Akkadian, e.g. Ú-UL ‘not’). It is likely that in
both cases the Hittites read these logographically written words as their
Hittite counterparts, as can be seen by the use of phonetic complements (i.e.
the addition of phonetic signs to spell part of the word underlying the
logographic writing, usually to indicate the proper ending, e.g. DINGIR-uš
= nom.sg. šīuš ‘god’). To complicate matters,
sumerograms sometimes could be extended by an Akkadian phonetic complement,
e.g. DINGIRLUM, which functions as a sort of sumerographic
writing of Akk. ilum ‘god’, which itself must be
regarded as an akkadographic writing of the Hittite word šīuš ‘god’. Moreover, the cuneiform
writing system makes use of so-called determinatives, i.e. logograms that
indicate a certain semantic sphere of the word next to which they are placed. For instance, GIŠ ‘wood’ can be used with
words that denote objects that are made of wood (e.g. GIŠninii̯al- ‘cradle’), É ‘building’ can be
used with words that denote buildings (e.g. Éḫištā, Éḫištī ‘mausoleum(?)’). Although
usually placed in front of a word, some determinatives can be placed at the end
of a word (e.g. MUŠEN ‘bird’ as in ḫāran-MUŠEN ‘eagle’).
For the linguist interested
in the Hittite language this complicated system has some disadvantages: certain
words are only attested with a sumerographical spelling and never with phonetic
signs, which means that we do not know the Hittite rendering of these words.
This is not only the case with some rare words, but also with certain words
that belong to the basic vocabulary. For instance, ‘son’ is attested with the
sumerogram DUMU only; ‘daughter’ is only
spelled DUMU.MUNUS; the Hittite reading of the sumerogram
MUNUS ‘woman’ is disputed; we do not know the Hittite words for îUR.SAG ‘mountain’, GUŠKIN ‘gold’, KÙ.BABBAR ‘silver’ or numerals like
‘five’, ‘six’, ‘eight’, etc. Nevertheless, we must not forget that exactly the
usage of these sumerograms has played a key-role in deciphering the Hittite
language and that even nowadays the best evidence for the meaning of a rarely
attested word is when a parallel text or copy is found with this word
duplicated by a sumerogram.
Despite the wide
use of logograms, the Hittite writing system is basically a phonetic one. The
phonetic signs are all syllabic, which means that they possess a value V,
CV, VC and CVC only (in which V = vowel and C
= consonant). Herewith, the script was not very well equipped for writing
Hittite. As an Indo-European language, Hittite possesses many words with
sometimes large consonant clusters, which are difficult to render with a
syllabic script: if one wants to write word-initial or word-final consonant
clusters or internal clusters of three or more consonants with syllabic signs,
one cannot avoid to write vowels that are neither phonetically nor
phonologically real. For instance, the word /parHtsi/ ‘he chases’ is
spelled pár-aḫ-zi as well as pár-ḫa-zi. In this case, the alternation
between pár-aḫ-zi and pár‑ḫa‑zi proves that these a’s are “empty”.
In other cases, determining whether a vowel grapheme is phonetically and/or
phonologically real can be quite difficult, however.
In the following
sections I will discuss in detail the peculiarities of the cuneiform script as
used by the Hittites in order to determine the Hittite phonological system. I
will first look at consonants and then move on to the vowels.
The Old-Babylonian cuneiform
syllabary that functioned as the source of the syllabary used in Boğazköy
originally had distinct signs for voiced and voiceless stops, e.g. BA vs. PA,
DA vs. TA, GI vs. KI, etc. Nevertheless, the Akkadian
texts from Boğazköy do not use these contrasting pairs to express a distinction
between voiced and voiceless stops. For instance, the sign PA is used as pa
as well as bá, whereas BA is used as ba as well as pá.
Similarly, TA is used as ta as well as dá; DA as da as
well as tá; TI as ti as well as dì; DI as di as
well as ti4, etc.
In the Hittite
texts, the contrasting pairs are not used for voice distinctions either. They
are largely interchangeable instead: e.g. ba-i-iš = pa-iš = /páis/ ‘he gave’; da‑it-ti = ta-it-ti = /táiti/ ‘you place’; gi-nu-uz-zi = ki-nu-uz-zi = /kinÜtsi/ ‘he opens up’. It must be admitted that certain words
show an almost consistent spelling with e.g. DA whereas others are spelled
exclusively with TA (e.g. dāi ‘he puts’ is consistently
spelled with the sign DA; the sentence initial conjunction ta is consistently spelled with
TA), but all attempts to interpret these cases as pointing to a phonemic
opposition in voice, have failed. We rather have to interpret these cases
as spelling conventions.
cannot be denied that the Hittite scribes did distinguish between two series of
stops which were expressed by single (V-C1V) vs. geminate
spelling (VC1-C1V). Sturtevant (1932a) was the
first to describe this phenomenon and to show that from an etymological point
of view the single spelled stops correspond to the PIE ‘voiced’ and ‘voiced
aspirated’ series *D and *Dh, whereas the geminate
spelled stops etymologically correspond to the PIE ‘voiceless’ series *T
(‘Sturtevant’s Law’). The exact phonetic interpretation of the single spelling
(which is often termed ‘lenis’) vs. the geminate spelling (often termed
‘fortis’) is difficult, however.
In Hurrian, we
find a similar system, namely a distinction between stops that are spelled V-C1V
and stops that are spelled VC1-C1V. Yet, on the
basis of Hurrian texts from Ugarit that are written in an alphabetic script, we
are much better able to interpret these spellings phonetically. According to
Wegner (2000: 40), Hurrian shows a phonemic distinction between short (= single
spelled) and long (= geminate spelled) stops, which are both voiceless. The
short stops became phonetically voiced in some environments (namely
intervocalically and after resonant), but these should be regarded as mere
54) assumes that the Hittites took over the cuneiform script from the Hurrians
and states that “[s]cribes adapting the syllabary for Hittite, if they were
native speakers of Akkadian, which had phonemic voicing, or native speakers of
Hittite, which probably had phonemic voicing, would have tended to hear and
spell Hurrian single intervocalic stops as voiced and to hear and spell double
stops as voiceless, and, unless they themselves were acquainted with the Old Babylonian
values, they would have spelled Hittite voiceless stops with double stops and
voiced stops with single stops”. Apart from the fact that this reasoning is
rather circular (using the assumption that Hittite probably had phonemic
voicing in an argumentation to show that the Hittite spelling reflects phonemic
voicing), it would predict that Boğazköy Akkadian would use the same spelling
convention to distinguish between voiced and voiceless stops. This is not the
case, however: “[t]here seems to be no trace of this orthography [i.e. a system
of distinction between stops spelled VC-CV (voiceless(?)) and those
spelled V-CV (voiced(?))] in Bo[ğazköy] Akk[adian]” (Durham 1976: 371).
Moreover, there are spelling conventions in Hurrian that are not used in Hittite,
e.g. the use of the sign GE/I as having the e-vowel only (/ke/) vs. the
use of the sign KE/I as having the i-vowel only (/ki/) (Wegner 2000:
37-8). This shows that the Hittites cannot have adopted the cuneiform script
directly from the Hurrians.
20) interprets the Hittite ‘fortis’ stops as long and voiceless (‑TT‑), whereas the ‘lenis’ stops are short and
voiced (‑D‑). Furthermore, Melchert assumes that
secondarily a third series arose, namely stops that are long as well as voiced
(‑DD‑) (the result of e.g. *‑Dh2‑).
The existence of this last series is highly improbable, however: there is not a
shred of evidence for a distinction in spelling between “-TT-” and “-DD-”,
and therefore a phonetic and phonological distinction between the two cannot be
proven. Moreover, Melchert does not give any evidence for the view that the
long stops were voiceless and the short ones voiced.
In my view, voice
cannot have been a distinctive feature between the geminate spelled and the
single spelled stops. If voice really was a phonological feature of one of
these series, why did the Hittite scribes not use the voice-distinction
available in the Akkadian syllabary? Even in writing Akkadian, of which we know
that it had phonemic voicing, a distinction in voice is not expressed in
spelling, which suggests that the Hittite scribes just were unable to
distinguish voiced from voiceless stops. Moreover, as we saw above, the fact
that in Boğazköy Akkadian the system of single vs. geminate spelling is not
used, shows that the ‘fortis/lenis’-distinction cannot be compared phonetically
to the distinction in voice known from Akkadian.
The fact that the
Hittite scribes used the orthographically awkward distinction between geminate
vs. single spelling in writing Hittite can only mean that the phonetic
distinction between the two series of stops was length. This is supported by
the following observations.
First, in certain
phonological developments where it is significant whether a syllable is closed
or open, a geminate spelled stop counts as a closing factor. For instance, the
form kitta ‘he lies’ < *kíi̯tta < *ḱéito shows the ‘shortening’ of *ii̯ in a closed syllable, which shows that ‑tt- closes the
syllable and therefore must be regarded as phonetically long [t:].
Second, if voice
was a distinctive feature, we would expect to find voice assimilation. So, if a
word like e-ku-ud-du ‘he must drink’ really contained
a cluster [‑gwt‑] with a voiced stop [gw] before a
voiceless stop [t], I do not see why neither the [gw] was devoiced
yielding **[‑kwt‑] (spelled **e-ek-ku-ud-du), nor the [t] was
voiced yielding **[gwd] (spelled **e-ku-du). Since neither of
these assimilations took place, we are bound to conclude that voicedness is
neither a phonemic nor a phonetic feature of the Hittite stops.
assume that the ‘fortis’ consonants (spelled with a geminate) were phonetically
long and the ‘lenis’ consonants (spelled single) were short and that there was
no distinction in voice. So VppV = [p:] vs. VpV = [p]; VttV
and VddV = [t:] vs. VtV and VdV = [t]; etc. Nevertheless,
I have chosen to adopt the following phonemic spelling throughout the book:
Fortis /p/ /t/ /k/ /kw/
Lenis /b/ /d/ /g/ /gw/
The choice of
these symbols for the phonological representation of the stops is a matter of
convenience. It does not indicate that I consider voicedness a phonemic
feature at any point in the history of Hittite.
It should be
noted that the phonetic change of a fortis stop into a lenis stop or vice versa
(which can happen in certain phonetic environments) should consequently not be
called ‘voicing’ or ‘devoicing’, but rather ‘lenition’ and ‘fortition’. For instance, the fact that impf. ak-ku-uš-ke/a- ‘to drink’ shows a fortis /kw/
whereas the basic verb has /gw/ (eku-zi / aku‑)
is due to fortition of /gw/ to /kw/ in front of /‑ske/a‑/,
and not due to devoicing.
word-initial position no orthographic distinction between geminate and single
stop could be made, it is unclear whether the two series are distinct in this
position or have merged. Since there is not a single spelling practice in
Hittite (nor in Palaic and CLuwian, for that matter) that even attempts to
indicate a distinction between initial *T and *D / *Dh,
I cannot but assume that in initial position this distinction has been lost.
Nevertheless, the distinction must have been present in Proto-Anatolian, as is
indicated by the fact that initial *ti- yielded Hitt. z- and *di-
> Hitt. š‑, whereas they merged in Luwian as ti‑. So,
if the two series have merged in Hittite in initial position, this must be a
post-Proto-Anatolian development. On the basis of reduplicated
forms like kikkiš-tta(ri), the imperfective of kīš-a(ri)
/ kiš- ‘to happen, to become’ < *⁽œ⁾eis‑, it has been assumed that in Hittite the initial stops
merged in the fortis series /p, t, k and kw/. Since the moment of the
creation of this reduplicated form is unknown, it does not shed much light on
the situation in Hittite, however. On the contrary, the stem ḫatuk- ‘terrible’, which probably
reflects *h2tug‑, shows lenition of PIE *t to
Hitt. /d/ in the initial cluster *h2t- and therefore could be used as
an argument for the opposite view, namely that all initial stops merged into
the lenis series. This example is again non-probative, however, because the
fact that /d/ is a lenis stop does not prove anything regarding the status of
All in all, the
matter cannot be decided. Since merger equals absence of a phonemic
distinction, the matter may not be very interesting from a phonological point
of view. In this book I will cite initial stops with their fortis variant in
phonological interpretations, so /p‑/, /t‑/, /k‑/ and /kw‑/.
We could assume
that in word-final position a similar merger has taken place, and Melchert
(1994a: 85) states that “[v]oiced stops ha[ve] been generalized in word-final
position”, giving “pa-i-ta-aš = /páyd-as/ ‘went he’” as an example. This
example is non-probative, however, since the enclitic personal pronoun =a-
may have had a leniting effect on the preceding consonant (just as the enclitic
particle =(m)a ‘but’ had, in contrast with
the fortiting enclitic particle =(i̯)a ‘and’). It is moreover
contradicted by the words takku /takw/ and nekku /nekw/ that show a
fortis /kw/ in word-final position. When compared with 2sg.imp.act. e-ku /ʔégw/ ‘drink!’, which
unmistakingly has a lenis stop in word-final position, we must conclude that
the fortis and lenis stops remained distinct word-finally.
phonemicity of the labiovelars, compare the spellings e-ku-zi, e-uk-zi ‘he drinks’ and tar-ku-zi, tar-uk-zi ‘he dances’ that point to a
monophonemic /gw/ and /kw/, respectively, and not to /gu/
and /ku/. Moreover, a-ku-e-ni ‘we drink’ contrasts with ar-nu-me-ni ‘we transport’ which shows
that the former is /ʔgwuéni/ < *h1gwh‑u̯éni, whereas the latter is /ʔrnuméni/ < *h3r-nu-u̯éni, where ‑uu̯- yielded ‑um‑. A third argument is
that e-ku-ut-ta ‘he drank’ shows the
postconsonantal allomorph ‑tta of the 3sg.pret.act. ending
(cf. e.g. e-ep-ta ‘he took’), whereas e.g. ar‑nu-ut shows the postvocalic variant ‑t. Compare also the fact that
1sg.pret.act. ekun ‘I drank’ shows the
postconsonantal ending ‑un which contrasts which the
postvocalic variant ‑nun as attested in e.g. ar-nu-nu-un ‘I settled’.
regard to the stops, the Hittite phonological system nicely matches the
Proto-Indo-European phonological system. If we compare the two systems, we see
that between PIE and Hittite only three major developments took place. First,
the loss of glottalization in the glottalized lenis series (the traditional
‘voiced’ series) caused this series to merge with the plain lenis series (the
traditional ‘voiced aspirated’ series). Note that there is no indication that
anywhere in the development between PIE and Hittite voice or aspiration has
been a phonological or even phonetic feature. Secondly, the PIE palatovelars
and the plain velars (which were still separate phonemes at the Proto-Anatolian
stage) merged into Hitt. /k/ and /g/. Thirdly, word-initially the lenis and
fortis series seem to have merged.
In Kloekhorst 2006b, I have
argued that in word-initial position Hittite possesses a phonemic glottal stop
This is apparent e.g. in the spelling difference between ú‑u̯a-a-tar ‘inspection’ and u̯a-a-tar ‘water’, where the former
reflects *Hu-ótr and the latter *uódr. This means that ú-u̯a-a-tar represents /ʔuā́dr/ and u̯a-a-tar stands for /uā́dr/. A word-initial glottal
stop also clarifies the symmetry between ša-ša-an-zi ‘they sleep’ /ssántsi/
< *ssénti and a-ša-an-zi ‘they are’ /ʔsántsi/ < *h1sénti.
OS spellings like
ne-e-a ‘turns’ < *néih1/3-o
and ḫé-e-a-u-e-eš ‘rains’ < *h2éih3‑eu-
show that in the oldest period the glottal stop was still present in
intervocalic position: /néʔa/ and /Héʔaues/. Younger spellings like ne-e-i̯a (MH/MS) and ḫé-e-i̯a-u-e-š=a (OS), which must represent
/néa/ and /Héaues/, respectively, show that intervocalic glottal stop was lost
in the late OH period.
In the position *CRh1V,
the glottal stop was retained as such throughout Hittite as can be seen by
spellings like pa-ri-pa-ra-a-i ‘he blows’, which must
represent /priprʔā́i/ < *pri-prh1-ói-ei. Note that if *h1
would have been lost in this position, we would expect a spelling **pa-ri-ip-ra-a-i
It is generally assumed that
the consonant ‑z- must be phonetically
interpreted as an affricate [ts], which for instance follows
from the fact that the outcome of nom.sg.c. *‑ent-s is spelled ‑an-za.
To which extent this affricate [ts] must be regarded as a single
phoneme instead of a sequence of the phonemes /t/ and /s/ is less clear. A
major source for ‑z- is the assibilation of *‑t- in front of *‑i‑.
Nevertheless, the outcome of *‑ti- is not identical to the outcome of *‑Tsi‑,
as we can tell from the fact that 2sg.pres.act. *h1édsi
‘you eat’ yields a form spelled e‑ez‑ši, whereas the 3sg.pres.act. ending of ‑i̯e/a- and ‑ške/a-verbs, *‑e‑ti,
yields a form spelled ‑ez-zi or ‑Ce-zi, but never **-ez-ši.
This shows that the former form, e‑ez-ši, represents /ʔédSi/, whereas the latter forms
represent /‑etsi/, with a monophonemic sound that I have rendered
with the symbol /ts/ throughout this book. Yet, I do not interpret
every spelling of ‑z- without a following ‑š- as a spelling of
the phoneme /ts/. In cases where synchronically an analysis of t
+ s or d + s is obvious, I just write /ts/ or /ds/. Note that I also interpret the outcome of
*‑tt- or *‑dt- as /‑tst‑/ and /‑dst‑/. This is indicated by
spellings like az-za-aš-te-ni /ʔdsténi/ ‘you eat’ < *h1d-th1é
and e-ez-za-aš-ta /ʔédsta/ ‘he ate’ < *h1éd-t(o).
This also makes it unnecessary to assume a variant /ds/ besides /ts/.
(2001) to show that in the oldest texts there was an opposition between
geminate spelled ‑zz- and single spelled ‑z- that reflects PAnat.
*‑ti- vs. *‑di- and therefore must be interpreted as an
opposition between fortis /ts/ and lenis /ds/ is not
I assume the following phonemic
Fortis /H/ /Hw/ /S/
Lenis /h/ /hw/ /s/
between fortis and lenis is expressed by geminate vs. single spelling. In
initial position, we cannot decide whether we are dealing with the fortis or
the lenis variant, and I therefore write /H‑/, /Hw‑/ and /s‑/
initially. For the phonemicity of the labialized laryngeals /Hw/ and
/hw/, see Kloekhorst 2006b, where I argue that a spelling variation
like tar-ḫu-uz-zi, ta-ru-uḫ-zi and tar-uḫ-zi ‘he conquers’ points to a phonological
resonants are phonemic:
Fortis /R/ /L/ /N/ /M/
Lenis /r/ /l/ /n/ /m/
difference between fortis and lenis is expressed by geminate vs. single spelling.
Since this difference is not discernible in word-initial position, I
arbitrarily write /l‑/, /n‑/ and /m‑/ here. Note that /r/ does not occur
word-initially, which is a direct result of the PIE constraint that no word
could start with an *r-.
Although the fact that a PIE
sequence *CRC yields the Hittite spelling CaRC is
well-established, the exact phonetic and phonological interpretation of this
spelling is not fully clear. Usually, the spelling CaRC is
phonologically interpreted as /CaRC/, having a real vowel /a/. This cannot be correct, as can be seen
verb ārš-zi / arš- ‘to flow’. Here we find a
distribution between the strong stem that is spelled a-ar-aš- and the
weak stem that is spelled ar-aš- or ar-šº. As I argue s.v., we
expect the strong stem to reflect *h1ers‑, which
suggests that the spelling a-ar-ašº phonologically must be interpreted
containing the vowel /a/. This means at the same time,
that the weak stem arš‑, which must reflect *h1rs‑,
cannot contain the vowel /a/, since we then would have expected the same
spelling for strong and weak stem. This forces us to look for another solution.
There are two options. We can assume that in *CRC an anaptyctic vowel
emerged that, although it did resemble /a/, was not identical to it. We could
think of [ə] or  or similar, which was spelled with ‑a‑. This would mean
that we would have to assume a phonemic vowel /ə/: so *CrC > Hitt.
/CərC/, spelled CarC.
could also envisage that these ‘vocalic’ resonants in fact were still identical
to their consonantal counterparts, /r/, /l/, /m/ and /n/, and that their
syllabicity was a pure phonetic feature that is predictable on the basis of the
phonetic environment. This would mean that PIE *CrC yields Hitt. /CrC/,
phonetically realized as [CərC] or [C6rC], spelled CarC.
The Hittite texts
seem to offer arguments for both options. For instance, the verb appat(a)rii̯e/a-zi ‘to confiscate’, which is a
derivative in ‑i̯e/a- of the noun appātar ‘seizing’, is spelled ap-pa-at-ri-ez-zi
(OS), ap-pa-ta-ri-ez-zi (OH/MS?), as well as ap-pát-ri-i̯a-az-zi (MH/NS). The first and last
attestation seem to point to phonetic [ʔp:atrié/á‑], whereas the second
points to phonetic [ʔp:atrjé/á‑] or [ʔp:atərjé/á‑]. Phonemically, this verb must
be interpreted as /ʔpadrié/á‑/, which subsequently shows that the noun appātar
must represent /ʔpā́dr/,
without a phonemic vowel /ə/.
In § 220.127.116.11f, I
argue that the ḫi-verbs
that show a synchronic ā/ɨ-ablaut, e.g. ga‑ra-a-pí / ka-ri-pa-an-zi = /krā́bi / krɨbántsi/, must
ultimately reflect the normal *o/Ø‑ablaut, in this case *œhróbh1-ei / *œhrbh1-énti. Since the phonetically
regular outcome of these verbs, Hitt. CRāCi / **CaRCanzi
< *CróC-ei / *CRC-énti, shows a synchronic
Schwebe-ablaut CRāC- / CaRC‑, the weak stem form
was adapted by inserting the epenthetic vowel /ɨ/ on the place of the strong
stem vowel: CRɨC- in analogy to *CRāC‑. This
scenario implies, however, that the vowel of **CaRC- < *CRC-
was at least phonetically real. Moreover, we would be inclined to think that
this vowel must have been phonemically real as well in order to trigger a
replacement by the secondary stem CRɨC-.
position we encounter forms like *nsós > an-za-a-aš ‘us’ vs. *lghént-
> la-ga-an-t- ‘felled’. Here it is quite
clear that the outcome la-ga-an-t- cannot be regular: we should expect
**al-ga-an-t‑, just as *nsós yielded an-za-a-aš.
Quite obviously, the form la-ga-an-t- has been influenced by full grade
forms like *lóghei > la-a-ki. This indicates that here we
should assume a phonemic vowel /ə/, and subsequently interpret la-ga-an-t-
as /ləgánt‑/. A similar concept explains u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi, u̯a-al-aḫ-ḫa-an-zi ‘they hit’ < *ulh3-énti.
In analogy to the strong stem *uélh3-ti > Hitt. /uálHtsi/,
u̯a-al-aḫ-zi ‘he hits’, the weak stem,
which should have regularly yielded /ulHántsi/, was changed to
The vowel /ə/ is
also necessary for the interpretation of ku-u̯a-aš-ke/a‑, the imperfective of kuen-zi
/ kun- ‘to kill, to slay’. As I have argued in Kloekhorst 2007, a
sequence *CuRCC or *KwRCC yields Hitt. Cuu̯aRCC (whereas *CuRCV or *KwRCV
yields CuRCV). This means that ku-u̯a-aš-ke/a- reflects /kwəske/a‑/
the regular outcome of *gwhn-sḱé/ó‑.
will in principle treat the ‘syllabic’ resonants phonemically as their
consonantal counterparts and assume that any phonetic realization with an
epenthetic vowel is automatically determined by the environment. So the pair āršzi
/ aršanzi in my view represents
Nevertheless, some words where the vocalization of a resonant is analogically
altered or where the buccal part of the vocalized resonant has been lost, can
only be analysed as containing a phonemic vowel /ə/ (e.g. la-ga-an-t- /ləgánt‑/ << *lghént‑,
ma-ak-nu- /məgnu‑/ << *mœ-nu‑, u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi /uəlHántsi/
<< *ulh3énti and ku-u̯a-aš-ke/a- /kwəske/a‑/ < *gwhnsḱé/ó‑). The vowel /ə/ is rather marginal,
It is usually
assumed that Hittite possessed two semi-vowels or glides, namely /y/ and /w/.
This implies that these are phonologically different from the vowels /i/ and
/u/. Let us look at several phonetic environments to see if this is really the
In the case of *TiT
and *TuT (in which T = any stop), it is quite clear that in
Hittite there is no phonological difference between /TiT/ and /TuT/ on the one
hand and /TyT/ and /TwT/ on the other. In the case of *ViV and *VuV,
it is also clear that in Hittite there is no phonological distinction between
/ViV/ and /VuV/ and /VyV/ and /VwV/. So in these environments it is not useful
to distinguish between /i/ and /y/ and between /u/ and /w/. The question
becomes more interesting when dealing with cases like *CuV / *CiV
and *CuRC and *CiRC.
Let us first look
at *CuV and *CiV. We may wonder if a form like la-ak-nu-an-zi,
la-ak-nu-u̯a-an-zi ‘they fell’ < *lgh-nu-énti
is phonologically to be interpreted as /ləgnuántsi/, as /ləgnwántsi/
or even as /ləgnuwántsi/. The last option is impossible, since
Hittite has a synchronic sound law that ‑u¾V- yields ‑umV-, so we must choose between /ləgnuántsi/
and /ləgnwántsi/. It is clear that the latter option is impossible
as well, since we then would have expected a phonetic realization [ləgnántsi] or [ləgənwántsi],
spelled **la-ga-nu-u̯a-an-zi (vocalization of ‑n- in between consonants). So we must
conclude that /ləgnuántsi/ is the only correct phonological
interpretation. It is likely, however, that the sequence /CuaC/ was
phonetically realized with a glide [u̯], so [Cuu̯aC], but we must keep in mind that this
glide did not have a phonemic status.
The case of ap-pa-at-ri-ez-zi is similar: should we analyze
this as /ʔpadriétsi/,
Although in principle the last option cannot be discarded (there are no
indications that a sequence ‑i¤V- would undergo a phonetic change), it is
inevitable that here as well we should choose for the analysis /ʔpadriétsi/. We can
therefore conclude that in the case of *CuV and *CiV, the
outcomes must be phonologically interpreted as /CuV/ and /CiV/ and not as
**/CwV/ and **/CyV/.
The case of *CuRC,
including *#urC and *Cur#, is very interesting. For instance, the
suffix ‑u̯ar, which forms verbal nouns,
always has the form ‑u̯ar, no matter if preceded by a consonant or a vowel. We will see
s.v. that ‑u̯ar reflects *‑ur, however. The idea is that on the basis of
postvocalic positions, e.g. *‑i̯é-u̯r or *‑sḱé‑u̯r, the variant *‑u̯r was generalized, also when following a consonant, e.g. ḫinkuu̯ar. The question now is, does
this form synchronically represent /Hínkwr/, or should we analyse it as
/Hínkuər/? The latter form would show the position /CuV/ of which we have seen
that there is no distinction between /CuV/ and /CwV/.
question can be asked with regard to u̯alḫ-zi ‘to hit’. As we will see s.v.,
this verb must have undergone some levelling. The PIE paradigm *uélh3-ti,
*ulh3‑énti should regularly have yielded **ualzi, *ullanzi,
which is quite different from the attested forms: u̯a-al-aḫ-zi, u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi. In order to explain these
forms, we should assume the following scenario: (1) prevocalic *u is
phonemicized as /w/: *uélh3ti > *u̯élh3ti; (2) *u̯ spreads over the paradigm,
replacing *ulh3énti by *¾©h3énti; (3) at the moment that
interconsonantal laryngeals drop, *h3 is analogically
restored in *u̯élh3ti because of *¾©h3énti where it was retained; (4) *u̯élh3ti, *¾©h3énti yields Hitt. u̯a-al-aḫ-zi, u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi. As we see, in the prehistory
of Hittite it is of crucial importance to assume a phonological difference
between /w/ and /u/. The question is whether in synchronic Hittite this is the
case as well. If 3pl. u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi < *¾©h3énti is to be phonologically
interpreted as /wlHántsi/, we should certainly assume a separate
phoneme /w/, because /ulHántsi/ would have been spelled **ul-ḫa-an-zi. If however, u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi is to be phonologically
interpreted as /uəlHántsi/, as was suggested above (§ 1.3.7),
we are dealing with a sequence *#uV, of which it is likely that it does
not show a distinction between /#uV/ and /#wV/ (in analogy to *CuV).
Compare also the
example of ú-ra-a-ni ‘burns’. As we will see s.v.,
this form reflects *urh1-óri, and I therefore phonologically
interpret ú-ra-a-ni as /urʔā́ni/. From MH times onwards, this form is
spelled u̯a-ra-a-ni, however. Does this form
with a real /w/, or should we assume /uərʔā́ni/, with initial /uV/?
As we see, in
cases where *u is adjacent to a syllabic resonant, the phonological
interpretation is a matter of taste. If one wants, one could assume a phoneme
/w/ in these positions, but I would rather analyse these cases as /uəR/, in
which no distinction between /u/ and /w/ has to be made.
Summing up, I do
not think that it is necessary to assume a phonological distinction between the
semi-vowels /y/ and /w/ on the one hand and the real vowels /i/ and /u/ on the
other. I will therefore only use the
vowels /i/ and /u/ in my phonological system (and consequently write /ViV/ and
/VuV/ as well).
Note that with
the elimination of phonemic /w/, the rule */uw/ > /um/ and */wu/ > /mu/
should be reformulated as */uuV/ > /umV/ and */VuuC/ > /VmuC/. For
+ /‑ueni/ > */ʔáuueni/ > /ʔáumeni/.
Because of the
deficiency of the cuneiform script, the reconstruction of the Hittite vowel
system is not easy.
As I stated above
(§ 1.3.1), the fact that the script only contains signs with the value V,
CV, VC and CVC makes it impossible to write word-initial
or word-final consonant clusters or internal clusters of three or more
consonants without writing vowels that are neither phonetically nor
phonologically real, e.g. /parHtsi/ ‘he
chases’ which is spelled pár-aḫ-zi as well as pár-ḫa-zi in which the underlined a’s
must be ‘empty’. Unfortunately, it is not always clear when a written vowel is
real or empty or if we have to reckon with a difference between a phonetically
real and a phonologically real vowel (cf. for instance the status of the
spelling of ‑a- in reflexes of *CRC as discussed in § 1.3.7
above). It therefore can be informative to look at spellings of Hittite words
in other languages. For instance, in the Old Assyrian texts from Kültepe (Neša
/ Kaniš), we find the Hittite word išparuzzi- ‘rafter, roof batten’ attested
as išpuruzzinnum, which points to a
pronunciation [isprutsi‑], just as we would expect on the basis of
its etymology, *spr-uti-; the (hypothetical) Hittite word *laḫuzzi- ‘vessel for pouring’ is
attested as luḫuzzinnum, a vessel, pointing to [lhutsi]
< *lh2u-uti-; the Hittite word ḫaluka- ‘message’ is attested as ḫulugannum / ḫilugannum, pointing to [hluga‑] < *h2l(e/o)ugho‑.
Although the OAss. words are attested in texts predating the Hittite texts with
a few centuries, I do not see why these forms would not have been pronounced
with initial clusters in synchronic Hittite as well. I would therefore
interpret išparuzzi- as /ɨsprutsi‑/ and ḫaluka- as /Hluga‑/.
A second problem we encounter
is the practice of ‘plene spelling’, i.e. the extra writing of the vowel of a CV
or VC-sign by its own separate sign, e.g. la-a-ḫu-i, a‑aš-šu, ma-a-ar-ka-aḫ-ḫi. The function of plene
spelling has been and still is a hotly debated topic in Hittitology. For an
excellent overview of the views on plene spelling throughout the history of
Hittitology, I refer to Kimball 1999: 54-68. It is very important to bear in mind
that “[p]lene writing was never used with absolute consistency in texts of any
period” and that “[a]s a general rule, plene writing is more frequent in early
texts (texts in OH ductus and many MH texts) than it is in original
compositions of the NH period” (Kimball 1999: 55).
In my view, plene
spelling can have several functions. The most common function is to denote
phonetic length of a vowel, e.g. ne-e-pí-iš in which the plene ‑e-
denotes a long ē, which is the phonetically regular reflex of an
underlying accented /e/ in open syllable. So ne-e-pí-iš denotes phonetic
[né:pis] = phonological /nébis/.
Although a long
vowel is usually the result of accentuation, a plene spelled vowel cannot
automatically be regarded as accented. For instance, a word like la-a-ḫu-u̯a-a-i cannot have had two accents.
In my view, it represents /lāhwā́i/, a secondary adaptation of original la-a-ḫu-i = /lā́hwi/ into the productive tarn(a)-class.
position, a plene vowel can denote an initial glottal stop, and does not
necessarily indicate vowel length: e.g. a-ar-aš-zi = ’a-ar-aš-zi = /ʔárStsi/; e-eš-zi = ’e-eš-zi = /ʔéstsi/; a-a-an-ši = ’a-a-an-ši = /ʔā́nsi/, etc. In the case of ‑e-
and ‑i‑, a plene vowel can also be used to disambiguate an
ambiguous sign (see below).
It should be
noted that the sequence îU-U- occurs so often in MS and NS texts in
contexts where a long vowel would be unexpected that this plene spelling must
be interpreted otherwise. Kimball (1983: 566-7) remarks that the signs îU and U in these texts are
written close together as a ligature (BÉ), which would support Rosenkranz’ idea (1959: 420, 42610)
that the writing of U is used to more clearly distinguish the sign îU (B) from the closely resembling
sign RI (J). Since such a disambiguation could have been achieved by writing
(BS) as well, which is virtually never
attested, there must have been additional reasons to write îU-U‑. Below it will be argued
that this sequence denotes /Ho/, and that the sign U indicates the phoneme /o/
It is important
to realize, however, that no theory about plene spelling will be able to
explain every single instance of plene spelling as attested in the Hittite
texts. For instance, in my text files, the word ta-ga-a-an ‘on the earth’ occurs spelled
thus 30 times (of which 5 times in OS texts), as ta-ga-an 3 times (once in an OS text),
as ta‑ka-a-an once, as da-ga-a-an 21 times, and as da-ga-an 7 times. These spellings can
safely be phonologically interpreted as /tgā́n/, the phonetically regular reflex of an
endingless loc.sg. *dhœh-Öm. Nevertheless, in NH texts, we find three
aberrant spellings, namely da-a-ga-an (KUB 43.17, 6 (NH)), ta-a-ga-an (KUB 34.120, 7 (NH)) and da-a-ga-a-an (KUB 40.46, 9 (NH)), all with
a plene vowel ‑a- where we would not expect it. Especially the third
spelling, da-a-ga-a-an, is remarkable because of its two plene
spellings. One could offer several ad hoc solutions in order to
explain these spellings, but the fact is that aberrant
spellings exist and one must accept that they are not always explicable in an
orthographic or phonetic sense.
Many signs are ambiguous
regarding their vocalic value: they can be read with either ‑e- or ‑i-. The only unambiguous signs are E, I, TE,
can be read îE as
well), ME, MI (which in principle can be read MÉ as well), NE, NI (which in
principle can be read NÉ as well), ŠE, ŠI, ZÉ (but ZI can be read ZE as well),
EL, IL, EN, IN, EŠ, IŠ, MEŠ and MIŠ.
When an ambiguous
sign is used together with an unambiguous sign, we can read the vowel of the
unambiguous sign (e.g. KE/I-eš-šar = ke-eš-šar = /kéSr/ ‘hand’), but this is
not always the case (e.g. ḫar-KE/I-E/IR can in principle be read ḫar-ki-ir, ḫar-ke-er, ḫar-ki-er and ḫar-ke-ir). Fortunately, sometimes we
are offered a helping hand by plene spellings that indicate the appropriate
vowel (in this case, the spelling ḫar-KE/I-e-E/IR, which must be read as ḫar-ke-e-er, shows that ḫar-KI/E-E/IR must be read ḫar-ke-er /Hárger/ ‘they perished’).
Because of the
complicated situation regarding the spelling of the vowels e and i,
it is not always easy to distinguish between these vowels on a phonological
level either. This has led some scholars to the idea that within the Hittite
period the vowels e and i are merging. For instance, CHD L: xvi
states that “[i]t is well-known that the vowels e and i often
interchange in the spelling of Hittite words. It is quite likely that the two
vowels, still kept distinct in Typical Old Script, began to merge in later Old
Hittite, and certainly had completed their merger by the Empire period”. Melchert (1984a: 78-156) has carefully
examined the spelling and phonemic status of e and i throughout
the Hittite period and arrives at a different conclusion, however, namely that
“[t]he vowels /e/ and /i/ are phonemically distinct at all stages of Hittite.
Any mergers or free variation between the two are conditioned”.
Kimball (1999: 78-9) states that despite Melchert’s statements “[t]he evidence
is consistent with a phonemic distinction between /ē/ and /ī/ in the earliest
language that was lost through merger by the NH period”. She even goes as far
as claiming that “[e]ven the limited variation in OH texts may indicate the
beginning of merger; or it may point to the existence of a scribal tradition
predating the OH texts of Boğazköy, suggesting that Hittite was first committed
to writing at a time somewhat before the date of the earliest texts that have
been recovered when the language did distinguish high and mid front vowels, but
that even by the time the Boğazköy texts in typical old ductus were written
that distinction was on its way to oblivion”. She bases her view on spellings
like i-eš-zi ‘he is’ (KUB 34.115 iii 5
(OS)) instead of normal e-eš-zi, which she calls “[c]ompelling
evidence for merger”. In my view, however, taking this attestation as more significant than the more than
1400 examples in my text files (ranging from OS to NH texts) of attestations
where the verb ‘to be’ is consistently spelled with an initial e‑, is
In this book I
therefore have made a phonological distinction between /e/ and /i/ for all
periods of Hittite. It should be noted, however, that several environments can
be identified in which OH /i/ is regularly lowered to /e/ from the MH period
onwards, cf. 18.104.22.168d. Moreover, there are several instances where indeed
a spelling -e- alternates with -i-, but these cases are to be
regarded as showing the epenthetic vowel /ɨ/, for which see
spelling of E and I
Since the vowel signs E and I
can be used to disambiguate an ambiguous sign, it is not always clear whether
their use can be interpreted as indicating length. For instance, the spelling ḫar-ke-e-er, as we saw above, hardly
reflects /Hárgēr/, but rather /Hárger/ < *h3érg-ēr, which
means that its plene E is used to disambiguate the signs KE/I and E/IR; pí-i-ú-e-ni ‘we give’ cannot denote
/pīuéni/, but must stand for /piuéni/ < *h1p-i-u̯éni, which shows that the plene I is used to
disambiguate the sign PÉ/Í.
there remain some forms in which the plene E or I can hardly have been used for
disambiguation. For instance, in še-e-er ‘above’, the unambiguous sign
ŠE would have been enough to disambiguate the ambiguous sign E/IR (and the
spelling še-er therefore does occur as well),
so the plene E in that sense is superfluous. Similar, and more clear, are the
cases of te-e-eš ‘you said’, where both TE and
EŠ are unambiguous signs, še-e-eš ‘sleep!’, where ŠE and EŠ are
unambiguous signs and ne-e-pí-iš ‘heaven’, where NE is
unambiguous. As we will see below under the treatment of the reflexes of PIE *e,
*ē, *ei and *eh1 (§ 22.214.171.124, § 126.96.36.199), in
accented position these vowels all yield Hitt. /é/ which is spelled plene in
open syllables and in monosyllabic words and therefore probably was
phonetically long in these positions.
of the type Ci-i-iC are quite rare, but do occur: ḫu-ur-ki-i-il ‘perversity’, li-i-ik ‘swear!’, na-ak-ki-i-iš ‘important’, ni-i-ik ‘quench!’, zi-i-ik ‘you’. Although some of these
cases seem to show an underlying short *i that is accented and therefore
lengthened, some seem to show a real
accented long /ī/.
signs U and Ú
Hittite uses two phonetic signs
that are traditionally transliterated with the vowel u, namely É = U and S = Ú. From the beginning of
Hittitology, it has been noticed that in many words these two signs are kept
distinct. For instance, lūli- ‘pond’, when spelled with a
plene vowel, is consistently spelled lu-ú-li- and never **lu-u-li-;
kūša- ‘daughter-in-law’ and its
derivative kūšāta- ‘bride-price’ are always
spelled ku-ú-šº and never **ku-u-šº; ḫūmant- ‘all, every’ is consistently
spelled ḫu-u-ma-an-t- and never **ḫu-ú-ma-an-t‑, etc. It therefore has been proposed that these two
signs represent phonologically distinct sounds. Already Weidner (1917: 2-13)
suggested that the sign U indicates the sound [o] and the sign Ú the sound [u].
Such a distinction is not unparalleled in cuneiform traditions: it is known
from Hurrian (cf. Wegner 2000: 37), but also from e.g. some Old Babylonian
lexical lists from Nippur (Westenholz 1991). Despite some claims in favour of
this interpretation, it has never gained a broad
acceptance. Most recently, Rieken (2005)
has attempted to revive this theory, however. According to her, the sign U
denotes a vowel /o/ that is the result of lowering of an older u in
certain phonetic environments. She assumes that the vowels
/u/ and /o/ originally were allophones, but were marginally phonemicized in
Hittite. Although the bulk of Rieken’s observations seem correct to me, I do
not agree with all details.
An important clue
regarding the idea that U and Ú could reflect different sounds is the fact that
the preverb u- ‘hither’ (the antonym of pe- ‘thither’) is spelled with
both U and Ú, but that the choice for one of these signs is always consistent
within the attestations of each verb. We come accross the following spellings: u-uC-C° (in ūnna-i /
ūnni- ‘to drive (here)’), uC-C°
(in uppa-i / uppi- ‘to send (here)’), ú-uC-C°
(in ūššii̯e/a-zi ‘to draw open (curtains)’) and
ú-CV° (in uda-i / ud- ‘to bring (here)’). At first
sight, we seem to be dealing with three different spellings, namely u-uC-C°,
uC-C° and ú-uC-C° (assuming that ú-C° is equivalent to ú-uC-C°).
It must be noted, however, that the only verb that is spelled ú-uC-C°,
namely ūššii̯e/a-zi, occurs as uš‑ši- as
well. Moreover, the spelling ú-uš-ši- occurs in OS texts only, whereas
the spelling uš-ši- is attested in MS and NS texts. Since the only verb
that is consistently spelled uC-C°, uppa-i / uppi‑, is not attested in OS texts,
but only in MS and NS texts, it is in my view quite likely that this verb must
be compared to ūššii̯e/a-zi, and that we are allowed to
assume that in OS texts this verb would have been spelled **ú-up-p°.
So in fact we are
dealing with two different spellings, namely ú-uC-C° (OS) = uC‑C°
(MS and NS) = ú-C° versus u-uC-C°. Since these spellings must
eventually go back to the same etymon, namely *h2ou‑, I
agree with Rieken that some phonetically conditioned split must have taken
place. Apparently, *h2ou- developed into two different forms,
one spelled with the sign U and the other with Ú.
For a phonetic
interpretation of the difference between U and Ú, we should look at the
paradigm of au-i / u- ‘to see’ in comparison to the dāi/tii̯anzi-class verbs, exemplified here
by pai-i / pi- ‘to give’:
1sg. u-uḫ-ḫi < *Hóu-h2ei pé-e-eḫ-ḫi < *h1pói-h2ei
2sg. a-ut-ti <
*Hóu-th2ei pa-it-ti < *h1pói-th2ei
3sg. (a-uš-zi) pa-a-i < *h1pói-ei
1pl. ú-me-e-ni < *Hu-uéni pí-ú-e-ni < *h1pi-uéni
2pl. uš-t[e-e]‑ni < *Hu-sténi pí-iš-te-ni < *h1pi-sténi
3pl. ú-u̯a-an-zi < *Hu-énti pí-i̯a-an-zi < *h1pi-énti
We clearly see
that the spelling with U corresponds to ‑e- in the paradigm of pai‑i / pi‑, whereas Ú corresponds
to ‑i‑. On the basis of this comparison alone, it is attractive
to assume that U stands for /o/, whereas Ú stands for /u/. The fact that this
outcome perfectly matches the Hurrian practice to spell /o/ with U and /u/ with
Ú strengthens this interpretation even more. I therefore phonologically
interpret the above forms as follows:
u-uḫ-ḫi = /ʔóHi/, cf. pé-e-eḫ-ḫi = /péHi/
a-ut-ti = /ʔáuti/ pa-it-ti = /páiti/
ú-me-e-ni = /ʔuméni/ < */ʔuuéni/ pí-ú-e-ni = /piuéni/
uš-t[e-e]‑ni = /ʔusténi/ pí-iš-te-ni = /pisténi/
ú-u̯a-an-zi = /ʔuántsi/ pí-i̯a-an-zi = /piántsi/
This means that
the u-preverbed verbs as mentioned
above must be phonologically interpreted as follows: ūnna-i /
ūnni- ‘to drive (here)’, spelled u‑un‑n°,
ūššii̯e/a-zi ‘to draw open (curtains)’,
spelled ú-uš-ši- and uš-ši‑, = /ʔuSié/á‑/, uppa-i
/ uppi- ‘to send (here)’, spelled up-p°,
and uda-i / ud- ‘to bring (here)’, spelled ú-d°,
In the following
sections I will study the use of the signs U and Ú in specific phonetic
environments, in order to determine (1) if a complementary distribution between
U and Ú can be established for this environment, and if so, (2) how we should
interpret this distribution phonetically and historically.
188.8.131.52a Word-initially before vowels
_aC : Here we basically find only
the spellings u̯a-
The spellings ú-a° and u-a° are extremely rare, whereas the spelling u-u̯a- occurs in the middle paradigm of au-i
/ u- ‘to see’ only. As I stated in § 1.3.3 as
well, I believe that the spelling u̯a- reflects phonological /ua-/ (e.g. u̯a-a-tar /uā́dr/ ‘water’ < *uódr); the spelling ú-u̯a- = /ʔua-/ (e.g. ú-u̯a-a-tar /ʔuā́dr/ ‘inspection’ < *Huótr; the spelling u-u̯a- represents /ʔoa-/ (e.g. u-u̯a-aḫ-ḫa-at /ʔoaHat/ ‘I have become visible’,
cf. au-i / u- for treatment).
_eC : Here we only find the
spelling ú-e‑, which denotes /ue-/ (e.g. ú-e-ek-zi /uéktsi/ ‘wishes’
_ɨC : Here we find the spellings ú-e°,
ú-i° and ú-u̯i5‑, which can stand for both /uɨ‑/ as well as /ʔuɨ-/. For instance, ú-i-te-e-ni, ú-e-te-ni ‘to the water’ = /uɨdéni/ < *u̯déni << *udéni and ú-u̯i5-te-na-aš ‘of the water’ = /uɨdénas/ < *u̯dénos << *udéns, whereas the spellings ú-iš-ke/a‑, ú-i-iš-ke/a- and ú-e-iš-ke/a‑, imperfectives of u̯e-zi / uu̯a- ‘to come’, must stand for /ʔuɨské/á-/ (a synchronic
derivation of the stem /ʔué/á-/).
_iC : Here I only know of the
spellings ú-i° and u̯i5- that always stand for /uiC‑/: ú‑i‑it-t° and ú-it-t° ‘year’
stand for /uit‑/ < *uet-; ú-i-t° and u̯i5-t° stand for /uid‑/ ‘water’ <
absolute word-initial position before vowels (note that ú-u̯a- = /ʔua‑/ and u-u̯a- = /ʔoa‑/ in fact belong to
word-internal position), there is no distinction to be found between /u/ and
Word-initially before consonants
There are only a few examples
here. The verb ur-āri, which reflects *urh1óri,
is in OS texts consistently spelled ú-ra-a-ni, pointing to /urʔā́ni/. The verb ušnii̯e/a-zi is always spelled uš-(ša‑)ni‑.
I see no reason not to interpret this verb as /uSnie/a-/ < *usn-i̯e/o‑.
As we see, there
is no trace of a distinction between /u/ and /o/ in absolute word-initial
position before consonants.
184.108.40.206c Word-internally between consonant
C_a : The spelling Cu-a° is
especially attested in older texts (e.g. ar-nu-an-da-an = /ʔrnuántan/). The spelling Cu-u̯a° is the most common spelling, especially
in younger texts (e.g. ar-nu-u̯a-an-zi = /ʔrnuántsi/). The
spelling Cu‑u‑a° is quite rare, but does not seem to stand for the same
phonetic value as Cu-a° and Cu-u̯a- (e.g. ar-ku-u-ar = ar-ku-ar
= ar-ku-u̯a-ar = /ʔrkwuər/). This
spelling occurs quite often when the sign îU precedes, the reason for
which we will see below, e.g. ḫu-u-ap- = ḫu‑u̯a-ap‑. The spelling Cu-ú-a°
only occurs in ka-ru-ú-a-ri-u̯a-ar, which is a secondary form (see s.v. kareu̯ariu̯ar). The spelling Cu-u-u̯a- is rather uncommon and is also
predominantly found with a preceding sign îU (e.g. ḫu-u-u̯a-ap‑, ḫu-u-u̯a-an-za, iš-ḫu-u-u̯a-i, etc.). Other examples are: kap-pu-u-u̯a-an-zi (= kap-pu-u̯a-an-zi), kar-šu-u-u̯a-aš (= kar-šu-u̯a-aš), ka-ru-uš-ši-i̯a-nu-u-u̯a-an-zi (= ka-ru-uš-ši-i̯a-nu-u̯a-an-zi), etc. The spelling Cu-ú-u̯a- is rare: it is attested in a-ru-ú-u̯a-iz-zi (= a-ru-u̯a-iz-zi and a-ru-u-u̯a-iz-zi), ka-ru-ú-u̯a-ri-u̯a-ar (which is a secondary form,
see s.v. kareu̯ariu̯ar), ša-ak-ru-ú-u̯a-an-zi (= ša-ak-ru-u̯a- and ša-ak-ru-u-u̯a‑), šu-ú-u̯a-i° ‘to spy’ (= šu-u̯a-i°), šu-ú-u̯a-ru- ‘heavy’ (= šu-u̯a-ru and šu-u-u̯a-ru) and šu‑ú-u̯a- ‘to push’ (= šu-u̯a- and šu-u-u̯a‑).
I conclude that
the spellings Cu-a°, Cu-u̯a‑, Cu-u-a° and Cu-u-u̯a- are equivalent and denote phonological
/Cua/. The spelling Cu-ú-a° as found in ka-ru-ú-a-ri-u̯a-ar is unique and is probably
orthographically influenced by ka-ru-ú. The interpretation of the spelling
is less clear since it is quite rare and the etymological interpretation of the
words in which it occurs is controversial. Nevertheless, on the basis of the
fact that a-ru-ú-u̯a-iz-zi is also spelled a-ru-u̯a-iz-zi and a-ru-u-u̯a-iz-zi, I conclude that in the
sequence C_a the difference between the sign U and Ú does not denote a
distinction between /o/ and /u/.
that as we have seen in § 220.127.116.11a above, there is a distinction in the
e.g. ú-u̯a-a-tar /ʔuā́dr/ ‘inspection’ < *Huótr, and u-u̯a- = /ʔoa‑/, only attested in the
middle paradigm of au-i / u- ‘to see’, e.g. u-u̯a-aḫ-ḫa-at /ʔoaHat/ ‘I have become visible’.
Since these middle forms are recently created (see s.v. au-i /
u‑), the phonemic difference between /ʔua-/ and /ʔoa-/ must be a recent
innovation as well.
C_e : The spellings Cu-e°, Cu-u-e°
and Cu-ú-e° are all used in equal environments, which shows that they
should be regarded phonologically equal as well: e.g. ak-ku-e-ni = ak-ku-u-e-ni = /ʔkuéni/ ‘we die’, [a]p-pu-ú-e-ni = e-ep-pu-e-ni = e-ep-pu-u-e-ni = /ʔpuéni, ʔépueni/ ‘we grab’, ḫa-aš-šu-ú-e-ni = ḫa-aš-šu-e-ni = /HSuéni/ or /HəSuéni/ ‘we
open’, še-ek-ku-e-ni = še-ek-ku-u-e-ni = še-ek-ku-ú-e-ni
= /sékueni/ ‘we know’, etc. Again, there is no indication that the signs U and
Ú denote a difference between /o/ and /u/ in this environment.
C_i : The spellings Cu-i°, Cu-u-i°,
Cu-ú-i°, Cu-u̯i5- and Cu-u-u̯i5- are used in equal surroundings, e.g. ḫa-ap-pu-i = ḫa-ap-pu-u-i = ḫa-ap-pu-ú-i /Hapui/, pár-ku-iš = pár-ku-u-iš = pár-ku-ú-iš! = /prkwis/; pa-aš-šu-i = pa-aš-šu-u-i = pa-aš-šu-ú-i = pa‑aš-šu-u̯i5 = /paSui/; ḫu-i-ša-u° = ḫu-u-i-ša-u° = ḫu-u-u̯i5-ša-u° = /Hwisau‑/, which
shows that in this position the signs U and Ú do not represent distinct
phonemes. The spelling Cu-u-i° occurs especially often when the sign îU precedes (see below). The
form ka-ru-ú-i-li- ‘former’ is a synchronic
derivative in ‑ili- of the adverb ka-ru-ú ‘early, formerly’ and therefore probably represents /krÜili/. The words šūil ‘thread’ and mūil ‘spade(?)’ are treated under C_ʔ.
C_u : The only word that seems to
belong here, viz. šūu- / šūu̯au̯- ‘full’, in fact reflects *souH-u-
and therefore will be treated under C_ʔ.
18.104.22.168d Word-internally between vowels
a_a : We find the spellings °a-u-a°,
and °a-u-u̯a- in equal positions: e.g. a-ra-u-aš = a-ra-u-u̯a-aš = a-ra-u̯a-aš = /ʔarauas/; ḫar-na-a-u-aš = ḫar-na-a-u̯a-aš = ḫar-na-ú-u̯a-aš = ḫar-na-a-u-u̯a-aš = /Hrnā́uas/. It must be admitted, however, that
the spelling °a-ú-u̯a- is quite rare, and seems to have a
special function in the paradigm of auri- ‘look-out’. Here we find gen.sg. a-ú-ri-i̯a-aš besides a-ú-u̯a-ri-i̯a-aš for phonological /ʔaurias/ < *Hou-ri-os, which could either be
phonetically realized as [ʔaurijas] spelled a-ú-ri-i̯a-aš, or as [ʔawrjas] spelled a-ú-u̯a-ri-i̯a-aš. The sequence °a-ú-a° is only attested in KBo 30.51
iv? (1) [...(‑)g]aʔ‑ú‑a[n(‑)...], if this is the correct reading.
a_e : In this position we
predominantly find the spelling °a-u-e°. The spelling °a‑ú‑e° is
rare, but when attested, it is identical to °a-u-e°: a-aš-ša-ú-e-et = a-aš-ša-u-e-et; ḫal-zi-i̯a-ú-en = ḫal-zi-i̯a-u-en; compare [z]i-in-na-ú-e-ni to e.g. a-ri-i̯a-u-e-ni.
a_i : Although the spellings °a-ú-i°
and °a-u-i° are occasionally interchangeable (e.g. ḫar-na-(a‑)ú-i (often) = ḫar-na-u[‑i] (1x); i-ta-a-la-ú-i (1x) = i-da-a-la-u-i (often)), some words are
consistently spelled °a-ú-i°: e.g. nāu̯i ‘not yet’ is spelled na-a-ú-i (OS), na-ú-i (OH/NS), na-a-u̯i5 (OH?/NS, MH/NS), na-u̯i5 (NH) and na-u-u̯i5 (OH?/NS), but never **na-a-u-i;
šāu̯idišt- ‘yearling’ is spelled ša-a-ú-i° and ša‑ú-i°, but never **ša-a-u-i° or **ša-u-i°; SIšāu̯ītra- ‘horn’ is spelled ša-a-ú-i° and ša-ú-i° but never **ša-a-u-i° or **ša-u-i°. It is remarkable that Ú
almost consistently occurs when a long /ā/ preceeds, whereas U is used after a
short /a/. So Ca-a-ú-i° = Ca-ú-i° = /Cāui°/, whereas Ca-u-i° = /Caui/ (or /Caoi/?). The
reason for this distribution is unclear to me.
e_a : Here we predominantly find
the spellings °e-u̯a‑, °e-u-a° and °e-u-u̯a‑, which are interchangeable: me-mi-iš-ke-u̯a-an = me-mi-iš-ke-u-an = me-mi-iš-ke-u-u̯a-an = /memiskéuən/; e-u̯a-an = e-u-u̯a-an = /ʔéuan/; ne-e-u̯a-an = ne-e-u-u̯a-an = /néuan/. The spelling °e-ú-u̯a- only occurs in ka-re-ú-u̯a-ri-u̯a-ar, which is spelled ka-re-u̯a-ri-u̯a-ar as well, and in [k]u-re-ú-u̯a-nu-uš, which is spelled ku-re-e-u̯a-n° and ku‑re-u̯a-n° as well. The spelling °e-ú-a° is not attested at all.
e_e : In this position we only
find the spelling °e-u-e°: ku-e-u-e-en ‘we killed’, da‑aš-ke-e-u-e-ni ‘we are taking’, ḫé-e-u-e-eš ‘rains’. The spelling °e-ú-e° to my knowledge does not
e_i : The only cases known to me
are ne-e-u-it (instr.) ‘new’ and ú-e-u-iš-ke-u-an (KBo 24.5 ii 10) ‘crying’. The
spelling °e-ú-i° does not occur.
i_a : The normal spelling is °i-u̯a‑, e.g. i-u̯a-ar, a-ši-u̯a-an-t‑, mi-iš-ri-u̯a-an-t‑, ka-ru-ú-u̯a-ri-u̯a-ar, etc. Very rarely, we find the
spellings °i-u-u̯a- (ḫa-aŸ-li-u-u̯a-an-za, na-an-ni-u-u̯a-an-zi, ti-u-u̯a-an-zi, ka-ru-ú-u̯a-a-ri-u-u̯a-ar), °i-ú-u̯a- (me-mi-ú-u̯a-an-zi, ši-ú-u̯a-at-ti = ši-u̯a-at-ti, ar-ki-ú-u̯a-az = ar-ki-i-ú-az), °i-ú-a° (ar-ki-i-ú-az = ar-ki-ú-u̯a-az) and °i-u-a° (zi-in-ni-u-an-zi, ka-ru-ú-u̯a-ri-u-ar). There is no indication
against the assumption that all these spellings denote phonological /Ciua/.
i_e : We find both the spelling °i-ú-e°
and °i-u-e° in the same environments, although °i-ú-e° seems to
occur more often than °i-u-e°: me-mi-u-e-ni, mi-iš-ri-u-e-eš-zi vs. ḫal-zi-ú-en, [ḫu-et‑]ti-i̯a-an-ni-ú-e-ni, mi-im-mi-ú-en, pí-i-ú-e-ni, pí-ú-e-ni, pé-en-ni-ú-e-ni, etc. Once we even find °i-ú-u-e°, viz.
in pa-i-ú-u-en (KBo 3.60 iii 1). It is clear that all
spellings denote /Ciue/.
i_i : This position is not well
attested in native Hittite words. We find a spelling °i‑ú‑i° in ú-i-ú-i-iš-ke/a‑,
the imperfective of u̯iu̯a-i / u̯iu̯i- ‘to scream’ and in u̯i5-ú-i-da-a-i (KBo 5.4 rev. 29) = ú-i-u̯i5-ta‑[a-i] (KBo 5.4 rev. 36). Other
cases are the city name URUKu-li-ú-iš-na (also spelled URUKu-li-u̯i5-iš-na), dat.-loc.sg. Éar-ki-ú-i ‘vestibule(?)’ and ḫa-az-zi-ú-i ‘ritual’ (also spelled ḫa-az-zi-u̯i5). A spelling °i-u-i° is
found in [Éḫ]a-le-ti-u-i and [É]ḫa-le-en-ti-u-i, dat.-loc.sg. of Éḫalent(i)u- ‘palace’ only. It is quite possible that in these words
the spelling °i-ú-i° and °i-u-i° represent phonetically different
forms. Since the stem of Éḫalent(i)u- is consistently spelled ḫa-le-en-ti-u, it probably was /Halentio/.
This makes it likely that the spelling ḫa-le-en-ti-u-i stands for /Halentioi/. It
must be noted that Éḫalentiu- is not a native Hittite word, and that we
have no evidence for other instances of a sequence /ioi/.
22.214.171.124e Word-internally between vowel and
a_C : First, we should distinguish
between a_CV and a_C# / a_CCV: the former must be
spelled °a-U-CV or °a-Ú-CV, whereas the latter can
be spelled °a-uC(-CV).
In the case of a_CV, we find many words that show
a consistent spelling °a-ú-CV, e.g. a-ú-me-ni ‘we see’, a-ú-me-en ‘we saw’ (never **a-u-me‑), a-ú-ri- ‘lookout’ (never **a-u-ri‑), a-ú-li‑, a certain organ (never
**a-u-li‑), an-na-ú-li- ‘of equal rank’ (never **an-na-u-li‑), ša-ú-di-iš-t°, ša-a-ú-ti-iš-t° ‘weanling’ (never **ša(‑a)‑u-Ti‑). In some other words, we do
find both U and Ú, however, e.g. pár‑ta-ú-na-aš = pár-ta-u-na-aš, a-ša-ú-ni = a-ša-u-ni, e.a. It is remarkable that this
situation occurs in front of ‑n- only, and that there seems to be a
chronological distribution between the forms: in OS texts we only find °a-ú-n°, in MS texts predominantly °a-ú-n° and occasionally °a-u-n°, in NS texts predominantly °a‑u‑n°. This seems to point to a
change of OH °a-ú-n° to NH °a-u-n°, which then must be
phonologically interpreted as OH /Caun/ > NH /Caon/.
In the case of a_C#
/ a_CCV, the situation is less clear, mainly because the number
of plene u-spellings is so low. It is perhaps best to look at the cases
one by one. The spelling °a-u-uC(-CV) is found in the following forms:
pa-a-u-un ‘I went’: this spelling is found several times, but only in NS
texts, and contrasts with the spelling pa-a-ú-un that is found in MS
texts. The neutral spelling pa-a-un, without a plene u-vowel,
is attested in OS, MS and NS texts. In my view, the spelling change of pa-a-ú-un
> pa-a-u-un again points to the change of OH and MH /pā́un/ to NH /pā́on/ (cf. above).
i-i̯a-u-un ‘I did’ (KBo 4.10 obv. 50) can hardly be correct and must
probably be emended to i-i̯a-nu!-un.
acc.pl.c. [ḫal‑]lu-ú-u̯a-u-uš (KBo 3.8 iii 4 (OH/NS)), ḫal-lu-u̯a-u-uš (KBo 26.135, 2 (OH/NS)) and pár-ga-u-uš (KBo 3.8 iii 22 (OH/NS)) are
to be regarded as grammatically incorrect forms showing ‑au̯uš instead of correct ‑amuš as
attested in e.g. ḫal-lu-u̯a-mu-uš (KBo 12.86 obv. 19, KUB 17.10
i 26, etc.) and pár-ga-mu-uš (KUB 17.10 i 24, KUB 12.63 i
30, etc.). Since the sign U is used ‘intervocalically’ here, the forms are
irrelevant for our discussion.
ta-ḫa-a-ta-u-uš-ša-aš (KBo 25.112 ii 7 (OS)) is a
hapax of non-IE origin (cf. the single ‑ḫ‑) and therefore irrelevant here.
da-ra-a-u-ur (KBo 22.186 v 2 (OH/NS)) ‘handful(?)’ stands in development
between ta-ra-a-ur (KBo 17.74+ i 53 (OH/MS)) and ta-ra-a-u-u̯a-ar (KUB 44.64 i 5, 10 (NS)). The first two spellings point to a
phonological interpretation /trā́or/, whereas ta-ra-a-u-u̯a-ar = /trā́uər/. In my view, the word /trā́or/, for which I know no
convincing etymology, and which may be of a foreign origin, has been
reinterpreted as an abstract noun in ‑u̯ar, and secondarily substituted by /trā́uər/ in younger times.
ti-e-ra-u-ur-ta-an (KBo 3.2 lower edge 2, KBo 3.5+ ii 37) and ti-e-ru-u-ur-ta-an-na
(KBo 3.5+ iii 17) ‘for three laps’ is also spelled ti-e-ra-u̯a-ar-ta-an-na (KBo 3.2 obv. 65) and ti-e‹-ra›-u̯a-ar-ta-an-na (KUB 1.11+ iv 35). Since it is
of foreign origin (< Indo-Aryan *tri-vartana-), it is irrelevant
The spelling °a-ú-uC(-CV)
is found in the following forms:
a-ú-um-me-ni ‘we see’ and a-ú-um-me-en ‘we saw’ are clearly NH
adaptations of older a-ú-me-ni and a-ú-me-en.
a-ú-uš-ta (KBo 3.60 i 8 (undat.)) ‘he saw’ is a combination of the normal
spelling a-uš-ta and other forms of the verb au-i
/ u- that are spelled a-ú- (like a-ú-me-ni and a-ú-me-en
ḫar-na-a-ú-uš (KUB 9.22 ii 40) is a mistake for ḫar-na-iš ‘sap’, and therefore
ḫar-na-ú-un (ABoT 17 ii 9 (MH/NS)) seems to denote /Hrnā́un/. Although this is not
impossible in a NS text (especially since it is a copy of a MH text), we would
have rather expected /Hrnā́on/, spelled **ḫar-na-u-un.
NINDAḫar-ša-ú-uš (KBo 17.4 ii 17 (fr.) (OS), KUB 7.8+ ii 11 (NS)) ‘thick-bread’ is
equivalent to NINDAḫar-ša-uš and NINDAḫar-ša-a-uš and must represent /HárSāus/
32.14 ii 49 (MH/MS)) ‘upper arm’ is equivalent to iš-ḫu-na-a-uš (KBo 32.14 rev. 44, l.edge 1
(MH/MS)), iš-ḫu-na-uš! (text: ‑aš, KUB 9.34 ii 25 (MH/NS)) and must represent /ɨsHonā́us/ < *sh2u-nÖus.
la-a-ú-un (KUB 7.1 iii 20 passim) is a mistake for 3sg.imp.act. la-a-ú and therefore irrelevant here.
pa-a-ú-un (KBo 16.59 rev. 5 (MS), KBo
16.42 obv. 24 (MS), KUB 34.45 + KBo 16.63 obv. 13 (MS)) represents /pā́un/, which in younger times
phonetically changed to /pā́on/, spelled pa-a-u-un (cf. above).
ta-lu-ga-ú-uš (KBo 17.22 iii 6 (OS)) is equivalent to the spellings da-lu-ga-uš
and ta-lu-ga-uš and represents /talugāus/ <
So we can conclude that the
diphthong /au/ is lowered to /ao/ before /n/ from MH times onwards, but is
preserved as such in other positions.
First I will treat the words
that show a spelling °i-ú-CV or °i-ú-uC:
a-ni-ú-úr and a-ni-ú-ri are occasional spellings for normal a-ni-u-ur
and a-ni-u-ri. See s.v. aniūr below.
aš-ḫa-i-ú-ul (KUB 24.10 iii 18, KUB 24.11
iii 17) // aš-ḫa-i-ú-úr (KBo 21.8 iii 6) // a-aš-ḫa-ú[‑...] (KBo 12.126 rev. 14) is of
unclear meaning. Since this word can hardly be of native origin, it is irrelevant here.
ḫé-i-ú-un (KBo 3.7 ii 25 (OH/NS)) is a hapax spelling for normal ḫēun ‘rain’ and therefore will be
treated below under e_C.
imiūl (n.) ‘grain mix, horse feed’
is consistently spelled with Ú: nom.-acc.sg. i‑mi‑ú‑l=a-a=š-ma-aš (KUB 29.41, 8 (MH/MS)), i-mi-ú-ul
(KBo 12.126 i 29 (OH/NS)), im-mi-ú-ul (KBo 4.2 ii 33 (OH/NS), KUB 7.54
ii 17 (fr.) (NS)), im-mi-i-ú-ul (KBo 10.37 ii 15 (OH/NS)). These
spellings point to /imiÜl/ < *im-ié-ul.
išḫiūl (n.) ‘binding, treaty’ and its
derivative išḫiulaŸŸ-i ‘to bind by treaty’ are consistently
spelled with Ú: nom.-acc.sg./pl.
iš-ḫi-ú-ul, gen.sg. iš-ḫi-ú-la-aš, nom.-acc.pl. iš-ḫi-ú-li, 3pl.pres.act. iš-ḫi-ú-la-aḫ-ḫa-an-zi, part. iš-ḫi-ú-la-aŸ-Ÿa-an-t‑. These spellings point to /ɨsHiÜl/ < *sh2-ié-ul.
iūk, iuka- (n.) ‘yoke, pair’ and its
derivatives iuga- ‘yearling’, iugašša- ‘yearling’ and tāi̯uga- ‘two-year-old’ are always
spelled with Ú: nom.-acc.sg. i-ú-uk (KBo 25.72 r.col. 11 (OS)), i-ú-kán
(KBo 12.22 i 11 (OH/NS), KBo 12.131 r.col. 5 (OH/NS), KUB 31.4 + KBo 3.41 obv.
7 (OH/NS)), i-ú-ga-an (KBo 13.78 obv. 2 (OH/NS), KUB 7.8 ii 8 (MH/NS)),
dat.-loc.sg. i-ú-ki (KUB 13.5 ii 21 (OH/NS)); nom.sg.c. i-ú-ga-aš
(OS), acc.sg. i!-ú!-ga-an (text: ú-i-ga-an,
KBo 17.65 rev. 53 (MS)), gen.sg. i-ú-ga-aš, acc.pl.c. i-ú-ga-aš;
gen. pl. i-ú-g[a-aš]‑ša-a[n] (OS), i-ú-ga-aš-ša-aš
(OH/NS)); nom.sg.c. ta-a-i-ú-ga-aš (OS), ta-a-ú-ga-aš (OH/NS),
gen.sg. ta-a-i-ú-ga-aš (OS), acc.pl.c. ta-a-i-ú-ga-aš. All these
spellings point to /iug‑/ < *iug‑.
kap-pí-ú-uš (KBo 34.47 ii 8 (MH/MS)) of kappi-
/ kappai- ‘small’ is a younger adaptation of original kap-pa-uš
(KUB 12.63 obv. 31
(OH/MS)) < *kappai̯uš. So kap-pí-ú-uš must stand for /kapius/.
TÚGka-ri-ú-ul-li ‘hood’, also spelled ka-ri-ul-li, is a derivative in ‑ulli-
of karii̯e/a-zi ‘to cover’ and represents /kriÜLi/ < *kr-ié-ul+.
ku-i-ú-uš (HKM 23 obv. 9 (MH/MS), KBo 18.57a + 57 obv. 2, rev. 42
(MH/MS)) of the interrog. / indef. pronoun kui- / kue- /
is usually spelled ku-i-uš and stands for /kwius/.
acc.pl. ma-ši-ú-u[š]? (KBo 9.109 rev. 4) of maši- ‘how
many’ represents /masius/.
mīu- / mīi̯au̯- (adj.) ‘soft, mild’ and its
derivatives mīumar ‘gentleness’ and NINDAmīumīu(t)- “soft bread” are always
spelled with Ú: nom.sg.c. mi-i-uš = mi‑i-ú-uš
= mi-ú-uš = /mÏus/ < *mih1-u-s, acc.sg.c. mi-i-ú-un =
/mÏun/ < *mih1‑u‑m,
nom.-acc.sg.n. mi-i-ú = mi-ú = /mÏu/ < *mih1-u;
nom.-acc.sg. mi-i-ú-mar = mi-ú-mar = mi-ú-um-mar = /mÏumr/ < */mÏuur/, instr. mi-ú-um-ni-it
nom.-acc.sg. mi-ú-mi-ú (MH/NS), mi-i-ú-mi-u=š-ša-an, mi-i-ú-mi-i-ú
= /mīumīu/, etc.
pár-ši-ú-ul-li ‘crumb’ is derived from paršii̯e/a-ari ‘to break’ and represents
pu-u-ri-ú-uš of pūri- ‘lip, ridge’
equals pu-u-ri-uš and pu-ri-uš and represents /pórius/.
šīu- (c.) ‘god’ and its derivatives
šīuna- ‘god’, šiunal(a/i)- ‘divine one(?)’ and šiunii̯aŸŸ-tta(ri) ‘to be hit by a disease’ are
always spelled with the sign Ú: nom.sg. ši-i-ú-uš (OS), ši-ú-uš, ši-uš=mi-iš
(OS) = /sÏus/,
acc.sg. ši-ú(n)=šum-m[i-in] (OS), ši‑ú‑n=a-an = /sÏun/, gen.sg. ši-ú-na-aš (OS) = /sÏunas/, dat.-loc.sg. ši-ú-ni
(OS), ši‑i‑ú-ni (OH/MS) = /sÏuni/, abl. ši-ú-na-az (OH/NS), instr. ši-ú-ni-it
(OH/NS), gen.pl. ši-ú-na-an, dat.-loc.pl. ši-ú-na-aš (OS), ši-i-ú-na-aš
(OH/NS); nom.pl. ši-ú-na-li-eš; 3sg.pres.midd. [š]i-ú-ni-aḫ-ta, ši-ú-ni-i̯a-aḫ-ta, ši-e-ú-ni-aḫ-ta, 3sg.pret.midd. ši-ú-ni-i̯a-aḫ-ḫa-ti.
NINDAzu-ri-ú-un is a hapax (KBo 22.186 v 7) of probably
foreign origin (cf. zu‑) and therefore of little value here.
The following words show the
spelling °i-u-CV or °i-u-uC(-CV):
aniūr (n.) ‘ritual’ is predominantly
spelled with U: nom.-acc.sg. a-ni-u-ur (KBo 15.19 i 18 (NS), KBo 15.29
obv. 6 (NS), KBo 19.144 i 25 (NS), KBo 20.87 i 7 (NS), KUB 9.15 iii 20 (NS),
KUB 12.58 ii 31 (NS), KUB 22.40 iii 29 (NS), KUB 29.4 i 7, 15 (NH), KUB 32.123
ii 33, 47, iii 11 (NS)), a-ni-ur (KUB 46.38 ii 6 (NS), KUB 46.42 ii 12
(NS)), gen.sg. a-ni-u-ra-aš (KUB 35.18 i 9 (MS), KBo 21.1 iv 3 (MH/NS)),
a-ni-ur-aš (KBo 12.126+ ii 19 (NS)), dat.-loc.sg. a-ni-u-ri (KUB
35.54 iii 45 (MS)), erg.sg. a-ni-u-ra-an-za (KUB 41.9 iv 38 (OH/MS)).
Nevertheless, I know of four instances where we find a spelling with Ú, namely a‑ni-ú-úr
(KBo 19.92, 4 (OH/NS), KUB 5.6 ii 52, 59 (NS)) and a-ni-ú-ri (KUB 5.6
iii 30 (NS)). Since three of these occur on the same tablet (KUB 5.6), we are
actually talking of two instances. Since I am unable to explain these spellings
with Ú in comparison with those with U in phonological or chronological terms,
I assume that the spellings with Ú are mere mistakes and that the spellings
with U are the correct ones. This would mean that a-ni-u-ur represents /ʔniór/ < *h3n‑ié‑ur.
a-aš-ši-u-ni-it (KUB 33.62 ii 20) from āššii̯auu̯ar ‘love’ is probably a scribal
error for a-aš-ši-‹i̯a-›u-ni-it as is attested on the same tablet: a-aš-ši-i̯a-u-ni-it (ibid. 20). This form
therefore is irrelevant here.
mi-u-ri-šẹ[‑eš?] (KBo 17.17 iv 4 (OS)) and
dat.-loc.pl. mi-u-ra-aš (KUB 43.53 i 14 (OH/NS))
denote a certain body part, but details are unclear.
ši-iš-ši-u-ri-iš-ke/a- (KUB 31.84 iii 54, 55) ‘to irrigate’
apparently represents /siSiorɨské/á‑/, derived from a noun */siSiór/ < *h1si-h1s-ié-ur.
It is remarkable that the sign
U only occurs in words where the consonant ‑r- follows, whereas in all
other cases we find the sign Ú. This points to a lowering of */iur/ to /ior/,
which has happened in pre-Hittite already (cf. OS. mi-u-ri‑). Note that
/iun/ remains unchanged and does not show a lowering comparable to */aun/ >
Apart from the one
spelling e-ú-uk-zi ‘he drinks’, which is equivalent to e-uk-zi and e-ku-zi and therefore must represent /ʔégwtsi/,
a spelling °e-U/Ú-uC° only occurs in ḫēu- / ḫēi̯au̯- ‘rain’ and me(i̯)u- / mei̯au̯- ‘four’.
The nom.sg. of ḫēu- is spelled ḫé-e-ú-uš, ḫé-e-uš as well as ḫé-uš, which points to Hitt. /Héus/ < /Héʔus/ < *h2éih3-u-s.
The acc.sg. is usually spelled ḫé-e-un (attested in OS texts already), but
occurs as ḫé-ú-un and ḫé-i-ú-un in some OH/NS texts and as ḫé-e-u-un in an MH/NS text. This seems
to point to a phonetic change within Hittite, namely OH /Héʔun/, spelled ḫé-ú-un, develops through /Héun/ into
younger /Héon/, spelled ḫé-e-u-un. For this lowering, compare the
lowering of /au/ to /ao/ in front of /n/ in § 126.96.36.199e. The nom.pl. forms ḫé-e-u-uš (KUB 7.5 i 17 (MH/NS)) and ḫé-e-u[‑u]š (KUB 19.50
iv 27 (NH)), the acc.pl. form ḫé-u-uš (KBo 3.7 ii 22 (OH/NS)) and ḫé-e-ú-uš (KUB 16.37 iv 6 (NH), KUB 28.4
obv. 19 (NS)) as well as dat.-loc.pl.(?) ḫé-e-u-uš (KBo 13.245 rev. 7 (NS)) are
all, in my view, formally acc.pl. forms that should be interpreted as ḫēu̯uš, an incorrect secondary formation instead
of correct ḫēmuš as attested in e.g. ḫé-e-mu-uš (KUB 24.1 iv 15), ḫé-mu-uš (KUB 51.50 obv. 14) and ḫe-e-mu-ú-uš (KBo 43.137 l.col. 7) =
/Hémus/ < */Héuus/ < */Héʔuus/.
In the paradigm
/ mei̯au̯‑, the only relevant form is acc.pl.c. mi-e-ú-uš (KUB 31.127 i
52), which must be read as meu̯uš, an incorrect formation instead of
expected **memuš, or even better **mei̯amuš < *mei̯au̯uš.
188.8.131.52f Word-internally between consonants
If there is a phonological
distinction between /o/ and /u/ in interconsonantal position, we would expect
that each word that shows a plene spelling with one of the u-signs is consistent in its spelling:
either it is spelled with U or it is spelled with Ú. This is not always the
case, however: we do find words of which some forms are spelled with U and
others with Ú. Let us look at these cases:
apūn ‘that (one)’ (acc.sg.c.) is consistently spelled a-pu-u-un (more than 150x in my text
files), but once we find the spelling a-pu-ú-un (KBo 6.2 ii 32 (OS)). In my
view, this last spelling must be a mistake, which is strengthened by the fact
that on the same tablet we find the aberrant form ḫu-ú-ni-ik-zi, which is usually spelled ḫu-u-ni-ik-zi (see below).
apūš ‘those (ones)’ (acc.pl.c.) is
almost always spelled a-pu-u-uš (more than 210x in my files), but once we find a spelling a-pu-ú-uš (KUB 14.14 obv. 21 (NH)). In my view, this
spelling must be a mistake, just as the form ku-u-ú-uš (ibid. rev. 31)
instead of normal ku-u-uš (see below).
arša(r)šur- (n.) ‘flowing, stream’ is
attested several times with the sign U: nom.-acc.sg. ar-ša-aš-šu-u-ur
(KBo 23.9 i 12 (OH/NS)), nom.-acc.pl.n. ar-šar-šu-u-ra (KUB 33.13 ii 14
(OH/NS)), ar-ša-ar-šu-u-ri-i=š-ši-it (KUB 36.55 ii 26 (OH/MS)),
acc.pl.c. ar-šar-šu-u-ru-uš (KUB 33.10, 10 (OH/MS)), case? [a]r-ša-ar-šu-u-ra-aš
(KBo 26.135, 6 (OH/NS)). Once we find a spelling with Ú, however: nom.-acc.pl. ar-ša-a-aš-šu-ú-ri-i=š-ši-it
(KUB 36.55 ii 20 (OH/MS)). It is remarkable that only 6 lines below this form
we find ar-ša-ar-šu-u-ri-i=š-ši-it with a plene U. In my view, this
indicates that ar-ša-a-aš-šu-ú-ri-i=š-ši-it must be erroneous.
ḫuni(n)k-zi ‘to batter, to crash’ is often
spelled with plene U: 3sg.pres.act. ḫu-u-ni-ik-zi (often), 3sg.pres.midd. ḫu-u-ni-ik-ta-ri, 3sg.pret.midd. ḫu-u-ni-ik-ta-at, part. ḫu‑u-ni(-in)-kán-t- (often). Once, we find the
spelling ḫu-ú-ni-ik-zi, however, namely in KBo 6.2 i 16 (OS). Since this is the same
tablet where we also find the aberrant a-pu-ú-un (instead of normal a-pu-u-un,
see above) and since correct ḫu‑u-ni-ik-zi is attested only three lines above (ibid. i 13), we must
assume that this is an erroneous form. Moreover, it would be the only form
where we find the sequence ḫu-ú- in all of Hittite.
kinūpi, a portable container, is
usually spelled without plene ‑u‑, but once we find the spelling ki-nu-ú-pí
(KUB 29.2 ii 7) and twice ki-nu-u-pí (KUB 29.1 ii 41, KBo 21.22, 10). Since this word is likely to be of
foreign origin, these forms are irrelevant.
kūn ‘this (one)’ (acc.sg.c.) is
consistently spelled ku-u-un (more than 110x in my files). Once we find ku-ú-un,
however, namely in KUB 48.125 ii? 4. Although this small fragment
does not contain any other aberrancies, I regard this form as an error.
kūš ‘these (ones)’ (acc.pl.c.) is
consistently spelled ku-u-uš (more than 120x in my files). Once we find ku-u-ú-uš, however, in KUB 14.14 rev.
31. Since this form is found on the same tablet as where the aberrant a-pu-ú-uš is attested (instead of normal
a-pu-u-uš, see above), I regard it as an
NINDAlalla(m)puri(i̯a)‑, NINDAlal(l)am(m)uri(i̯a)‑, a dish made of cereals, shows
the following spellings: nom.sg.c. la-al-la-pu-u-ri-i̯a-aš, la-al-la-am-pu-u-ri-i̯a-aš, la‑al-la-am-pu-ri-iš, la-al-la-am-mu-ri-iš,
la-al-la-mu-ú-ri-iš, la-la-mu-ri-i̯a-aš, nom.-acc.sg.n. la-la-mu-ri,
[la-l]a-am-mu-ri. The spelling variancy
(including the alteration between Cu-u- and Cu-ú‑) and the fact
that this word is attested in Kizzuwatnaean rituals only, makes it likely that
it is of foreign (Hattic?) origin. This makes the word irrelevant for our
lūri- (c.) ‘disgrace’ and its
derivatives lūrii̯atar ‘disgrace’ and lūrii̯aŸŸ-i ‘to disgrace’ are
predominantly spelled with plene U: nom.sg.c. lu-u-ri-iš (MH/NS),
acc.sg.c. lu-u-ri-in (OS), nom.-acc.sg.n. lu-u-ri (MS),
dat.-loc.sg. lu-u-ri (NH), nom.pl.c. lu-u-ri-e-eš (OS), acc.pl. lu-u-ri-uš
(OS); nom.-acc.sg. [l]u-u-ri-i̯a-tar (NH)); 2sg.imp.act. lu-u-ri-i̯a-aḫ (NH), impf. lu-u-ri-i̯a-aŸ-Ÿi-eš-ke/a- (NH)). Twice we find a spelling with
Ú, however: nom.sg.c. lu-ú-ri-eš (KUB 13.4 iii 34 (OH/NS)), lu-ú-ri-iš
(KUB 13.18 iii 6 (OH/NS)). Since these tablets do not show other remarkable
aberrancies, it is not easy to dismiss these examples as errors. Perhaps we are
dealing with traces of an original ablaut. See further below.
mūgae-zi ‘to invoke’ and its derivative
mūkēššar / mūkēšn- ‘invocation’, when spelled
with a plene ‑u‑, are predominantly spelled with the sign U:
1sg.pres.act. mu-u-ga-a-mi (MH/NS), mu-u-ga-mi (MH/NS),
3pl.pres.act. mu-u-ga-a-an[‑zi], mu-u-ga-an-zi; gen.sg. mu-u-ki-iš-na-aš
(Bo 6575 obv. 13), nom.-acc.pl. mu-u-keš-šarîI.A. Once, we find the spelling mu-ú-ga-it
(KBo 3.7 i 13). Since this text contains a number of aberrancies, I regard this spelling as an error as
mūri(i̯an)- ‘cluster of fruit’ and its
possible derivative NINDAmūrii̯ala‑, a bread, are predominantly
speled with plene U: instr. mu-u-ri-ni-it (MH?/NS), acc.pl. mu-u-ri-uš
(OS), mu-u-ri-i̯a-nu-uš (MH?/NS); nom.sg. mu-u-ri-i̯a-la-aš (OH/NS), acc.sg. mu-u-ri-i̯a-la-an (NS), acc.pl. mu-u-ri-i̯a-lu-š=a (OS). There are two exceptions,
however, namely nom.sg. mu-ú-ri-iš (KUB 57.110 ii 8 (NS)), and acc.pl. mu-ú-ri-i̯a-lu-uš (Bo 2689 ii 11 (NS)). On the
one hand, since the etymology of mūri(i̯an)- and NINDAmūrii̯ala- is unclear, and since mūri(i̯an)- shows a remarkable alternation
between an i-stem mūri- and an n-stem mūrii̯an‑, we could claim that these words are
possibly of foreign origin and therefore irrelevant here. On the other hand, we
could compare the situation to lūri‑, where nom.sg. was also
aberrantly spelled lu-ú-ri-iš vs. lu-u-ri- elsewhere, and assume
that in mūri(i̯an)‑, too, we are dealing with traces of ablaut.
pūl- (n.) ‘lot’ is attested as
follows: nom.-acc.sg. pu-u-ul (4x, OH/NS), pu-ú-ul (1x, NH),
gen.sg. pu-u-la-aš (OH/NS), pu-la-aš (NH), pu-la-a-aš
(NH), abl. pu-la-a[z] (NH), instr. pu-u-li-it (OH/NS), so
predominantly with U, but once with Ú. It has been suggested that it
is a borrowing through Hurrian (compare Hurr. pulaḫli ‘lot caster’), from Akk. pūru ‘lot’ (cf. e.g. Rieken 1999:
78). As a foreign word, it is irrelevant here.
pūdaḫaš(ša), puteḫaš(ša), designation of a festival, is
spelled pu-te-ḫa-a-aš-ša, pu‑ú-da-ḫa-aš (NH), pu-u-du-ḫa-aš (NH), pu-da-ḫa-aš and pu-da-ḫa-aš-ša, so both with plene U and Ú. This word occurs almost exclusively as
the designation of a festival that is performed in honour of Teššub and îepat, which makes it likely
that the word is Hurrian. It is therefore irrelevant here.
punušš-zi ‘to ask’ is predominantly spelled
without a plene vowel (pu-nu-uš‑), but sometimes we do find forms in
which the first ‑u- is spelled plene: 3pl.pres.act. pu-ú-nu-uš-ša-an-zi
(KBo 20.5 iii! 7 (OS)), 3sg.pret.act. pu-u-nu-uš-ta (KUB
36.35 i 8 (MH?/NS)), 1pl.pret.act. pu-u-nu-uš-šu-u-en (AT 454 ii 17, 21,
iv 14 (NH)), 2pl.imp.act. [pu‑]ú?-nu-uš-ten
(KUB 59.10 vi 2 (OH/NS)). Here we seem to be dealing with a chronological
distribution: Ú in OH texts, U in younger texts. This fits the distribution
that we established for /aun/ > /aon/ as well (see above).
pūrii̯a‑, u̯urii̯a‑, Hurrian offering term,
is spelled as follows: gen. pu-u-ri-i̯a-aš (MH/NS), dat.-loc.sg. pu-u-ri-i̯a (often, MH/NS), pu-ú-ri-i̯a (KBo 27.191 iii 3), u̯uu-ri-i̯a (MH/MS). Since this word clearly is of
foreign origin, it is irrelevant.
(MUN)pūti- (c.) ‘lump of salt’ is spelled
pu-u-ti-iš (multiple times) as well as pu-ú-ti-iš (KUB 32.123 ii
18 (NS)). Since this word likely is not
native Hittite, it is irrelevant here.
tapūš- (n.) ‘side’ is usually spelled
with plene Ú: all.sg. ta-pu-ú-ša (KBo 4.2 iii 47, KBo 39.164 r.col. 6, KUB
20.99 ii 18, KUB 31.105, 19, KUB 55.45 ii 12, KUB 55.58 obv. 16, IBoT 2.112
obv. 9, etc.). Twice we find a spelling with U, however: all.sg. ta-pu-u-ša
(KUB 1.8 iv 19 (NH)) and abl. ta-pu-u-uš-za (KBo 30.58 iii 11 (OH/NS)).
I must admit that I cannot explain these two forms otherwise than as scribal
errors, although the texts in which they occur do not show other aberrancies.
tulii̯a- ‘gathering’ is usually spelled
without plene vowel: acc.sg. tu-li-i̯a-an (KBo 3.1 ii 34, 51), gen.sg. tu-li-i̯a-aš (KUB 9.34 i 33, iv 12, KUB
6.45 iii 11, KUB 6.46 iii 50, KUB 21.19 iv 10), tu-li-i̯a[‑aš] (KUB 21.19 iv 25),
dat.-loc.sg. tu-li-i̯a (KBo 6.3 iii 21, KBo 4.10 obv. 50, KUB 6.45 iii 12, KUB 23.77a
obv. 11, KBo 8.35 ii 9, KBo 5.4 rev. 55, KUB 21.1 iv 39, KUB 21.4 iv 9,
Bronzetafel iii 79, KUB 21.19 iv 18, 19, KUB 4.1 ii 2, KUB 17.30 iii?
4), dat.-loc.pl. tu-li-i̯a-aš (KBo 22.1, 16 (OS)). Occasionally we find a plene spelling,
however, namely twice with U (tu-u-li-i̯a (KUB 6.46 iii 51), tu-u-li-i̯a-aš (KUB 33.110, 5)) and twice
with Ú (tu-ú-li-i̯a (KUB 21.1 iv 39), tu-ú-lị-i̯[a] (KUB 21.5 iv 45)).
This word occurs in CLuwian as well, and is there predominantly spelled tu-ú-li-i̯a- (besides tu-li-i̯a- once). This could mean that the two
Hittite spellings tu-ú-li-i̯a- should be regarded as Luwianisms, and the
spellings tu-u-li-i̯a- as the ‘normal’ spelling.
zarzur- (n.) ‘concoction’ is attested
za-ar-zu-úr (KUB 42.107 iii 13 (OH/NS)), za-ar-zu-u-ur (KUB 31.57
iv 18 (OH/NS)), za-ar-zu-ú-úr (KUB 34.89 obv. 6 (OH?/MS)), [za-a]r-zu-úr
(KUB 34.89 obv. 1 (OH?/MS)). Since this word can hardly be native Hittite, it
is irrelevant here.
Accordingly, for the words of
which we find forms with U as well as with Ú, we have seen that either (1) one
of these spellings is a scribal error, (2) the two spellings represent
different chronological stages, (3) the different spellings may reflect an original
ablaut, or (4) that the word is of foreign origin and therefore irrelevant for
our investigation. In all other words, we find a complementary distribution
between U and Ú and I therefore conclude that we must assume the occurrence of
two different phonemes in interconsonantal position, namely /u/ and /o/.
In the following section I will
look more closely at the prehistory of the words under discussion in order to
elucidate the origin of the difference between /o/ and /u/. In order to do so,
I will treat the words according to the consonants that are adjacent to /o/ and
Whenever the consonant ḫ precedes a plene ‑u‑,
this vowel is always spelled with the sign U. This seems to indicate that
all instances of */HuC/ have yielded Hitt. /HoC/. As we saw above
(§ 184.108.40.206), however, the combination îU-U- occurs so often in MS and
NS texts that it has been suggested that we should interpret this combination
as a sort of ligature (BÉ) in order to distinguish the sign îU (B) from the closely resembling
sign RI (J). It therefore is not always clear how to interpret the
To make the problem more transparent, I have taken the liberty to cite the
(in which the sign U only seems to have had an orthographic value and perhaps
not so much a phonetic value) as îÚ in the following example. For instance, pa-aḫ-ḫur ‘fire’ must in my view be
analysed phonologically as /páHwr/, because of the occasional
spelling pa-aḫ-ḫu-u̯a-ar. Once, we find a spelling pa-aḫ-ḫu-u-ur, however. Is this spelling
suddenly to be interpreted as /páHor/, or do we have to read the form as pa-aḫ-ḫú-ur = /páHwr/?
is that in ablauting verbs, we find e.g. ḫu-e-ek-zi ‘he conjures’ vs. ḫu-u-kán-zi ‘they conjure’. Since I do not
reckon with a phonemic distinction between /o/ and /u/ in the sequence C_e
(see above), the former should be interpreted /Huégtsi/ < *h2ué⁽œ⁾h-ti whereas the latter is /Hogántsi/
< *h2u⁽œ⁾hénti. This means that we seem to be dealing
with an ablaut /Hueg- / Hog‑/, which may not be very convenient. Similarly in ḫu-u̯a-ap-p° / ḫu-u-up-p° ‘to harass’, which seems to stand for
/Huap- / Hop-/. Perhaps we should conclude that in the full grade forms we are
dealing with /o/ as well: /Hoeg-/ and /Hoap‑/, the latter then perhaps
expressed in the spelling ḫu-u-u̯a-ap-p°. If so, then we should also interpret e.g ḫu-u̯a-an-t- ‘wind’ as /Hoánt‑/, which then
perhaps is expressed in the spelling ḫu-u-u̯a-an-t‑. Since, however, there is no
phonemic distinction between /o/ and /u/ after ḫ, one could also choose to
write /Hu/ everywhere. Yet on the basis of the fact that the Hittites
themselves never wrote ḫu-ú- and apparently did not perceive these sequences as [Hu] but as
[Ho], I will write /Ho/ in my phonemic analysis, also in the sequences /Hoa/,
/Hoe/ and /Hoi/.
Some examples of ḫūC: ḫu-u-uk-ki-iš-ke/a- ‘to conjure (impf.)’ /Hokɨské/á-/ < *h2u⁽œ⁾h-sḱé/ó-; ḫu-u-uk-ki-iš-ke/a- ‘to butcher (impf.)’ /Hokɨské/á-/ < *h2ug(h)-sḱé/ó-; ḫu-u-uk-ma-a-uš ‘conjurations (acc.pl.)’ /Hogmā́us/ < *h2u⁽œ⁾h-mói-; ḫu-u-ul-l° ‘to smash’ /HoL-/ < *h2ul-n-;
ḫu-u-ma-an-t- ‘all’ /Hómant-/; ḫu-u-up‑[pa-an-du] ‘they must harass’ /Hopántu/
< *h2uph1-éntu; DUGḫu-u-up-pár ‘bowl’ /Hópr/; ḫu-u-ur-da‑a‑in ‘curse (acc.sg.)’ /Hortā́in/ < *h2urt-ói-m;
ḫu-u-ur-za-ke/a- ‘to curse (impf.)’
/Hortské/á-/ < *h2urt-sḱé/ó-; ḫu-u-uš-ke/a‑zi ‘to wait’ /Hoské/á-/ < *h2u-sḱé/ó-; ḫu‑u‑da- ‘readiness’ /Hoda-/ < *h2uh1do-;
iš-ḫu-u-na-u- ‘upper arm’ /ɨsHonau-/ < sh2u-nóu‑.
When a ḫ follows, we always find U as
well. In some cases we are dealing with *Ceuh2-: šu-u-uḫ-za ‘roof (abl.)’ /sóHts/
< *séuh2-ti; in some with *Cóuh2-: u-uḫ-ḫi ‘I saw’ /ʔóHi/ < *h2óu-h2ei,
mu-u-uḫ-ḫi ‘I fell’ /móHi/ < *móu-h2ei;
in others with *Cuh2-: an-tu-u-uḫ-ša-an ‘human being (acc.sg.)’ /ʔndoHsan/ < *h1n-dhuh2-s-om.
Other cases of
/CoH/ are: lu-u-ḫa- ‘?’ /loha-/; mu-u-uḫ-ra-i‑, a body part of animals
/moHrai-/; šu-u-uḫ-mi-li- ‘firm(?)’ /soHmili-/; (UZU)pa-an-tu-u-ḫa- ‘bladder’ /p(a)ntoha‑/; pár-aš-tu-u-uḫ-ḫa‑, an earthenware cup(?)
/prstoHa-/; pu-u-ḫu-ga-ri- ‘substitute’ /póhogari-/; tu-u-ḫu-ši-i̯a-e- ‘to await’ /tohwsiae-/?;
MUNUSzi-in-tu-u-ḫi- ‘girl’ /tsintohi-/.
I only know of one case, namely
ui̯e-zi / ui̯- ‘to send’, which is
consistently spelled u‑i-e- / u-i-i̯a- = /ʔoié- / ʔoi‑/. This verb is a
univerbation of the preverb *h2ou and the verbal root *h1ieh1-
‘to send’ (cf. pei̯e-zi / pei̯- ‘to send (away)’), and shows
that *h2ou > */ʔu/ has been lowered to /ʔo‑/ in front of ‑i‑.
Note that the
case of u̯ii̯e/a-zi ‘to scream’ is quite different. This
verb, which is consistently spelled ú-i-i̯a‑, is a secondarily thematicized
form of the verb u̯ai-i / u̯i- ‘to scream’. The spelling of
3sg.pres.act. u̯a-a-i ‘he screams’ shows that there was no initial glottal stop
(otherwise we would have expected a spelling **ú-u̯a-a-i), so I would phonologically
interpret the spelling ú-i-i̯a- as /uiá‑/, phonetically realized as [wijá‑].
Here we must distinguish
between different ablaut grades: *CuK > /CuK/, cf. *h1éœH >> *h1úœ > Hitt. ú-uk ‘I’ /ʔúg/, *iugom > i-ú-kán /iugan/ ‘yoke’ and *dolugh-
> ta-lu-ú-ga ‘long’; *CeuK >
/CūK/, cf. *méug-r > mu-ú-kar ‘rattle’ /mÜgr/, *iéug > i-ú-uk /iÜg/ ‘yoke’ and *h2téug-om
> ḫa-tu-ú-ga-an /HdÜgan/ ‘terrible’; but *CouK >
/CoK/, cf. *mougó-i̯e/o- > mu-u-ga-e- /mogae/ ‘to invoke’ /mogā́e-/.
The situation around C_l
is quite complicated, especially because the etymology of many words containg ‑Cul-
is unclear. A sequence *Ceul is clear in the words i-mi-ú-ul ‘horse feed’ < *im-ié-ul
and iš-ḫi-ú-ul ‘binding’ < *sh2-ié-ul,
which show that *Ceul > /Cul/. The words aš-šu-ú-ul ‘favour’, tak-šu-ú-ul ‘agreement’ and uštūl- / u̯aštūl- ‘sin’ (cf. u̯a-aš-du-ú-li) are usually regarded as
showing the accented suffix *‑úl‑, and would show that *Cul
yields /Cul/ as well. This would also fit the word ga-az-zar-nu-ú-ul, a certain cloth, although its
etymology is less clear. It has been claimed that pittūla- ‘loop, knot’ is a
thematization of the suffix *‑ul‑, but this word is consistently
spelled pit-tu-u-la‑. We could assume that we are dealing with a
lowering to /o/ here due to the back-vowel that follows ‑l‑, which also fits the words ka-lu-u-lu-pa- ‘finger’, mu-u-la-tar, an evil quality, NINDAmu-u-la-ti‑, a bread, and pár-šu-u-la-a-an-t- ‘crumbling’. It would imply that before a
front vowel, we would expect /u/. This is certainly the case for lu-ú-li- ‘pond’, lu-ú-li-i̯a-aš-ḫa- ‘marshland’, mi-i-lu-ú-li ‘skin(?)’ and mu-ú-li-li, a plant. Note that tu-u-li-i̯a- ‘gathering’ does not fit into
this picture: it shows /o/ inspite of the following front vowel. Since the
etymology of this word is not fully clear, it is difficult to judge this form.
Perhaps we are dealing with *tuHl-i-o‑, in which *CuHl
yields /Col/. Also šu-u-ul-le-e-et ‘he became arrogant’ shows /o/
while a front vowel follows. Perhaps we must conclude that here the geminate ‑ll-
< *‑lH- was the crucial factor and that it caused lowering as well.
This does not work for šu-ú-ul-lu-uš, acc.pl. of šulla- ‘hostage’, however, but here
we might be dealing with *seul°. The reflex of *Coul may be
/Caul/ if a-ú-li‑, a tube-shaped organ in
the neck, indeed reflects *h2ou-li- (see s.v.). Note that the
/o/ in GIŠḫu-u-la-li, GIŠḫu-u-lu-ga-an-ni- and GIŠšar‑ḫu-u-li- is determined by the preceding
On the basis of u̯a-aḫ-nu-ú-mi ‘I make turn’ /uəhnÜmi/ < *‑néu-mi, we
must conclude that *Ceum > Hitt. /Cūm/. It must be noted that ú-me-e-ni ‘we see’ and a‑ú-me-en ‘we saw’ are non-probative
since the ‑m- in these forms is recent: the forms go back to *Hu-u̯éni and *Hóu-u̯en. Inf.I pát-tu-u-ma-an-zi ‘to dig’ (KUB 55.45 ii 4) <
*bhdhh2-uén-ti shows that *CHuV
> Hitt. /ComV/, which means that e.g. tu-me-e-ni ‘we take’ < *dh3uéni
stands for /toméni/, tar-nu-me-ni ‘we let go’ < *trk-n-h1/3-uéni
stands for /trnoméni/, etc. This probably also goes for the appurtenance suffix
‑umen- / ‑umn‑, which is spelled with U in nom.sg. ḫi-iš-tu-u-ma-aš, dat.-loc.sg. ḫé-eš-tu-u-um-ni ‘person pertaining to the ḫištā’, URUKa-a-ta-pu‑u-me-né-eš ‘persons from Kātapa’, URULu-ú-i-u-ma-na-aš ‘person from Lūi̯a’, URUŠa-lam-pu-u-me-né-eš ‘persons from Šalampa’, URUZa-al-pu-u-ma-aš ‘person from Zalpa’, mŠu-up-pí-lu-li-u-ma ‘man from the pure well’ and ta-me-u-ma- ‘being from somewhere else’.
The etymology of nu-u-ma-an (negation of man) is
not fully clear. The words Éka-ru-ú-um-mi ‘sanctuary’, Étu-u-ma-an-ti-i̯a-at‑t-, a building, NINDAtu-u-ma-ti‑, a bread, and ḫal-ḫal-tu-u-ma-ri ‘corner’ are likely of foreign
origin. The U in ḫu-u-ma-an-t- is determined by the preceding
As we saw above, *Coun
yields OH /Caun/, which develops into /Caon/ from the MH period onwards. A
similar chronological distribution may underly the difference between OS pu-ú-nu-uš-š° and younger pu-u-nu-uš-š° ‘to ask’
(although the etymology of this verb is not clear yet). This would also explain
the spelling ki‑nu‑u‑n=a (KUB 14.17 ii 14 (NH)) /kinon/
< *ḱi-num. Also the NH attestation e-ep-pu-u-un ‘I grabbed’ (KBo 3.6 ii 7)
shows that in NH times the 1sg.pret.-act. ending ‑un in fact was /‑on/
< older /‑un/, cf. OH pa-a-ú-un /pā́un/ > NH pa-a-u-un /pā́on/ (§ 220.127.116.11e). It does not
apply to all positions, however: the fact that unu-zi ‘to decorate’ < *h3u-neu-
is spelled ú-nu- = /ʔunu-/ throughout Hittite shows that in
initial position this lowering did not take place. In the case of ku-ú-na-aš (gen.sg.) ‘dog’ (KBo 7.48, 12
(MS?)) we are in my view dealing with a restored /kunas/ that replaced expected
**/konas/ < *ḱunos on the basis of the full grade stem /kuan-/ (nom.sg. ku-u̯a-aš /kuā́s/ < *ḱuÖns, acc.sg. ku-u̯a-na-an /kuā́nan/ < *ḱuón-om).
The lowering of /u/ to /o/ seems to have taken place in front of
geminate ‑nn- as well, as is apparent in ūnna-i /
ūnni- ‘to send (here)’ that is
consistently spelled u‑un‑n° = /ʔoN°/ < *h2ou
+ *n(o)iH-. Since this word is attested in
MS and NS texts only, we do not know whether the lowering has taken place in OH
times as well. The plene spellings ku-u-un-na- ‘right’ = /koNa-/ are attested
in NS texts only and do not give information about the OH pronunciation of this
word. Although emended, 2pl.imp.act. šu-u-‹un-›ni-iš-tén ‘you must fill’ (KUB 13.3 ii 27 (OH/NS)) also
points to /soN°/ < *su-n-H‑. The hapax spelling mu-ú-un-na-a-it ‘he hid’ (KUB 17.5 i 4
(OH/NS)) may show a reflex of an OH
form that still shows /muNā́it/ (< *mu-n-H-?), instead of younger /moNā́it/ (although we do not have
any spelling **mu-u-un-n° of this verb).
The verb šūnii̯e/a-zi ‘to dip’ is consistently
spelled šu-ú-ni- throughout Hittite. Because its etymology is rather
unclear, we cannot determine its preform. Since *Coun > OH /Caun/
> NH /Caon/ and *Cun > NH /Con/, the only reasonable possibility
is *Ceun. This may go for a-ru-ú-ni ‘sea’ (dat.-loc.sg.) (KUB
36.41 i 13 (MS)) as well, which therefore perhaps should be reconstructed as *h3reuni.
The forms ku-u-un ‘this (one)’ (acc.sg.) =
/kón/, a-pu-u-un ‘that (one)’ (acc.sg.) = /ʔabón/ and u-ni ‘him (there)’ (acc.sg.) = /ʔóni/ are special cases. They
are spelled with U from the oldest texts onwards, and therefore cannot be
derived from older **/kún/, **/ʔabún/ and **/ʔúni/ through a MH lowering in
front of n. In my view,
these forms show that the reflex of *Cóm was /Cón/ in the oldest stages
of Hittite already.
Acc.pl. (MUŠEN)pár-tu-u-ni-uš (StBoT 25.3 iv 37 (OS), StBoT
25.4 iv 33 (OS), StBoT 25.7 iv 2 (OS)), a certain bird, shows a remarkable U in
front of ‑n- in OS texts. The similarity to (UZU)partāu̯ar / partaun- ‘wing, feather’ is striking,
but since the prehistory of this latter word is not fully known, the
interpretation of partūniuš remains unclear.
interpretation of ū(n)ḫ-zi ‘?’ is not entirely clear. It
is spelled u-un-ḫ°, which is attested in an OS text already: u-un-ḫa-an-zi (KUB 32.94 i 3 (OS)), as well as u-uḫ°. The /o/, which might be unexpected in
front of ‑n- in OH times, is in my view due to the following ‑ḫ- in the allophonic stem ūḫ-.
The /o/ in [a]r-ḫu-u-un ‘I arrived’ /ʔarHon/, da-aḫ-ḫu-u-un ‘I took’ /tā́Hon/, ḫal‑ze-eḫ-ḫu-u-un ‘I screamed’ /HltséHon/,
tar-na-aḫ-ḫu-u-un ‘I let go’ /trnáHon/ and iš-ḫu-u-na-u- ‘upper arm’ /ɨsHonau-/ is automatic due to
the preceding ḫ.
On the basis of u-up-zi /ʔóptsi/ ‘(the sun)
comes up’ < *h1eup-ti, we can conclude that *Ceup-
> Hitt. /Cop/. The adjective šuppi- / šuppai̯‑, which is spelled with
U in the name mŠu-u-up-pí-lu-li-u-ma (KUB 19.10 iv 2) can hardly
reflect *séup-i- or *sóup-i‑, since in these forms we
would have expected lenition to **/b/. This means that šu-u-up-pí-
/sopi-/ reflects *sup-i‑, which shows that *Cup yields
/Cop/ as well. The verb uppa-i / uppi- ‘to send (here)’, which
(see § 18.104.22.168), reflects *h2ou + *h1p-oi‑. Since this verb is a quite
recent univerbation of the preverb *h2ou, which in isolation
and the verb pai-i / pi‑, this example is
non-probative for the outcome of *Coup.
The words kinūpi, a container, which is spelled
ki-nu-ú-pí as well as ki-nu-u-pí, lu‑u-pa-an-ni- ‘royal cap’ (also luu̯anni‑), dam-pu-u-pí- ‘barbaric’ and ša-ru-ú-pa ‘?’ are all probably of a
foreign origin, and do not shed any light on this matter.
First we should keep in mind
that *Cour yields Hitt. /Caur/, e.g. a-ú-ri- ‘lookout’ < *Hou-ri‑. The sequence *Cur
seems to yield Hitt. /Cor/, as is found in e.g. an-tu-u-ri-i̯a- ‘interior’ /ʔntoria-/ < *h1n-dhur-i̯o-(?), ar-ša-ar-šu-u-r° ‘stream’ /ʔrsʔarsor-/ < *h1ers-ur‑, pár-šu-u-ur ‘cooked dish’ /p(a)rSor/ <
*bh(e)rs-ur, pu-u-ru-ut ‘mud’ /porut/ < *bhur-u-t(?), tu-u-ri-i̯a- ‘to harness’ /torie/a-/ < *dhuh1r-ie/o‑, u-ur-ki- ‘trace’ /ʔorgi-/ < *h1/3urg-i‑,
u̯a-ak-šu-u-ur, a vessel /uaksor/ < *ueKs-ur(?), and ú-i-šu-u-ri-i̯a- ‘to press together’
/uisorie/a-/ < *uis-ur-ie/o-(?). This implies, however, that the one attestation ši-iš-šu-ú-ra-aš ‘irrigation (gen.sg.)’ (KBo
6.26 iii 5 (OH/NS)) < *h1si-h1s-ur- is a mistake, cf. correct ši-iš-šu-u-r° (KUB 31.100 rev.?
17 (MH/MS)). With *Cour yielding /Caur/ and *Cur > /Cor/, the only way to explain lu-ú-ri- ‘disgrace’ /lūri-/ is by
reconstructing *leh1u-ri-. The forms within the paradigm
of this word that are spelled lu-u-ri- may then reflect *lh1u-ri- > luh1ri- > /lori-/. Note that *eur yielded /or/ in a-ni-u-ur ‘ritual’ /ʔniór/ < *h3n-ié-ur and ši-iš-ši-u-r° ‘irrigation’ /siSior/ < h1si-h1s-ié-ur (see above), but here the
may have been crucial.
First we should keep in mind
that *Cous > Hitt. /Caus/, e.g. a-uš-te-en ‘you must see’ < *Hou-sten. A sequence *Ceus yields Hitt. /Cūs/, as follows
from e.g. ku‑ú‑ša- ‘daughter-in-law, bride’ /kÜsa-/ < *œéus-o- and ka-ru-ú-uš-ši-i̯a- ‘to be silent’ /krūSie/a-/
< *greus-i̯e/o‑. On the basis of the spelling pa-an-ku-ú-š=a (KUB 35.136 iv 9 (NS)) for
nom.sg. of panku- ‘multitude’, which represents
/pngus/ < *bhnœh-u-s, we can conclude that *Cus in principle yields Hitt. /Cus/.
Our findings that
*Cous > /Caus/, *Ceus > /Cūs/ and *Cus > /Cus/,
seem to imply that in Hittite the spelling Cu-u-š° or °Cu-u-uš°
cannot exist. This is not entirely the case: pu-u-uš-zi ‘to be eclipsed’ /pós-/ may
reflect *ph2u-s‑, in which the *h2
may have caused lowering; a-aḫ-ru-u-uš-ḫi ‘incense vessel’ is likely of
a foreign origin; šu-u-uš ‘full (nom.sg.c.)’ /sós/ is a
contraction of /sóus/ < /sóʔus/ < *sóuH-u-s, see at C_ʔ.
ending ‑uš is a special case. It is
predominantly spelled °Cu-uš, but occasionally we find forms with plene
spelling. It is spelled with plene Ú in: al‑pu‑ú-uš (KUB 28.5 rev. 7 (NS)), a-ú-li-ú-uš (KBo 25.178 i 2 (OH/NS), KUB
24.3 ii 11 (MH/NS)), a-ú-li-ú-š=a (KUB 17.21 ii 18 (MH/MS)), NINDAḫar-ša-ú-uš (KBo 17.4 ii 17 (fr.) (OS),
KUB 7.8+ ii 11 (NS)), ḫe-e-mu-ú-uš (KBo 43.137, 7 (NS)), kap-pí-ú-uš (KBo 34.47 ii 8 (MH/MS)),
ku-i-ú-uš (HKM 23 obv. 9 (MH/MS), KBo
18.57a + 57 obv. 2, rev. 42 (MH/MS)), ma-ši-ú-u[š]? (KBo 9.109 rev. 4
(OH/NS)), pu-u-ri-ú-uš (KBo 19.163 i 23, iv 4
(OH/NS)), ta-lu-ga-ú-uš (KBo 17.22 iii 6 (OS)). It is
spelled with U in [ḫal‑]lu-ú-u̯a-u-uš (KBo 3.8 iii 4 (OH/NS)), ḫal-lu-u̯a-u-uš (KBo 26.135, 2 (OH/NS)), [i-da-a]‑la-mu-u-š=a (KBo 15.10 iii 54 (OH?/MS)), [i?-da?]‑a-la-mu-u-uš!
(KUB 8.67 iv 14 (MH/NS)), pár-ga-u-uš (KBo 3.8 iii 22 (OH/NS)). Although the MS attestation [i-da-a]‑la-mu-u-š=a
is awkward, it seems that we are dealing with a development of OH /‑us/ to NH /‑os/.
It is not fully clear to me whether we must assume every OH /us/ (also when
reflecting *Cus) to develop into NH /os/, or that here we are dealing
with a special development of *°Coms and *°Cms, yielding first OH
/°Cųs/, which subsequently develops into NH /°Cos/.
forms ku-u-uš ‘these (ones)’ (acc.pl.c.) and
a-pu-u-uš ‘those (ones)’ (acc.pl.c.)
must be treated separately as they show plene spelling with U throughout
Hittite, which indicates /kós/ and /ʔabós/. I regard these as the regular
reflexes of *Cóms (just as /Cón/ is the regular reflex of *Cóm,
It must be borne in mind that *Cout
> Hitt. /Caut/, e.g. a-ut-ta ‘you (sg.) saw’ < *Hóu-th2e. On the basis of ḫu-e-nu-ú-ut (KBo 3.28 ii 19) ‘he made run’
(or ḫu‑e‹‑eš›-nu-ú-ut ‘he rescued’ ?) = /HoinÜt/ < *‑néu-t, we must
conclude that *Ceut > Hitt. /Cūt/. This is confirmed by nom.sg. ku-ú-uz-za ‘wall’ /kÜts/ < *œhéu-t-s. For *Cut I have found
no conclusive evidence. The forms ḫu-u-da- ‘readiness’ /Hóda-/ and ḫu-u-da-a-ak ‘immediately’ /Hodā́k/ probably reflect *h2uh1-do-
in which the initial ḫ is the determining factor for the reflex /o/.
spelling ku-u-ut-ru-u̯a-a-iz-zi ‘he provides testimony’ < *kwtru-
may show that the labial element of the labiovelar /kw/ was
perceived more as /o/ than as /u/. Nevertheless, I will write the labiovelars
as /kw/ and /gw/ in phonemic transcription (so /kwtru-/
The only case is ku-ú-uz-za ‘wall’, for which see under C_t.
The stem of the adjective šūu- / šūu̯au̯- ‘full’ is consistently spelled
with U (nom.sg.c. šu-u-uš, acc.sg.c. šu-u-un, nom.-acc.sg.n. šu-u-ú,
šu-u, acc.pl.c. šu-u-u̯a-mu-uš) which points to /so-/. The remarkable
spelling of nom.-acc.sg.n. šu-u-ú in my view represents /sóu/, which
must reflect /sóʔu/ < *sé/óuh1/3-u. In younger times, this
form is spelled šu-u = /só/, the result of the contraction of šu-u-ú
= /sóu/. This probably goes for nom.sg.c. šu-u-uš = /sós/ < /sóus/ < /sóʔus/ < *sé/óuH-u-s and acc.sg.c. šu-u-un = /són/ < /sóun/ < /sóʔun/ < *sé/óuH-u-m as well, whereas acc.pl.c. šu-u-u̯a-mu-uš presents /sóamos/ < /sóʔamus/ < pre-Hitt. */sóʔauus/ < virtual *sé/óuh1/3‑eu‑ms.
The spellings with Ú in šu-ú-il, šu-ú-i-il ‘thread’ and
mu-ú-i-il ‘spade(?)’ seem to represent
/sÜil/ and /mÜil/ respectively. Since these
words are derived from the roots *seuh1- ‘to sow’ and *meuh1-
‘to move’ (although the latter is not fully certain), they originally must have
*/sÜʔil/ and */mÜʔil/. These then must reflect *sé/óuh1-el
and *mé/óuh1-el here.
Since we are dealing with two reflexes, /o/ and /u/, and two
possible reconstructions, *eu and *ou, it is not possible to
decide which one reflects which. For the sake of parallelism with C_k,
where *Ceuk > /Cūk/ and *Couk > /Cok/, I assume that šūu-
/sóu-/ reflects *sóuh1-u- and that šūil- /sÜil-/ and mūil- /mÜil-/ reflect *séuh1-el-
and *méuh1-el- respectively.
Overview of interconsonantal reflexes
On the basis of the treatments
above, we arrive at the following overview of the interconsonantal refelxes of
PIE *ou, *eu and *u. Note that when ‑ḫ- is the preceding consonant, the reflexes of
these are always /o/.
*ou *eu *u other
C_ḫ /o/ /o/ /o/
C_i /o/ -- --
C_k /o/ /ū/ /u/
C_l /au/ /ū/ /u/
C_m -- /ū/ --
C_n OH /au/ /ū/ /u/ /o/
< *CuHn ? /o/ < *Cóm
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
NH /ao/ /ū/ /o/ /o/121 /o/
C_p /o/ /o/ /o/
C_r /au/ /o/ /o/
C_s OH /au/ /ū/ /u/ /u/ < *°C(o)ms /o/ < *Cóms
NH /o/ /o/
C_t /au/ /ū/ --
C_ʔ /o/ /ū/ --
22.214.171.124g Word-finally after consonants
There are only a few relevant
forms here, namely nom.-acc.pl.n. a-aš-šu-u ‘goods’, nom.-acc.sg.n. šu-u ‘full’ (from older šu-u-ú,
see above) and the adverb ka-ru-ú ‘early, formerly’. Since these
forms are consistent in their spelling, they point to a phonological
difference between °Cu-u and °Cu-ú. We must keep in mind that a
third spelling of course is °Cu without a plene vowel (e.g.
nom.-acc.sg.n. a-aš-šu ‘good’). I therefore assume that °Cu-u
stands for /°Co/, °Cu-ú stands for /°Cū/ and °Cu stands for
/°Cu/. So, a-aš-šu = /ʔáSu/ < *Cu, a-aš-šu-u = /ʔáSo/ < *Cuh2,
šu-u = /só/ (a contraction of /sóu/) and ka-ru-ú = /krÜ/ < *Céu.
126.96.36.199h Word-finally after vowels
a_# : The sequence °a-u
only occurs in the words (GIŠ)za-a-u ‘?’, ši-i-iš-ḫa-u (KBo 3.2 obv. 26) ‘sweat’, GIŠma-ra-a-u (KBo 20.86, 9), a wooden
object used as seat, and ga-ra-a-u (KBo 40.176 obv. 11) ‘?’.
Although the last three words occur in this form only once, the word (GIŠ)za-a-u is
attested thus several times, and never spelled **za-a-ú.
The sequence °a-ú
occurs often. It is found in the nom.-acc.sg.n. of diphthong-stems (e.g. ḫar-na-a-ú, ḫar-ga-na-ú, GIŠta-na-a-ú), in 2sg.imp.act. a-ú ‘look!’ and in 3sg.imp.act. of
dāi/tii̯anzi‑, mēma‑/mēmi- and tarn(a)-class verbs and of dā-i
/ d- (ḫal-za-a-ú, ḫa-an-na-ú, ḫa-at-ra-a-ú, ḫu-u-u̯a-a-ú, [ḫu]‑et-ti-i̯a-an-na-ú, e-eš-ša-ú, iš-ḫu-u̯a-a-ú, iš-kal-la-ú, la-a-ú, ma-a-ú, me-e-ma-ú, me-em-ma-ú, na-a-ú, na‑an-na-ú, pa-a-ú, pé-e-da-ú, da-a-ú (of dā-i /
d- ‘to take’), da-a-ú (of dai‑i /
ti- ‘to place’), da-la-a-ú, tar-na-ú, du-u̯a-ar-na-a-ú, u-un-na-ú, up-pa-ú, ú-da-ú, ú-i-ta-ú, zi-in-na-a-ú). All these forms, too, are
consistent in their spelling; they never show **°a-u.
It is clear that
the spellings °a-u and °a-ú are used complementarily, and
therefore it is likely that they denote different sounds. I consequently
propose to interpret °a-u as /°ao/ and °a-ú as /°au/. Note that
the words that are spelled °a-u do not have a good IE etymology, which shows that the diphthong /ao/ in
word-final position is not inherited, but probably is of foreign origin.
e_# : Neither the spelling °e-u
nor °e-ú is attested in the Hittite texts.
i_# : The spelling °i-u
occurs only in Éḫa-le-en-ti-u ‘palace’, which is not
coincidental if we compare the fact that the spelling °i-u-i° only
occurs in this word as well. Apparently, it is pronounced /Halentio/. The
contrasting spelling °i-ú is found in nom.-acc.sg.n. mi-ú and mi-i-ú ‘soft’ <
*mih1-u, which must represent /mÏu/.
regarding U and Ú
From the treatment above it is
clear that the signs U and Ú, which are both traditionally interpreted as ‑u- only, in fact can be used to represent
three different phonemes, namely /u/, /ū/ and /o/. Note that I do not
distinguish a fourth phoneme, /ō/, for several reasons. First, the fact that
the spelling of /o/ automatically requires the use of a plene vowel, namely the
sign U, makes it graphically impossible to distinguish between a short /o/ and
a long /ō/. Secondly, it is likely that /o/ behaves symmetrically to /e/, which
does not show a phonemic distinction in length: when accented, /e/ is
phonetically long in open syllables and monosyllabic words, but this
lengthening is automatic and therefore subphonemic. I assume a similar
behaviour of /o/.
188.8.131.52 Epenthetic vowels
In Hittite we can distinguish
three epenthetic vowels that emerge in specific consonant clusters.
(1) In clusters
of the shape *CRC, i.e. containing syllabic resonants, an epenthetic
vowel spelled -a- can emerge that cannot be identical to /a/ and
phonetically may have been  or
[ə] (cf. § 1.3.7).
(2) In some
clusters involving -s- and stops or laryngeals an epenthetic vowel
spelled -e- or -i- emerges: *-TsK- > Hitt. -ze/ik(k)-;
*-PsK- > Hitt. -p(p)e/išk(k)‑; *‑KsC- > Hitt. ‑k(k)e/išC‑;
*‑Vh2s > Hitt. ‑VŸŸe/iš; *-VKs > Hitt. ‑Vk(k)e/iš;
*ClHsV > Hitt. Cale/iššV; *CmHsV > Hitt. Cane/iššV;
*CnHsV > Hitt. Cane/iššV; *CrHsC > Hitt. Care/išC;
*ClHsC > Hitt. Cale/išC; *CmHsC > Hitt. Came/išC;
*CnHsC > Hitt. Cašše/iC; *VrHsC > Hitt. Vre/išC;
*VlHsC > Hitt. Vlle/išC; *VmHsC > Hitt. Vmme/išC
(cf. § 184.108.40.206 and § 220.127.116.11). We also find this vowel in secondary initial
(in which T = any stop), e.g. u̯e/itēn- (obl.-stem of u̯ātar ‘water’) < *u̯d-én- << *ud-én- or u̯e/ikk- (weak stem of u̯ekk-zi ‘to wish’) < *¾§- << *uḱ- (see their respective lemmata). This
vowel cannot be identical with /i/ or /e/ because these are consistently
spelled -i- and -e- respectively. The vowel e/i therefore
may phonetically have been [ɨ] or [ɘ].
initial clusters of the shape *sT- (in which T = any stop and
/H/) a prothetic vowel spelled i- emerges: e.g. *stu- > Hitt. ištu-,
*sh2oi- > Hitt. išḫai-, etc. This i- cannot be identical
to /i/ because it does not partake in the NH lowering of OH /i/ to /e/ before
/s, n, m/ and clusters containing /H/ (cf. § 18.104.22.168d). It can neither be
identical to the epenthetic vowel e/i, because it is never spelled e-.
Phonetically we may think of e.g. [I].
three vowels occur in specific environments that are complementarily
distributed, we could in prinicple regard them all as allophones of a single
phonemical epenthetic vowel, which we could write as /ə/.
Note that there
potentially is one environment in which -a- = [ə] and -e/i- = [ɨ] have to be phonologically
distinguished, however, namely in /K_sC/. The cluster *KsC regularly
yields Hitt. [kɨsC], spelled -ke/išC- (e.g. h3rg-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. ḫar-ki‑iš‑ke/a-, ḫar-ke-eš-ke/a-, *téks-ti > ták-ki-iš-zi, ták-ke-eš-zi, etc.), whereas a cluster *KnsC
would yield pre-Hitt. *[kənsC], which with the regular loss of *n before
*s would further develop in Hitt. [kəsC], spelled -kašC-. If we
would interpret -a- = [ə] and -e/i- = [ɨ] as allophones of a single
phoneme /ə/, it would in this environment become impossible to explain on the
basis of synchronic reasoning only why the phonological form /kəsC/ is spelled
in one form as ‑ke/išC- and in the other as ‑kašC‑. It should be
noted, however, that thus far the development *KnsC > -kašC-
is only attested in the verb *gwhnsḱé/ó- > Hitt. [kwəsk:e/a-],
spelled ku-u̯a-aš-ke/a- ‘to kill (impf.)’, which has an initial
labiovelar. Because in the cluster *KsC labiovelars behave differently,
yielding not **-kue/išC- but -kušC- (cf. *h1gwhsḱé/ó- > Hitt. ak-ku-uš-ke/a-), there is thus far no minimal
pair attested where -a- = [ə] and -e/i- = [ɨ] have to be distinguished.
Nevertheless, I do not think it improbable that such a minimal pair may have
existed and one day will surface in the texts.
In this book I therefore have
rendered the vowel -a- = [ə] as /ə/ and the vowel ‑e/i- = [ɨ] as /ɨ/, without specifically
claiming that they must be regarded as separate phonemes: the reader should
bear in mind that on the basis of the Hittite material that is known so far it
is fully justified to regard these vowels as allophones of a single phoneme /ə/.
For sake of convenience, I have rendered prothetic i- = [I] as /ɨ/ as well.
phonological vowel chart can be given as follows:
/i/ /u/ /ū/
It should be noted, however,
that in the case a form would surface in which a cluster -kašC- = [kəsC]
< *KnsC is attested, which then forms a minimal pair with -ke/išC-
< *KsC, this chart should be adapted to:
/i/ /ɨ/ /u/ /ū/
of the Hittite phoneme inventory
treated all evidence available from the Hittite orthography, discussing
spelling conventions and complementary distributions, I conclude that the
Hittite phoneme inventory was as follows:
/p/ /t/ /k/ /kw/ (fortis)
/b/ /d/ /g/ /gw/ (lenis)
/H/ /Hw/ /S/ (fortis)
/h/ /hw/ /s/ (lenis)
/R/ /L/ /N/ /M/ (fortis)
/r/ /l/ /n/ /m/ (lenis)
/ī/ /i/ /u/
vowels /e/ /o/
In this chapter I will treat
the phonological developments that took place from Proto-Indo-European to
Hittite. First I will treat some basic phonological phenomena that are
important for Hittite historical phonology. Then I will systematically treat
the PIE phonemes and discuss their reflexes in Hittite in different
phonological surroundings. Note that I will only refer to the intermediate
Proto-Anatolian stage when necessary. Sometimes I will use more vague terms
like pre-Hittite (i.e. any stage between PIE and attested Hittite), post-PAnat.
(i.e. the stage between PAnat. and attested Hittite) or pre-PAnat. (i.e. the
stage between PIE and PAnat.).
Lenition is the phenomenon that
an original fortis consonant becomes lenis. We can distinguish two situations
in which lenition regularly takes place.
fortis consonants are lenited after an accented long vowel. Note that this includes the reflexes of
the monophthongizations of *ei, *oi, *eu and *ou as well as the reflex of *ó, which
yields Hitt. /ā́/
through PAnat. /Ö/. Examples: *h1éih2ou
> Hitt. /ʔéhu/,
e-ḫu ‘come!’; *méih2ur
> Hitt. /méhur/, me-e-ḫur ‘period, time’; *sókwo-
> Hitt. /sā́gwa‑/,
ša-a-ku-u̯a- ‘eye’; *h2ómsei
> Hitt. /Hā́si/,
ḫa-a-ši ‘she gives birth to’; *nóh2ei > Hitt. /nā́hi/, na-a-ḫi ‘he fears’.
It should be
noted that in many occasions the fortis consonant was restored, especially when
we are dealing with verbal endings (e.g. te-e-eḫ-ḫi /téHi/ ‘I take’ < *dhh1óih2ei
should regularly have been **/téhi/, **te-e-ḫi, etc.).
fortis consonants are lenited between two unaccented vowels. There are only a few examples from
Hittite because in many occasions the fortis consonant has been analogically
restored. Real examples include: *CÕC-h2eh2e > Hitt. /CÕCHaha/, °C-ḫa-ḫa (1sg.pres.midd. ending); *sépitos > OH /sépidas/, še‑ep-pí-da-aš, a kind of grain (gen.sg.)
>> OH /sépitas/, še-ep-pí-it-ta-aš, with restored /t/.
It should be
borne in mind that lenition only affects intervocalic consonants, i.e. not
consonants that are part of a cluster (compare e.g. the treatment of u̯ekk-zi).
Fortition is the phenomenon
that an original lenis consonant becomes fortis. Usually, this is due to
contact with an adjacent consonant. For instance, it seems to be a general rule
that lenis consonants are fortited before the cluster ‑sk-: ak-ku-uš‑ke/a-zi = /ʔkwské/á‑/, the ‑ške/a-imperfective
of eku-zi / aku- = /ʔegw- / ʔgw‑/ ‘to drink’; la-ak-ki-iš-ke/a- = /ləkɨské/á‑/, the ‑ške/a-imperfective
of lāk-i / lak- = /lāg- / ləg‑/ ‘to knock
down’; etc. Sometimes, fortition can
be interpreted as assimilation, e.g. *Vgh2V > Hitt. /VkV/.
For more examples, see below at the treatment of the separate phonemes.
The normal reflex of PIE *p
is Hitt. /p/: *pédom > Hitt. /pédan/, pé-e-da-an ‘place’; *prh1-ói-ei
> Hitt. /prʔā́i/, pa-ra-a-i ‘he blows’; *h1ép-ēr
> Hitt. /ʔéper/,
e‑ep-pé-er ‘they seized’; *sup-óri
> Hitt. /supári/, šu-up-pa-ri ‘he sleeps’; *h1épti > Hitt. /ʔéptsi/, e-ep-zi ‘he seizes’, etc.. Like all
other consonants, *p
could fell victim to lenition and then yields /b/: *stóp-ei > Hitt. /ɨstā́bi/, iš-ta-a-pí ‘he plugs up’, cf. *stpénti > /ɨstpántsi/, iš-tap-pa-an-zi ‘they plug up’.
Since already in PIE *b
was a rare phoneme, only one example can be found in Hittite, namely *ghróbh1-ei
> Hitt. /krā́bi/,
ka-ra-a-pí ‘he devours’, which shows that
PIE *b yields Hitt. /b/.
The normal reflex of *bh
is Hitt. /b/: *nébhes > Hitt. /nébis/, ne-e-pí-iš ‘heaven’; *dhébh-u
> Hitt. /tébu/, te-e-pu ‘little’, *h3érbh-to
> Hitt. /Hárbta/, ḫar-ap-ta ‘he changes alliance’. In
initial position, all labial stops have merged in /p/: *bhérh2/3-ti
> Hitt. /párHtsi/, pár-aḫ-zi, pár-ḫa-zi ‘he chases’. Fortition of *bh
to /p/ seems to have taken place in *h3rbh-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /Hrpɨské/á‑/, ḫar-ap-pí[‑iš-ke/a‑], impf. of ḫarp‑tta ‘to change alliance’ and in *kmbh-i-
> Hitt. /kapi‑/, kap-pí- ‘small’.
The normal reflex of *t
is Hitt. /t/: *terh2-u- > Hitt. /tarHw‑/, tar-ḫu‑, ta-ru-uḫ- ‘to conquer’; *tuéḱ-om > Hitt. /tuékan/, tu-ek-ka-an ‘body’; *h2ét-o
> Hitt. /Háta/, ḫa‑at-ta ‘he pierces’; *melit-
> Hitt. /milit‑/, mi-li-it-t° ‘honey’; *h1p-ént-om
> Hitt. /ʔpántan/,
ap-pa-an-ta-an ‘seizing’. In front of *i,
*t is assibilated to /ts/: *tíH-ge > Hitt. /tsÏg/, zi-i-ik ‘you’; *ti-n-h1-énti
> Hitt. /tsiNántsi/, zi-in-na-an-zi ‘they finish’; *h2t-ié/ó-
> Hitt. /Htsié/á‑/, ḫa-az-zi-e°, ḫa-az-zi-i̯a- ‘to pierce’; *h2entetio-
> Hitt. /Hantetsia-/, ḫa-an-te-ez-zi-i̯a- ‘first’; *h1és-ti
> OHitt. /ʔésts/,
e-eš-za >> Hitt. /ʔéstsi/, e-eš-zi; see § 22.214.171.124c for a more
detailed treatment. Assibilation also takes place in word-initial position in
front of *l: *tlh2-Öi > Hitt. /tslHā́i/, za-al-ḫa‑a‑i, a vessel, lit. ‘carrier’.
Lenition of *t may be found in some forms of the paradigm of šeppitt‑, a grain, e.g. gen.sg. še-ep-pí-da-aš
/sépidas/, if this reflects *sépitos. Also in *h2tug-
> Hitt. /Hdug‑/, ḫa-tu-uk‑, we seem to be dealing
with a lenition of *t in the initial cluster *h2tV.
The normal reflex of *d
is Hitt. /d/: *uódr > /uā́dr/, u̯a-a-tar ‘water’; *h2dént-
> Hitt. /Hdánt‑/, ḫa-da-an-t- ‘dried up’. In front of *i,
*d gets assibilated to /s/: *diËus > Hitt. /sÏus/, ši-i-ú-uš ‘god’; *diéuot- >
Hitt. /síuat‑/, ši-i-u̯a-at-t° ‘day’; see at § 126.96.36.199c
for a more detailed treatment. We do not know whether this development took
place word-internally as well: in all examples *d is in initial
position. Word-initially, in front of *l, *d gets assibilated to
/ts/: *dlugh-nu- > Hitt. /tslugnu‑/,
za-lu-uk-nu- ‘to postpone’, *dlugh-éh1sh1-
> Hitt. /tslugéS‑/, za-lu-keš- ‘to take long’. After the
assibilation has taken place, all word-initial dental stops have merged in /t/:
*dóru > Hitt. /tā́ru/, ta-a-ru ‘wood’; *dóh3-ei
> Hitt. /tā́i/, da-a-i ‘he takes’.
The normal reflex
of *dh is Hitt. /d/: *móldh-ei > Hitt.
/mā́ldi/, ma-a-al-di ‘he recites’. In initial
position, the dental consonants merge in /t/: *dhéh1-ti
> Hitt. /tétsi/, te-e-ez-zi ‘he speaks’; *dhéœhom > Hitt. /tégan/, te-e-kán ‘earth’; etc. If panku-
/ pangau̯- ‘entire’ reflects *dhbhnœh-(e)u- (see s.v.), it shows loss of
word-initial *dh before another stop. This may indicate that
its preservation in e.g. ták-na-a-aš /tgnā́s/ ‘earth (gen.sg.)’ < *dhœh-m-ós is analogical after the full
grade *dhéœh-m > te-e-kán. Fortition of *dh
to /t/ is found in *bhódhh2-ei >>
Hitt. /patái/, pád-da-i ‘he digs’, where it is due to
the following *h2.
The behaviour of
*dh in front of *i is important for our understanding
of PAnatolian: if in PAnatolian the PIE ‘voiced’ and ‘voiced aspirated’ series
indeed merged into a lenis series, we would a priori expect that *dh,
just as *d, gets assibilated to /s/ in front of *i.
Unfortunately, all examples where we seem to be dealing with *dhi
are non-probative: titta-i / titti- ‘to install’ goes back to
virtual *dhi‑dhh1-ói- / *dhi-dhh1-i-
but could very well be a recent formation that was created after the
assibilation ceased to operate; išpartii̯e/a-zi ‘to escape’ seems to reflect *sprdh‑ié/ó‑,
but is a NH formation; the 2sg.imp.act. ending ‑t (e.g. īt ‘go!’, arnut ‘deport!’, ašnut ‘take care!’, ḫuešnut ‘rescue!’, etc.) reflects *‑dhi,
but may have lost its word-final *‑i before the assibilation took place.
This means that there is no solid evidence to prove or disprove that *dh,
too, would have been assibilated before *i.
The normal reflex of *ḱ is Hitt. /k/: *ḱós > Hitt. /kā́s/, ka-a-aš ‘this (one)’, *ḱéito >> Hitt. /kíta/, ki-it-ta ‘he lies’; *h2rtḱo- > Hitt. /Hrtka‑/, ḫar-tág-ga- ‘bear’; *sóḱ-r > Hitt. /sā́kr/, ša-ak-kar ‘dung’. Lenition of *ḱ to /g/ may have occurred in za‑ma‑kur ‘beard’ if this reflects /tsmā́gur/ < *smóḱur (but perhaps this form is a defective
spelling for za-ma-‹an-›kur).
In the cluster *RḱC, *ḱ is regularly dropped, as can
be deduced from ḫar-zi /Hártsi/ ‘he holds’
< *h2ér⁽ḱ⁾ti and iš-tar-zi /ɨstártsi/ ‘it ails’
The normal reflex of *œ is Hitt. /g/: *h2rœ-i- > Hitt. /Hrgi‑/, ḫar-ki- ‘white’, *sléi⁽œ⁾-o > Hitt. /slÏga/, ša-li-i-ga ‘he touches’. In initial
position the palatovelars merge into /k‑/: *œnh3sénti > Hitt. /knɨSántsi/, ka-ni-eš-ša-an-zi ‘they recognize’; *œénu- > Hitt. /kénu‑/, ge-e-nu- ‘knee’. Fortition of *œ is found in *méœh2om > Hitt. /mékan/, me-e-ek-kán ‘great (acc.sg.c.)’, where it
is due to the following *h2.
The normal reflex
of *œh is Hitt. /g/: *dhéœhom > Hitt. /tégan/, te-e-kán ‘earth’; *stélœhti > Hitt. /ɨstálgtsi/, iš-tal-ak-zi ‘he flattens’. In initial
position the palatovelars merge into /k‑/: *œhésr > Hitt. /kéSr/, ke-eš-šar ‘hand’; *œhimro- > Hitt. /kiMra‑/, gi‑im-ra- ‘field’.
The normal reflex of *k
is Hitt. /k/: *kérsti > Hitt. /kárStsi/, kar-aš-zi ‘he cuts’; *skór-ei
> Hitt. /ɨskā́ri/, iš-ka-a-ri ‘he cuts’; *tuéko- >
Hitt. /tuéka‑/, tu-e-ek-ka- ‘body’; *tuk-ó-r(i)
> Hitt. /tukā́ri/,
du-ug-ga-a-ri ‘he is visible’; *mrk-ié/ó-
> Hitt. /mrkié/á‑/, mar-ki-i̯a- ‘to disapprove of’. Lenition
of *k to /g/ has possibly taken place in a-ki /ʔā́gi/ ‘he dies’ < *Hó⁽ḱ⁾-ei if this form reflects *k. In the cluster *RkC, *k
is probably regularly dropped, as may be deduced from ḫar-zi /Hártsi/ ‘he holds’
< *h2ér⁽ḱ⁾ti, if this form contained *k.
The normal reflex of *g
is Hitt. /g/: *h2tugo- > Hitt. /Hduga‑/, ḫa-tu-ga- ‘terrible’; *iugom >
Hitt. /iugan/, i-ú-kán ‘yoke’; *h3érg-ti
> Hitt. /Hárgtsi/, ḫar-ak-zi ‘he gets lost’.
The normal reflex of *gh
is Hitt. /g/: lógh-ei > Hitt. /lā́gi/, la-a-ki ‘he knocks down’; *lgh-ó-ri
> Hitt. /ləgā́ri/,
la-ga-a-ri ‘he is felled’. In initial
position all velars merge into /k‑/: *ghróbh1-ei
> Hitt. /krā́bi/,
ka-ra-a-pí ‘he devours’. Fortition of *gh
to /k/ is found in la-ak-ki-iš-ke/a- /ləkɨské/á‑/, impf. of lāk-i
/ lak- ‘to knock down’ < *lgh-sḱé/ó‑.
The normal reflex of *kw
is Hitt. /kw/: *kwis >
Hitt. /kwis/, ku-iš ‘who’; *kwér-ti
> Hitt. /kwértsi/, ku-e-er-zi ‘he cuts’; *kwt-ru-en-
> Hitt. /kwtruen‑/, ku-ut-ru-e-n° ‘witness’; *nekwe >
Hitt. /nekw/, ne-ek-ku ‘not?’; *prkw-i-
> Hitt. /prkwi‑/, par-ku-i- ‘clean’; *dekws-ié/ó-
> Hitt. /tekwSié/á‑/, te-ek-ku-uš-ši-i̯a- ‘to show’. If išpant- ‘night’ indeed reflects *kwspént-
(cf. s.v.), it would show loss of initial *kw before
obstruents. Lenition of *kw
to /gw/ is visible in ša-a-ku-u̯a- /sā́gwa‑/ ‘eye’ < *sókw‑o‑.
In the cluster *RkwC the buccal part of */kw/ is
regularly lost: *térkwti > */tárʔwtsi/ > Hitt. /tárutsi/,
tar-ú-zi ‘he dances’; *trkwsḱé/ó- > */trʔwské/ó‑/ > Hitt. /truské/á‑/, ta-ru-uš-ke/a- ‘to dance (impf.)’ (similarly
and *RkC, see above).
The normal reflex of *gw
is Hitt. /gw/: *negw-m-ent- > Hitt. /negwmant‑/,
ne-ku-ma-an-t- ‘naked’; *dhngw-i-
> Hitt. /tngwi‑/, da-an-ku-i- ‘dark’; *trgw-ent-
> Hitt. /trgwant‑/, tar-ku-u̯a-an-t- ‘looking angrily’. In initial
position the labiovelars merge into /kw‑/: *gwel-uon-
> Hitt. /kweluan‑/, ku-e-lu-u̯a-n° ‘washbasin’.
The normal reflex of *gwh
is Hitt. /gw/: *h1égwhti > Hitt. /ʔégwtsi/, e-ku-zi, e-uk-zi ‘he drinks’; *négwhti
> Hitt. /négwtsi/, ne-ku-zi ‘it becomes evening’; *h2lgwh-éh1sh1-r
> Hitt. /HlgwéSr/, ḫal-ku-e-eš-šar ‘supplies’. In initial
position, the labiovelars merge into /kw‑/: *gwhénti
> Hitt. /kwéntsi/, ku-en-zi ‘he kills’. Fortition of *gwh
to /kw/ is found in ak-ku-uš-ke/a- /ʔkwské/á‑/, impf. of eku-zi
/ aku- ‘to drink’ < *h1gwh‑sḱé/ó‑.
Word-initially before vowels, *s
is retained as such: *sV- > Hitt. /#sV‑/: *sésti > Hitt.
/séstsi/, še-eš-zi ‘he sleeps’; *sókh1-ei >
ša-a-ak-ki ‘he knows’; *sup-ó-ri
> Hitt. /supā́ri/,
šu-up-pa-ri ‘he sleeps’; *sih2-
> Hitt. /sī‑/, ši-i- ‘one’.
before consonants, the reflex depends on the nature of the consonant. Before
stops and *h2, *sC- > Hitt. /ɨsC‑/, spelled iš-C°: *sh2-ói-ei
> Hitt. /ɨsHā́i/, iš-ḫa-a-i ‘he binds’; *skórei
> Hitt. /ɨskā́ri/, iš-ka-a-ri ‘he cuts’; *sph1-ói-ei
> Hitt. /ɨspā́i/, iš-pa-a-i ‘he gets full’; *stélœhti > Hitt. /ɨstálgtsi/, iš-tal-ak-zi ‘he flattens’. Before all other consonants (i.e.
resonants, *h1, *h3 and *s), *sC-
remains unchanged: *sró > Hitt. /srā́/, ša-ra-a ‘upwards’; *sléi⁽œ⁾-o > Hitt. /slÏga/, ša‑li-i-ga ‘he touches’; *sménti >
Hitt. /sméntsi/, ša-me-en-zi ‘to pass by’; *snh2énti
> Hitt. /snHéntsi/, ša-an-ḫa-an-zi; *sh1-ói-ei
> Hitt. /sā́i/, ša-a-i
‘he impresses’; *sh3ngh-u-oi-
> Hitt. /snguai‑/, ša-an-ku-u̯a-i- ‘nail’; *ssénti >
Hitt. /ssántsi/, ša‑ša‑an-zi ‘they sleep’.
The outcome /ts‑/
as found in za-ma(-an)-kur /tsmá(n)gur/ ‘beard’ < *smóḱur and za-ak-kar, za-aš-ga-r°
/tskar/ ‘excrement’ < *s§Ör is not phonetic. See the lemmata zama(n)kur
and šakkar, zakkar / šakn- for a possible explanation.
In word-internal position, it
is best to treat the specific environments separately.
*VsV > Hitt. /VsV/: *nébhesos >
Hitt. /nébisas/, ne-e-pí-ša-aš ‘heaven (gen.sg.)’, *h1és-ēr
> Hitt. /ʔéser/,
e-še-er ‘they were’.
*VsPV (where P = any labial consonant): the only
example, *uos-bho- > Hitt. /uaSba‑/, u̯a-aš-pa‑, u̯a-aš-ša-pa- ‘clothing’, seems to show that
the outcome is /VSPV/, but here the geminate could easily have been secondarily
taken over from the verb u̯ešš-tta, u̯ašše/a-zi ‘to wear’.
*VsKV > Hitt. /VsKV/ (where K = any velar stop):
*h3rnusḱé/ó- > Hitt. /ʔrnuské/á‑/, ar-nu-uš-ke/a- ‘to transport (impf.)’; *Hu-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /ʔuské/á‑/, ú-uš-ke/a- ‘to see (impf.)’; *kwis-ḱi > Hitt. /kwiski/, ku-iš-ki ‘anyone’.
*VsTV > Hitt. /VsTV/ (where T = any dental stop):
*h1ésti > Hitt. /ʔéstsi/, e-eš-zi ‘he is’; *uósth2ei
> OH */uā́sti/
> NH /uásti/, u̯a-aš-ti ‘you buy’; *sostos >
Hitt. /sastas/, ša-aš-ta-aš ‘bed (gen.sg.)’.
*VssV > Hitt. /VssV/: *h1és-si >
e-eš-ši ‘you are’.
*Vsh1V > Hitt. /VSV/: *h2ltish1énti
> Hitt. /HltsiSántsi/, ḫal-zi-iš-ša-an-zi ‘they call (impf.)’; si-sh1-i-ént-
> Hitt. /siSiánt‑/, ši-iš-ši-i̯a-an-t- ‘sealed’.
*Vsh2V > Hitt. /VsHV/: *h1esh2enós
> Hitt. /ʔisHanā́s/, iš-ḫa-na-a-aš ‘blood (gen.sg.)’; *h1esh2ó-
> Hitt. /ʔisHā́‑/, iš-ḫa-a- ‘master’.
*Vsh3V: no examples.
*VsrV > Hitt. /VSrV/: *h1és-ri- > Hitt. /ʔéSri‑/,
e-eš-ri‑, e-eš-ša-ri- ‘shape,
image’. Similarly in *VsrC > Hitt. /VSrC/ (*œhésr-t > Hitt. /kéSrt/, ke-eš-šar-ta ‘with the hand’) and *Vsr#
> Hitt. /VSr#/ (*œhésr > Hitt. /kéSr/, ke-eš-šar ‘hand’).
*VslV > Hitt. /VslV/: *h1és-l+ >
Hitt. e-eš-li-it, e-eš-lu-ut ‘I must be’.
*VsmV > Hitt. /VsmV/: *h1ésmi >
e-eš-mi ‘I am’ (never spelled **e‑eš-ša-mi,
so not **/ʔéSmi/);
*sésmi > Hitt. /sésmi/, še-eš-mi ‘I sleep’ (and not **še-eš-ša-mi
= **/séSmi/). Similarly in *Vsm# > OH /Vsun#/: *sésm > OH
/sésun/, še-e-šu-un ‘I slept’.
*VsnV > Hitt. /VSnV/: e.g. *usnié/ó- > Hitt.
/uSnié/á‑/, uš-ni-i̯a‑, uš-ša-ni-i̯a- ‘to put up for sale’.
*VsiV > Hitt. /VSV/: *h2msósio- >
Hitt. /Hntsā́Sa‑/, ḫa-an-za-a-aš-ša- ‘descendant’; *iugosio-
> Hitt. /iugaSa‑/, i-ú-ga-aš-ša- ‘yearling’.
*VPsV > Hitt. /VPSV/ (where P = any labial stop):
*h1épsi > Hitt. /ʔépSi/, e-ep-ši ‘you seize’; *dhebhsu-
> Hitt. /tebSu‑/, te-ep-šu- ‘?’.
*VKsV > Hitt. /VKSV/ (where K = any velar stop):
*h1égwhsi > Hitt. /ʔégwsi/, e-uk-ši, e-ku-uš-ši ‘you drink’; *dekws-ie/o-
> Hitt. /tekwSie/a‑/, te-ek-ku-uš-ši-e°, te-ek-ku-uš-ši-i̯a- ‘to show, to present
(oneself)’; *no-nogwhs-ie/o- > Hitt. /nanagwSie/a‑/,
na-na-ku-uš-ši-i̯a- ‘to become dark’.
*VTsV > Hitt. /VTSV/ (where T = any dental stop):
*h1édsi > Hitt. /ʔédSi/, e-ez-ši, [e-ez-za-a]š-ši ‘you eat’.
*Vh1sV. Here we must take the accentuation into
account, namely *Õh1sV yields Hitt. /ÕsV/ whereas *Vh1sÕ > Hitt. /VSÕ/: *h1éh1so
> Hitt. /ʔésa/,
e-ša ‘he sits down’ vs. *h2eh1séh2-
> Hitt. /HaSā‑/, ḫa-a-aš-ša-a- ‘hearth’ (see s.v. ḫāššā- for an extensive treatment of
this word); *h2ih1/3s-éh2-
> Hitt. /HiSa‑/, ḫi-iš-ša- ‘carriage pole’.
*Vh2sV > Hitt. /VHsV/: *péh2s-o > Hitt.
/páHsa/, pa-aḫ-ša ‘he protects’; *pleh2so-
> Hitt. /plaHsa‑/, pa-la-aḫ-ša‑, a garment.
*Vh3sV. Here we must take the accentuation into
account as well, namely *Õh3sV yields Hitt. /ÕsV/ whereas *Vh3sÕ > Hitt. /VSÕ/: *póh3sei
> Hitt. /pā́si/,
pa-a-ši ‘he sips’ vs. *poh3s-uén-ti
> Hitt. /pāSuántsi/, pa-a-aš-šu-an-zi ‘to sip’ (with analogical ā);
*h2ih1/3s-éh2- > Hitt. /HiSa‑/, ḫi-iš-ša- ‘carriage pole’.
The reflexes of clusters
involving *Rs and *RHs need special attention, especially the
difference between clusters with and without laryngeals.
*VrsV > Hitt. /VRV/: *h1orso- >
*VlsV > Hitt. /VlsV/?: *polso- (or *plso-?)
> Hitt. /palsa‑/ (or /plsa‑/?), pal-ša- ‘road’.
*VmsV > Hitt. /VSV/: *h2ems-u- >
Hitt. /HaSu‑/, ḫa-aš-šu- ‘king’. When lenited, the
outcome is /VsV/, however: *h2ómsei > Hitt. /Hā́si/, ḫa-a-ši ‘he procreates, she gives
> Hitt. /VSV/?: de/ons-u- (or *de/oms-u‑) >
Hitt. /taSu‑/, da-aš-šu- ‘powerful’.
*VrHsV > Hitt. /VrsV/ if the reconstruction of *ḫārši (as inferred from
3sg.pret.act. ḫa-a-ar-aš-ta) ‘he tills (the soil)’ as *h2órh3-s-ei
*VlHsV: no examples.
*VmHsV > Hitt. /VnsV/: *h2ómh1-s-ei
> Hitt. /ʔā́nsi/,
a-a-an-ši ‘he wipes’.
*VnHsV > Hitt. /VntsV/: *œénh1-su- > Hitt. /kéntsu‑/,
*VrHsC > Hitt. /VrɨsC/: *uerh1-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /uerɨské/á‑/, ú-e-ri-iš-ke/a- ‘to call (impf.)’.
*VlHsC > Hitt. /VLɨsC/: *ḱélh1st > Hitt. /káLɨsta/, kal-li-iš-ta ‘he called’.
*VmHsC > Hitt. /VMɨsC/: *demh2sh2ó-
> Hitt. /taMɨsHā́‑/,
*VnHsC: no examples.
*CrsV > Hitt. /CrSV/: *krs-éntu > Hitt.
/krSántu/, kar-ša-an-du, kar-aš-ša-an-du ‘they
*ClsV > Hitt. /ClSV/: *kwlsénti >
Hitt. /kwlSántsi/, gul-ša-an-zi, gul-aš-ša-an-zi ‘they
*CmsV > Hitt. /CntsV/: *h2msósio-
> Hitt. /Hntsā́Sa‑/, ḫa-an-za-a-aš-ša- ‘descendant’.
*CnsV > Hitt. /CntsV/: *nsós >
Hitt. /ntsā́s/, an-za-a-aš ‘us’.
*CrHsV: no examples.
*ClHsV > Hitt. /ClɨSV/: *ḱlh1sénti > Hitt. /klɨSántsi/, ga-li-iš-ša-an-zi ‘they call’.
*CmHsV > Hitt. /CnɨSV/: *h2mh1s-énti
> Hitt. /HnɨSántsi/,
ḫa-ni-eš-ša-an-zi ‘they wipe’.
*CnHsV > Hitt. /CnɨSV/: *œnh3sénti > Hitt. /knɨSántsi/, ka-ni-eš-ša-an-zi ‘they recognize’.
*CrHsC > Hitt. /CrɨsC/: *pri-prh1-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /priprɨské/á‑/, pa-ri-ip-ri-iš-ke/a- ‘to blow (impf.)’, *h1rh1-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /ʔrɨské/á‑/, a-ri-iš-ke/a‑, a-re-eš-ke/a- ‘to consult an oracle
> Hitt. /ClɨsC/?:
*mlh2sk-u-(?) > Hitt. /mlɨsku‑/, ma-li-iš-ku- ‘weak, light’.
*CmHsC > Hitt. /CmɨsC/: *dmh2sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /tmɨské/á‑/, da-me-eš-ke/a- ‘to oppress (impf.)’.
*CnHsC > Hitt. /CəSɨC/: *h3nh3sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /HəSɨké/á‑/, ḫa-aš-ši-ke/a- ‘to sue (impf.)’.
containing *s and stops we often see the rise of the anaptyctic vowel /ɨ/ (sometimes only within the
Hittite period): *dhh1sḱé/ó- > OH /tské/á‑/, za-aš-ke/a- > OH /tsɨké/á‑/, zi-ik-ke/a- ‘to place (impf.)’; *h1d-sḱé/ó- > MH /ʔdské/á‑/, az-za-ke/a- (MH/MS) > MH/NH /ʔdsɨké/á‑/, az-zi-ke/a- (MH/MS) ‘to eat (impf.)’; *h2t-sḱé/ó- > OH /Htsɨké/á‑/, ḫa-az-zi-ik-ke/a- ‘to pierce, to prick (impf.)’; *h1p-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /ʔpɨské/á‑/, ap-pí-iš-ke/a- ‘to seize (impf.)’; *téks-ti
> Hitt. /tákɨstsi/, ták-ki-iš-zi ‘he devises’; *lgh-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /ləkɨské/á‑/, la-ak-ki-iš-ke/a- ‘to fell (impf.)’; *⁽œ⁾(h)sd‑uént- > Hitt. /kɨsduánt‑/, ki-iš-du-u̯a-an-t- ‘hungry’; *œhsréi > Hitt. /kɨSrí/, ki‑iš-ša-ri-i, ki-iš-ri ‘hand (dat.-loc.sg.)’; and
compare the reflexes of *CRHsC (above), *‑Vh2s and *‑Vks
The reflex of word-final *s
*-Vs > Hitt. /‑Vs/: *‑os > Hitt. /‑as/, ‑aš,
gen.sg. ending; *sés > Hitt. /sés/,
še-e-eš ‘sleep!’; *ḱós > Hitt. /kā́s/, ka-a-aš ‘this (one)’.
*-VKs > Hitt. /VKɨs/: *h1ó⁽ḱ⁾-s > Hitt. /ʔā́kɨs/, a-ak-ki-iš ‘he died’.
*-VPs > Hitt. /VPs/: *stóp-s > Hitt. /ɨstā́ps/, iš-tap-pa-aš ‘he plugged up’; *ghróbh1-s
> Hitt. /krā́bs/,
ga-ra-pa-aš ‘he devoured’.
*-VTs > Hitt. /‑VTs/: *ghéu-t-s >
ku-ú-uz-za ‘wall’, *diéuot-s >
Hitt. /síuats/, ši-i-u̯a-az ‘day’; *œhrh1ód-s > Hitt. /krʔā́ds/, ka-ra-a-az ‘entrails’.
*-Vh1s > Hitt. /‑Vs/: *dhéh1s
> Hitt. /tés/, te-e-eš ‘you spoke’.
*-Vh2s > OH /‑VHs/ > NH /VHɨs/: *‑éh2-s
> OH /‑aHs/, °Ca-aḫ-ḫa-aš (OH/NS) > NH /‑aHɨs/, °Ca-aḫ-ḫi-iš (NS), 3sg.pret.act. forms of
verbs in ‑aŸŸ-i.
*-Vh3s > Hitt. /Vs/: *dóh3-s
> Hitt. /tā́s/, da-a-aš ‘he took’.
*‑Vrs > Hitt. /‑Vrs/: h1órs > Hitt.
a-ar-aš ‘he arrived’; *kers
> Hitt. /kárs/, kar-aš ‘cut!’.
*-Vls: no examples.
*-Vms > Hitt. /‑Vs/: *‑oms > OH /‑us/, ‑(ú‑)uš, > NH /‑os/, ‑(u‑)uš,
acc.pl.c. of o‑stems.
*-Vns > Hitt. /‑Vs/: *‑uen-s > Hitt. /‑uas/, ‑u̯a-aš, gen.sg. of the verbal noun in
Since the PIE
laryngeals, *h1, *h2 and *h3,
show some mergers in the pre-PAnatolian period already, it is in my view best
to first treat their PAnatolian reflexes and then see what these yield in
The reflexes of word-initial
laryngeals in PAnatolian have been treated in detail in Kloekhorst 2006b.,
where the following overview has been given (note that the order of the
laryngeals is not numerical in order to make the mergers more transparent: R
= r, l, m, n, i, u; T = any
stop and s):
*h2e- > *Ha- *h2o-
> *HR- *h2T- >
The reflexes of the PAnatolian
sequences in Hittite are as follows:
> Hitt. /Ha‑/: *h2ent- > PAnat. */Hant‑/ > Hitt.
/Hant‑/, ḫa-an-t- ‘forehead’; *h2erœi- > PAnat. */Hargi‑/ > Hitt. /Hargi‑/,
ḫar-ki- ‘white’; *h2emsu-
> PAnat. */HaSu‑/ > Hitt. /HaSu‑/, ḫa-aš-šu- ‘king’.
> Hitt. /Ha‑/: *h3érōn+s > PAnat. */Hórōns/ >
ḫa-a-ra-aš ‘eagle’; *h3épr
> PAnat. */Hópr/ > Hitt. /Hā́pr/, ḫa-a-ap-pár ‘business’.
PAnat. */ʔe‑/ > Hitt. /ʔe‑/: *h1ésmi
> PAnat. */ʔésmi/
> Hitt. /ʔésmi/,
e-eš-mi ‘I am’; *h1érmn
> PAnat. */ʔérmn/
> Hitt. /ʔérmn/,
e-er-ma-an ‘illness’; *h1ésh2r
> PAnat. */ʔésHr/
> Hitt. /ʔésHr/,
PAnat. */ʔo‑/ > Hitt. /ʔa‑/: *h2ómh1sei
> PAnat. */ʔÖmsei/
> Hitt. /ʔā́nsi/,
a-an-ši ‘he wipes’; *h2óuth2ei
> PAnat. */ʔóutai/
> Hitt. /ʔáuti/,
a-ut-ti ‘you see’; *h2óro
> PAnat. */ʔÖro/
> Hitt. /ʔā́ra/,
a-a-ra ‘right, properly’; *h3órœhei > PAnat. */ʔÖrgei/ > Hitt. /ʔā́rgi/, a-ar-ki ‘he mounts’; *h1órei
> PAnat. */ʔÖrei/
> Hitt. /ʔā́ri/,
a-a-ri ‘he arrives’.
> Hitt. /HR‑/: *h2rtḱo- > PAnat. */Hrtḱo‑/ > Hitt. /Hrtka‑/, ḫar-ták‑ka- ‘bear’; *h2lt-i-
> PAnat. */Hlti‑/ > Hitt. /Hltsi‑/, ḫal-zi- ‘to call’; *h2méh1sh2o-
> PAnat. */HméʔsHo‑/ > Hitt. /HmésHa‑/, ḫa-me-eš-ḫa- ‘spring’; *h2nénti
> PAnat. */Hnánti/ > Hitt. /Hnántsi/, ḫa-na-an-zi ‘they draw water’; *h2imno-
> PAnat. */Himno‑/ > Hitt. /HiMa‑/, ḫi-im-ma- ‘imitation’; *h2uh1ént-
> PAnat. */Huʔánt‑/ > Hitt. /Hoánt‑/, ḫu-u̯a-an-t- ‘wind’.
PAnat. */ʔRC‑/ > Hitt. /ʔRC‑/: *h1mn-
> PAnat. */ʔmn‑/
> Hitt. /ʔM‑/,
am-m° ‘me’; *h1ndom
> PAnat. */ʔndom/
> Hitt. /ʔndan/,
an-da-an ‘inside’; *h1idhi
> PAnat. */ʔidi/
> Hitt. /ʔid/,
i-it ‘go!’; *h1rsénti
> PAnat. */ʔrsánti/
> Hitt. /ʔrSántsi/,
ar-ša-an-zi ‘they flow’; *h2u-s§é/ó- >> PAnat. */ʔusḱé/ó‑/ > Hitt. /ʔuské/á‑/, ú‑uš‑ke/a- ‘to see (impf.)’; *h3rtóri
> PAnat. */ʔrtóri/
> Hitt. /ʔrtári/,
ar-ta-ri ‘he stands’; *h3rœh-i- > PAnat. */ʔrgi‑/ > Hitt. /ʔrgi‑/, ar-ki- ‘testicle’; *h3niéti
> PAnat. */ʔniéti/
> Hitt. /ʔniétsi/,
a-ni-e-ez-zi ‘he works’.
PAnat. */ʔRV‑/ > Hitt. /RV‑/ (except
see below): *h1lenghti > PAnat. */ʔlengti/ > Hitt. /líktsi/,
li-ik-zi ‘he swears’; *h3néh3mn
> PAnat. */ʔlóʔmn/ > Hitt. /lā́mn/, la-a-ma-an ‘name’; *h1uorœ- > PAnat. */ʔuarg‑/ > Hitt. /uarg‑/ in u̯a‑u̯a-ar-ki-ma‑, object in which the
door-axle is fixed and turns; *h1uorso- > PAnat. */ʔuorso‑/ > Hitt. /uarsa‑/, u̯a-ar-ša- ‘fog, mist’.
PAnat. */ʔrV‑/ > Hitt. /ʔrV‑/: *h1rénti
> PAnat. */ʔránti/
> Hitt. /ʔrántsi/,
a-ra-an-zi ‘they arrive’; *h3rénto
> PAnat. */ʔránto/
> Hitt. /ʔránta/,
a-ra-an-ta ‘they stand’; *h3róiei
> PAnat. */ʔrÖiē/ > Hitt. /ʔrā́i/, a-ra-a-i ‘he rises’.
PAnat. */HT‑/ > Hitt. /HT‑/: *h2stËr > PAnat. */HstËr/ >
Hitt. /Hstér/, ḫa-aš-te-er- ‘star’; *h2dént- >
> Hitt. /Hdánt‑/, ḫa-da-an-t- ‘parched’; *h2tié/ó-
> PAnat. */Htié/ó‑/ > Hitt. /Htsié/á‑/, ḫa-az-zi-e°, ḫa-az-zi-i̯a- ‘to pierce, to prick’; *h2téugti
> PAnat. */HdÜgti/
> Hitt. /HdÜgtsi/,
ḫa-tu-uk-zi ‘he is terrible’.
> PAnat. /T‑/ > Hitt. /T‑/: *h1p-ói-ei > PAnat. */pÖiē/ > Hitt. /pā́i/, pa‑a-i ‘he gives’; *h1siéti
> PAnat. */siéti/ > Hitt. /siétsi/, ši-i-e-ez-zi ‘he shoots’; *h1t-i-sténi
> PAnat. */tisténi/ > Hitt. /tsisténi/, zi-iš-te-e-ni ‘you (pl.) cross over’.
The reflexes of word-internal
laryngeals are as follows (note that the three laryngeals always colour a
neighbouring *e; a PAnat. */H/ followed by /u/ gets phonemicized as /Hw/,
cf. Kloekhorst 2006b):
PAnat. early OH late OH
*Vh2V > */VHV/ > /VHV/ > /VHV/
*/VʔV/ > /VʔV/ > /VV/
*péh2ur > PAnat. */páHwr/ > Hitt. /páHwr/,
pa-aḫ-ḫur ‘fire’; *tieh2-oi-
> PAnat. */tiaHoi‑/ > Hitt. /tsaHai‑/, za-aḫ-ḫa-i- ‘battle’; *h1ndhuéh2ōs
> PAnat. */ʔnduáHōs/
> Hitt. /ʔnduáHas/,
an-tu-u̯a-aḫ-ḫa-aš ‘human being’; *h2uh2o-
> PAnat. */HuHo‑/ > Hitt. /HuHa‑/, ḫu-uḫ-ḫa- ‘grandfather’; *méih2ur
> PAnat. */mËhwr/
> Hitt. /méhwr/, me-e-ḫur ‘period, time’ (with
lenition); *nóh2ei > PAnat. */nÖhē/ > Hitt. /nā́hi/, na-a-ḫi ‘he fears’ (with lenition);
> PAnat. */HËʔeuēs/ >
early OH /Héʔaues/, ḫé-e-a-u-e-eš (OS) > late OH /Héaues/, ḫé-e-i̯a-u-e-š=a (OS) ‘rains (nom.pl.)’; *néih1/3-o > PAnat. */nËʔo/ > early OH /néʔa/, ne-e-a > younger Hitt. /néa/, ne-e-i̯a ‘he turns, leads’; *dóh3ei
> PAnat. */dÖʔē/ > early OH /tā́ʔi/, da-a-i > younger Hitt. /tā́i/, da‑a‑i ‘he takes’.
*Vh3T */VʔT/ > /ÅT/
= any stop, but not *s)
Note that PAnat. */ÕʔDV/ (in which D = any
lenis stop) yields Hitt. /ÕDV/, whereas */VʔDÕ/ yields Hitt. /VTÕ/, showing fortition of */D/ due to assimilation with /ʔ/.
> PAnat. */déʔt/ > Hitt. /tét/, te-e-et ‘he said’; *léh2pt(o)
> PAnat. */láʔpto/ > Hitt. /lā́pta/, la-a-ap-ta ‘it glowed’; *séh2goi-
> PAnat. */sáʔgai‑/ > Hitt. /sā́gai‑/, ša-a-ga-i- ‘sign, omen’; *uóh2gei
> pre-Hitt. */uÖʔgē/ > Hitt. /uā́gi/, u̯a-a-ki ‘he bites’; *uh2génti
> pre-Hitt. /uəʔgánti/ > Hitt. /uəkántsi/, u̯a-ak-kán-zi ‘they bite’; *dóh3th2e
> PAnat. */dÖʔta/ > Hitt. /tā́ta/, da-a-at-ta ‘you took’.
*Vh2s > */VHs/ > /VHs/
*Vh3s /ÅsC/ and /Ås#/
*péh2so > PAnat. */páHso/ > Hitt. /páHsa/, pa-aḫ-ša ‘he protects’; *h1ndhuh2sos
> PAnat. */ʔnduHsos/
> Hitt. /ʔnduHsas/,
an-tu-uḫ-ša-aš ‘human being (gen.sg.)’; *pleh2so-
> PAnat. */plaHso‑/ > Hitt. /plaHsa‑/, pa-la-aḫ-ša‑, a garment.
*dhéh1s > PAnat. */déʔs/ > Hitt. /tés/, te-e-eš ‘you said’; *dhéh1si
> PAnat. */déʔsi/ > Hitt. /tési/, te-ši ‘you say’; *h1éh1so
> PAnat. */ʔéʔso/ > Hitt. /ʔésa/, e-ša ‘he sits down’; *póh3sei
> PAnat. */pÖʔsē/ > Hitt. /pā́si/, pa-a-ši ‘he sips’; *poh3suénti
> PAnat. */poʔsuánti/ > Hitt. /pāSuántsi/, pa-a-aš-šu-an-zi ‘to sip’ (with analogical ‑ā‑);
*h2eh1seh2- > PAnat. */Haʔsáʔ‑/ > Hitt. /HaSā́‑/, ḫa-aš-ša-a- ‘hearth’.
PIE PAnat. Hitt.
*Vh2R > */VHR/
? > /VHR/ ?
*Vh2R: *meh2roi-(?) >
PAnat. */maHroi‑/ > Hitt. /maHrai‑/, ma-aḫ-ra-i‑, a body part of
animals; *tieh2roi- > PAnat. */tiaHroi‑/ > Hitt. /tsaHrai‑/,
za-aḫ-ra-i- ‘knocker(?)’; *móh2lo-(?)
> PAnat. */mÖHlo‑/
> Hitt. /mā́Hla‑/,
ma-a-aḫ-la- ‘branch of a grapevine’.
*h3néh3mn > PAnat. */ʔlóʔmn/ > Hitt. /lā́mn/, la-a-ma-an ‘name’; *tiéh1no-
> PAnat. */tiéʔno‑/ > Hitt. /tséna‑/, zé-e-na- ‘autumn’; *dhéh1mi
> PAnat. */déʔmi/ > Hitt. /témi/, te-e-mi ‘I say’; *tiéh1ri-
> PAnat. */tiéʔri‑/ > Hitt. /tséri‑/, ze‑e-ri- ‘cup’; *h3eh3nóh3-
> PAnat. */Hoʔnáʔ‑/ Hitt. /HaNá‑/, ḫa-an-na- ‘to sue’.
*Th3V */TʔV/ > /TV/
= any stop, but not *s)
Note that *VDh2V
(in which D = any lenis stop) yields Hitt. /VTV/, i.e. the *D has
undergone fortition to /T/ due to assimilation to the following *h2.
> PAnat. */‑tʔa/ > Hitt. /‑ta/, °t-ta, 2sg.pret.act. ending of the ḫi-conjugation; *dh3énti
> PAnat. */dʔánti/ > Hitt. /tántsi/, da-an-zi ‘they take’; *dhh1‑ói-ei
> PAnat. */tʔÖiē/ > Hitt. /tā́i/, da-a-i ‘he places’; *dhh1iénti
> PAnat. */dʔiánti/ > Hitt. /tiántsi/, ti-an-zi ‘they place’; *méœh2-i- > PAnat. */mékʔi‑/ > Hitt. /méki‑/, me-ek-ki- ‘much, many’; *bhodhh2ei
> PAnat. */batʔai/ > Hitt. /patai/, pád-da-i ‘he digs’; *ghróbh1-ei
> PAnat. */grÖbʔē/ > Hitt. /krā́bi/, ka-ra-a-pí ‘he devours’.
*sh2V > */sHV/ > /sHV/
*/sʔV/ > /SV/
*sh2V: *sh2óiei > PAnat.
> Hitt. /ɨsHā́i/, iš-ḫa-a-i ‘he binds’; *h1ésh2r
> PAnat. */ʔésHr/
> Hitt. /ʔésHr/,
e-eš-ḫar ‘blood’; *h1esh2ó-
> PAnat. */ʔesHó‑/
> Hitt. /ʔisHā́‑/, iš-ḫa-a- ‘master’.
*h2ltish1énti > PAnat. */Hltisʔánti/ > Hitt. /HltsiSántsi/,
ḫal-zi-iš-ša-an-zi ‘they call (impf.)’; si-sh1-i-ént-
> PAnat. */sisʔiánt‑/ > Hitt. /siSiánt‑/, ši-iš-ši-i̯a‑an‑t- ‘sealed’.
> Hitt. /lántsi/, la-an-zi ‘they loosen’; *lh1uti-
> Hitt. /lutsi‑/, lu‑uz-zi- ‘public duty’; *mh2óiei
> Hitt. /mā́i/, ma-a-i ‘he grows’.
*/CRHV/ > /CRHV/
*CRh1V > */CRʔV/ > /CRʔV/
PAnat. */CRHV/: *plh2-i-
> PAnat. */plHi‑/ > Hitt. /plHi‑/, pal-ḫi- ‘broad’; *bhrh2/3énti
> PAnat. */brHánti/ > Hitt. /prHántsi/, pár-(aḫ‑)ḫa-an-zi ‘they pursue’; *trh2uénti
> PAnat. */trHwánti/ > Hitt. /trHwántsi/,
tar-uḫ-ḫa-an-zi ‘they conquer’; *ulh3énti
> PAnat. */ulHánti/ > Hitt. /uəlHántsi/, u̯a-al-(aḫ‑)-ḫa-an-zi ‘they hit’.
PAnat. */CRʔV/: *pri-prh1-ói-ei >
PAnat. */priprʔáiē/ > Hitt. /priprʔā́i/, pa-ri-pa‑ra-a-i ‘he blows’; *œrh1ód- > PAnat. */grʔÖd‑/ > Hitt. /krʔā́d‑/, ka-ra-a-t° ‘entrails’; *h1rh1iéti
> PAnat. */ʔrʔiéti/ > Hitt. /ʔrʔiétsi/, a-ri-e-ez-zi ‘he consults an oracle’.
> Hitt. /ʔā́Ri/,
a-ar-ri ‘he washes’; *tinh1énti
> Hitt. /tsiNántsi/, zi-in-na-an-zi ‘they
finish’; *molh2ei > Hitt. /maLai/, ma-al-la-i ‘he mills’; *h2orh3ei
> Hitt. /HaRai/, ḫar-ra-i ‘he grinds’.
Interconsonantally, the three
laryngeals are all lost, but there are only a few good
examples: *plth2sh2o- > Hitt. /pltsHa‑/, pal-za-aḫ-ḫa‑, pal-za-aš-ḫa- ‘pedestal’; *dhh1sḱé/ó- > early OH /tské/á‑/, za-aš-ke/a- > late OH /tsɨké/á‑/, zi-ik-ke/a‑, ‘to place (impf.)’; *h1/3uenh1-ti
> Hitt. /uentsi/, ú-en-zi ‘he copulates’; *uorh1œent- > Hitt. /uargant‑/, u̯a-ar-kán-t- ‘fat’; *dhh1-sh2-oi-
> Hitt. /tsHai‑/, za-aš-ḫa-i- ‘dream’; *œénh1-su- > Hitt. /kéntsu‑/,
containing resonants and ‑s‑, there is often a different outcome
when a laryngeal is part of it, e.g. *VmsV > Hitt. /VSV/, but *VmHsV
> Hitt. /VnsV/. See §188.8.131.52, the treatment of *s, for details.
Word-finally, the laryngeals
are all lost. Note that in *Cuh2# the *u is lowered to
/o/ and in *Cih2# the *i to /e/.
Examples: *léh1 > Hitt. /lé/, le-e ‘not’ (prohib.); *lóh1
> Hitt. /lā́/, la-a ‘let go!’; *duoiom *h3esth1ih1
> Hitt. /tānHasti/, da-a-an-ḫa-aš-ti ‘double-bone’; *mih1éh1sh1
> Hitt. /miés/, mi-i-e-eš ‘be gentle!’; *sókh1
> Hitt. /sā́k/, ša-a-ak ‘know!’; *méœh2 > Hitt. /mék/, me-e-ek ‘many, numerous
(nom.-acc.sg.n.)’; *‑eh2 > Hitt. ‑a, nom.-acc.pl.n.
> Hitt. /sā́gwa/,
ša-a-ku-u̯a ‘eyes (nom.-acc.pl.)’;
> Hitt. /ʔáSo/,
a-aš-šu-u ‘goods (nom.-acc.pl.)’; *ḱih2 > Hitt. /ke/, ke-e ‘these (nom.-acc. pl.n.)’; *dóh3
> Hitt. /tā́/, da-a ‘take!’.
PIE *l in principle is
retained in Hittite as /l/, except in the environments *VlHV > Hitt.
/VLV/ and *VlHsC > Hitt. /VLɨsC/ where assimilation of the laryngeal to the preceding *l
results in a fortis /L/.
> Hitt. /lā́i/, la-a-i ‘he releases’; *lóghei
> Hitt. /lā́gi/,
la-a-ki ‘he makes fall down’; *léuk-to
> Hitt. /lÜkta/,
lu-uk-ta ‘it dawns’; *plh2-i-
> Hitt. /plHi‑/, pal-ḫi- ‘wide, broad’; *h2l(e/o)ugho-
> Hitt. /Hluga‑/ or /Hlūga‑/, ḫa-lu-ka- ‘message’; *séuh1-el
> Hitt. /sÜil/,
šu-ú-il ‘thread’; *molh2ei
> Hitt. /maLai/, ma-al-la-i ‘he mills’; *ḱélh1st(o) > Hitt. /káLɨsta/, kal-li-iš-ta ‘he called’.
From MH times onwards, we
occasionally find fortition of intervocalic /l/ to /L/, e.g. uš-tu-la-aš
(OS) > u̯a-aš-túl-la-aš (MH/MS) ‘sin (gen.sg.)’ ; u̯a-aš-du-ú-li (MH/MS) > u̯a-aš-túl-li (NS) ‘sin (dat.-loc.sg.)’; iš-ḫi-ú-la-aḫ-ḫ° (NS) > iš-ḫi-ul-la-aḫ-ḫ° (NH) ‘to bind by treaty’. Whether we are
dealing with a phonetically regular process is unclear, cf. Melchert 1994a:
PIE *r is in principle
retained in Hittite as /r/, except in *VrHV > /VRV/ and *VrsV
> Hitt. /VRV/ where assimilation of the laryngeal and of *s to the
preceding *r results in a fortis /R/.
> Hitt. /ʔrántsi/,
a-ra-an-zi ‘they arrive’; *sro
> Hitt. /srā/, ša‑ra-a ‘upwards’; *h2rœ-i- > Hitt. /Hrgi‑/, ḫar-ki- ‘white’, *sr-li- >
Hitt. /srli‑/, šar‑li- ‘superior’; *spórei
> Hitt. /ɨspā́ri/, iš-pa-a-ri ‘he spreads out’; *kérsti
> Hitt. /kárstsi/, kar-aš-zi ‘he cuts’; *h1ésri-
> Hitt. /ʔéSri‑/,
e-eš(-ša)-ri- ‘shape, image’; *supr-ié/ó-
> Hitt. /suprié/á‑/, šu-up-pa-ri-i̯a- ‘to sleep’; *h1ésh2r
> Hitt. /ʔésHr/,
e‑eš-ḫar ‘blood’; *œhésr > Hitt. /kéSr/, ke-eš-šar ‘hand’; *h1p-i-Ër > Hitt. /piér/, pí-i-e-er ‘they gave’; *§Ër > Hitt. /kér/, ke-er ‘heart’; etc.
> Hitt. /ʔā́Ri/,
a-ar-ri ‘he washes’; *h2orh3ei
> Hitt. /HaRai/, ḫar-ra-i ‘he grinds’; *h1orso-
> Hitt. /ʔaRa‑/,
is lost after unaccented *o or *ō. This is only attested in the
endings of the middle (for which see especially Yoshida 1990: 112f.) and in the
nom.-acc.pl. forms of neuters in ‑r/n-.
> Hitt. /ʔésa/,
e-ša ‘he sits down’ vs. *tuk-ór
+i > Hitt. /tukā́ri/, du-ug-ga-a-ri ‘is visible’; *uoh2⁽œ⁾éh1sh1-ōr > Hitt. /uagéSa/, u̯a-ag-ge-eš-ša, a kind of bread
(nom.-acc.pl.), and *h2t-ótōr > Hitt. /Htā́da/, ḫa-at-ta-a-da ‘wisdom (nom.-acc.pl.)’ vs. *udÖr > Hitt. /uɨdā́r/, ú-i-ta-a-ar ‘waters (nom.-acc.pl.)’.
From MH times onwards we
occasionally find fortition of intervocalic /r/ to /R/: an-tu-u-ri-i̯a‑, an-tu-ri-i̯a- vs. an-dur-ri-i̯a- (NS) ‘interior’; a-ku-ut-ta-rV‑,
a-ku-ut-tar‑a° vs. a-ku-ut-tar-ra- (NS)
‘drinker’; ḫa-a-ap-pa-ra-az (OS) vs. ḫa-ap-pár-ra-az (NS) ‘business (abl.)’; ḫa-a-ra-na-aš (OS) vs. ḫar-ra-n[a-aš] (NS) ‘eagle
(gen.sg.)’; iš-pa-ra-an-zi (OS) vs. iš-pár-ra-an-zi
(MS, NS) ‘they strew’; iš-pa-ru-uz-zi (OH/NS) vs. iš-pár-ru-uz-zi
(MH/MS) ‘rafter’; kat-te-ra- (MS), kat-te-e-ra- (MS)
vs. kat-te-er-ra- (NS) ‘lower, inferior’; ge-nu-uš-ša-ri-i̯a-an-t- vs. ge-nu-šar-ri-i̯a‑an-t- (NS) ‘kneeling’; me-re-er (OS) vs. me-er-ra-a-an-ta-ru (NS), me-er-ra‑an‑t- (NS) ‘to disappear’; na-aḫ-ša-ra-az (MH/MS) vs. na-aḫ-šar-ra-az (NS) ‘fear (nom.sg.)’; pa-ra-a-an-ta (OS) vs. pár-ra-an-ta
(MH/MS) ‘across (to)’; ta‑pa‑ri-i̯a- vs. ta-pár-ri-i̯a- (NH) ‘to rule’; etc.
If we compare
words like pé-e-ra-an, which remains unchanged
throughout Hittite, it is difficult to interpret this phenomenon as a
phonetically regular development. Perhaps we are dealing with mere variation in
spelling (note that most examples show a sign CVC: dur, tar,
šar; but this does not go for me-er-ra- and kat-te-er-ra‑).
Cf. Melchert (1994a: 165-6) for another interpretation.
In OH ú-ra-a-ni /urʔā́ni/, MH/NH u̯a-ra-a-ni /uərʔā́ni/ ‘burns’ < *urh1-ór+i
we encounter dissimilation of the second *r to Hitt. /n/.
before vowels, *m is retained as /m/: *mégh2 >
Hitt. /mék/, me-e-ek ‘many’ (nom.-acc.sg.n.); *mérti
> Hitt. /mértsi/, me-er-zi ‘he disappears’; *móldhei
> Hitt. /mā́ldi/,
ma-a-al-di ‘he recites’; etc.
before stops, we would expect that *mC- yields Hitt. /mC‑/, phonetically
realized as [əmC‑]. The only example is *mdhró- > Hitt.
‘blue’, where */m/ is assimilated to /n/ due to the following /d/, however. In
all other cases where we are dealing with *mT- (in which T = any
stop), this sequence is the zero grade of a root *meT‑, on the
basis of which the regular outcome /mT‑/ = [əmT‑] has been altered to /məT‑/: *mgh2éh1sh1-
> Hitt. /məkéS‑/, ma-ak-ke-e-eš-š° ‘to become abundant’
(belonging to mekk(i)- ‘many, much’). Note that if mai-i
/ mi- ‘to grow’ indeed reflects *mh2-oi-
/ *mh2-i‑, it would show that *mh2V
> Hitt. /mV‑/.
before resonant, *mR- yields Hitt. /mR‑/: *mlit- > Hitt. /mlit‑/,
ma-li-it-t° ‘honey’; *mnieh2-
> Hitt. /mniaH‑/, ma-ni-i̯a-aḫ-ḫ° ‘to distribute’; *mréntu
> Hitt. /mrántu/, ma-ra-an-du ‘they must disappear’; *mr-nu-
> Hitt. /mrnu‑/, mar-nu- ‘to cause to disappear’.
For the word-internal position,
it is best to treat the different phonetic surroundings separately. I have
given here only the reflexes of clusters where *m is the first member.
*CmV > Hitt. /CmV/: *h2méh1sh2o-
> Hitt. /HmésHa‑/, ḫa-me-eš-ḫa- ‘spring’; *smén-ti >
Hitt. /sméntsi/, ša-me-en-zi ‘he passes by’; *tménkti > Hitt.
/tméktsi/, ta-me-ek-zi ‘he attaches’.
*CmT (in which T = any stop) > Hitt. /CaT/ with
fortition of the stop: *kmt-o > Hitt. /kata/, kat-ta ‘downwards’; *kmb(h)-i-
> Hitt. /kapi‑/, kap-pí- ‘small, little’.
*CmsV > Hitt. /CntsV/: *h2msósio-
> Hitt. /Hntsā́Sa‑/, ḫa-an-za-a-aš-ša- ‘offspring’.
*Cms# > OH /°Cus/, °Cu(-ú)-us > NH /°Cos/, °Cu(-u)-uš
*CmHsV > Hitt. /CnɨSV/: *h2mh1sénti
> Hitt. /HnɨSántsi/,
ḫa-ne-iš-ša-an-zi ‘they wipe’; *tmh2sénti
> Hitt. /tmɨSántsi/,
da-me-iš-ša-an-zi ‘they press’ (with restored
/m/ on the basis of strong stem /tmāS‑/).
*CmnC > Hitt. /CmɨnC/: *h2mnœhénti > Hitt. /Hmɨngántsi/, ḫa-me-in-kán-zi ‘they betroth’; *tmnkénti
> Hitt. /tmɨnkántsi/,
ta-me-en-kán-zi ‘they attach’.
*CmnV > Hitt. /CMnV/: smnoi̯é- > Hitt. /sMnāé‑/, ša-am(-ma)-na-a-e° ‘to create’; *smnénti > Hitt.
/sMnántsi/, ša-am-na-an-zi ‘they pass by’; *h1rmnié/ó- > Hitt.
ar-ma-ni-i̯a- ‘to become ill’; *h3nh3mnié/ó-
> Hitt. /ləMnié/á‑/, lam(-ma)-ni-i̯a- ‘to name’.
*CmiV > Hitt. /CmiV/, *septmió- > Hitt.
/siptmiá‑/, ši-ip-ta-mi-i̯a- ‘seven-drink’.
*VmV > OH /VmV/: *imié/ó- > OH /imié/á‑/, i-mi-e°,
i-mi-i̯a- (see § 184.108.40.206c below for
the conditioned fortition of OH /VmV/ > NH /VMV/).
*VmT (in which T = any stop) > Hitt. /VmT/: *tomp-u-
> Hitt. /tampu‑/, dam-pu ‘blunt’.
*VmsV > Hitt. /VSV/: *h2éms-u- >
Hitt. /HáSu‑/, ḫa-aš-šu- ‘king’. That this assimilation
took place very early is deducible from the fact that the outcome /S/ is
affected by the lenition rules: *h2óms-ei > */HÖSē/ > Hitt. /Hā́si/, ḫa-a-ši ‘she gives birth’.
*Vms# > Hitt. /Vs#/: *°Coms > OH /°Cus/, °Cu(-ú)-uš
> NH /°Cos/, °Cu(-u)-uš (acc.pl.c. ending).
*VmHsV > Hitt. /VnsV/: *h2ómh1sei
> Hitt. /ʔā́nsi/,
a-a-an-ši ‘he wipes’.
*VmHsC > Hitt. /VMɨsC/: *demh2sh2ó-
> Hitt. /taMɨsHā́‑/,
*VmHs# > Hitt. /Vnɨs/: *h2ómh1s
> Hitt. /Hā́nɨs/, ḫa-a-ni-iš, ḫa-a-ni-eš ‘wipe!’ (with restored ḫ‑).
*VmnV > Hitt. /VMV/, unless when part of a paradigm: *h2imno- > Hitt.
/HiMa‑/, ḫi-im-ma- ‘imitation’; *œhimnént- > Hitt. /kiMánt‑/, gi-im-ma-an-t° ‘winter’.
*Vmn# > Hitt. /Vmn/: *h1érmn >
e-er-ma-an ‘illness’; *h3néh3mn
> Hitt. /lā́mn/,
*VmrV > Hitt. /VMrV/: *œhimro- > Hitt. /kiMra‑/, gi-im(-ma)-ra- ‘field’.
*Vmr# > Hitt. /VMr/: *nómr > NH /láMr/, lam-mar ‘moment’.
Word-finally after vowel: *Vm#
> Hitt. /Vn#/: *pérom > Hitt. /péran/, pé-e-ra-an; *h2érœ-i-m > Hitt. /Hárgin/, ḫar-ki-in ‘white’ (acc.sg.c.); *ḱóm > Hitt. /kón/, ku-u-un ‘this (one)’ (acc.sg.c.); etc.
after consonant: *°Cm > OH /°Cun/ > NH /°Con/: *h1épm > OH /ʔépun/, e-ep-pu-un > NH /ʔépon/, e-ep-pu-u-un ‘I
From MH times
onwards, we encounter fortition of intervocalic /m/ to /M/: a-mi-i̯a‑an-t- (MS) > am-mi-i̯a-an-t- (NS) ‘small’; i-mi-i̯a- (OH/MS) > im-mi-i̯a- (MH/MS, NS) ‘to mingle’; i-mi-ú-l=a-aš (MS) > im-mi-ú-ul
(NS) ‘grain mix’; kar-di-mi-i̯a- (OS) > kar-tim-mi-i̯a- (MS, NS) ‘to be angry’; la-a-ma-an (MS) > la‑a‑am-ma‑a(n)=m-mi-it
(NS) ‘name’; mu-mi-i̯a- (MS) > mu-um-mi-i̯a- (NS) ‘to fall’; ‑nu-me-e-ni (OS,
MS) > ‑nu-um-me-ni (NS) 1pl.pres.act. ending of causatives in ‑nu-;
pé-e-tu-me-e-ni (OS) > pé-e-du-um-me-e-ni (NS), pé-e-tum-me-e-ni
(NS) ‘we transport’; šu-me-eš (OS) > šu-um-me-eš
(NH) ‘you’; šu-ma-an-za-n° (OS, MS) > šum-ma-an-za-n° (NS)
Because in none
of these words the gemination has been carried out consistently, it is not
fully clear whether we are dealing with a phonetic development or not. Prof.
Melchert informs me that due to the loss of mimation in Akkadian (i.e. signs of
the shape CVm could now also be used in words where no -m- is
present), these cases of gemination of -m- can be accounted for as a
graphical phenomenon. Although this indeed would work for e.g. kar-tim-mi-i̯a-, pé-e-tum-me-e-ni and šum-ma-an-za-n°,
I do not see how this practice can explain im-mi-ú-ul, mu-um-mi-i̯a- or šu-um-me-eš, where an extra
sign with the value Vm is used. In view of the virtual absence of
gemination in cases like mēma/i- ‘to speak’ (although some
occasional spellings with me-em-m° do occur in NS texts), we could
perhaps assume that at the end of the NH period the beginning of a phonetic
development can be observed through which an intervocalic -m- following
an unaccented vowel is being geminated (compare also the occasional NH
fortition of intervocalic -n- in § 220.127.116.11e).
Word-initially before vowels, *n
is retained as /n/: *nébhes > Hitt. /nébis/, ne-e-pí-iš ‘heaven’; néuo- >
Hitt. /néua‑/, ne-e-u̯a- ‘new’; *nóh2ei
> Hitt. /nā́hi/,
na-a-ḫi ‘he fears’; *nukwe
> Hitt. /nukw/, nu-uk-ku ‘and now’; etc.
before consonants, *nC- regularly yields Hitt. /nC‑/, phonetically
realized as [ənC‑]: *nsós > Hitt. /ntsā́s/, an-za-a-aš ‘us’. If amii̯ant- ‘small’ really reflects *n-
+ mii̯ant‑, it would show /əmiánt‑/ < */ənmiánt‑/ (cf. e.g. ku-e-mi
< */kwénmi/ for loss of ‑n- in *VnmV).
In cases where *nC- is the zero grade of a root *neC‑, the regular outcome /nC‑/ =
[ənC‑] has been secondarily altered to /nəC‑/ in analogy to the full grade: *nh2ént-
> Hitt. /nəHánt‑/, na-aḫ-ḫa-an-t° ‘fearing’ (on the basis of *nóh2ei
For word-internal position, it
is best to treat the different environments separately.
*CnV > Hitt. /CnV/ : *h2nénti
> Hitt. /Hnántsi/, ḫa-na-an-zi ‘they draw water’; smnoi̯é- > Hitt. /sMnāé‑/, ša-am(-ma)-na-a-e° ‘to create’; *h2rœnou- > Hitt. /Hrgnau‑/, ḫar-ga-na-u- ‘palm, sole’; etc.
*CnT (in which T = any stop) > Hitt. /CnT/: *h1ndo
> Hitt. /ʔnda/,
an-da ‘inwards’; *dhbhnœh-u- > Hitt. /pngu‑/, pa-an-ku- ‘entire, complete’ (if not reflecting
*CnsV > Hitt. /CntsV/: *nsós >
Hitt. /ntsā́s/, an-za-a-aš ‘us’.
*CnHsV > Hitt. /CnɨSV/: *œnh3sénti > Hitt. /knɨSántsi/, ka-ni-eš-ša-an-zi ‘they recognize’.
*CnHsC > Hitt. /CəSɨC/: *h3nh3sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /HəSɨké/á‑/, ḫa-aš-ši-ke/a- ‘to sue (impf.)’.
*CnmV: this sequence may be attested in ša-aḫ-ḫa‑[m]e-et (KBo 6.2 + KBo 19.1
ii 24) // ša-aḫ-ḫa-mi-it (KBo 6.3 ii 38) ‘my šaŸŸan’ < *séh2n=met.
If correct, these forms must be phonologically interpreted as /saHəmet/
parallel to a-mi-i̯a‑an-t- = /əmiant‑/ < */ənmiant‑/
*CnnC > Hitt. /CnɨnC/: *h3rnngénti
> Hitt. /Hrnɨngántsi/, ḫar-ni-in-kán-zi ‘they make disappear’.
*CniV > Hitt. /CniV/: *h3nié/ó- >
a-ni-e°, a-ni-i̯a- ‘to work’.
*ClnC > Hitt. /ClɨnC/?: *h1lnœhénti > Hitt. /lɨngántsi/, li-in-kán-zi ‘they swear’ (if the preform
*CmnC > Hitt. /CmɨnC/: *h2mnœhénti > Hitt. /Hmɨngántsi/, ḫa-me-in-kán-zi ‘they betroth’; *tmnkénti
> Hitt. /tmɨnkántsi/,
ta-me-en-kán-zi ‘they attach’.
*VnV > Hitt. /VnV/: *h3ér-on-os >
ḫa-a-ra-na-aš ‘eagle (gen.sg)’; *h2ónei
> Hitt. /Hā́ni/,
ḫa-a-ni ‘he draws water’; *œénu- > Hitt. /kénu‑/, ge‑e‑nu- ‘knee’; *h1esh2enós
> Hitt. /ʔisHanā́s/, iš-ḫa-na-a-aš ‘blood (gen.sg.)’.
*VnP (in which P = any labial stop): no examples.
*VnT (in which T = any dental stop) > Hitt.
/VnT/: *h1sénti > Hitt. /ʔsántsi/, a-ša-an-zi ‘they are’; *gwhént(o)
> Hitt. /kwénta/, ku-e-en-ta ‘he killed’; *spóndei
> Hitt. /ɨspā́ndi/, iš-pa-a-an-ti ‘he libates’; *spóndh2ei
> Hitt. /ɨspā́ndHe/, iš-pa-an-taḫ-ḫé ‘I libate’.
*VnKV (in which K = any velar stop) > Hitt.
/VnKV/: *ḱónkei > Hitt. /kā́nki/, ka‑a‑an-ki ‘he hangs’; *h1lénœh-ēr > Hitt. /línker/, li-in-ke-er ‘they swore’
*VnKC (in which K = any velar): If the preceding
vowel is /ā/, then */ānKC/ > Hitt. /ānKC/: *ḱónkh2ei > Hitt. /kā́nkHe/, ga-a-an-ga-aḫ-ḫé ‘I hang’. If the preceding
vowel is not /ā/, then */VnKC/ > Hitt. /VKC/: *h1lén⁽œ⁾hti > Hitt. /lígtsi/, li-ik-zi ‘he swears’; *srnénkmi
> Hitt. /srníkmi/, šar-ni-ik-mi ‘I compensate’.
*VnHV > Hitt. /VNV/: *tinh1énti >
Hitt. /tsiNántsi/, zi-in-na-an-zi ‘they finish’; *munh2énti
> Hitt. /muNántsi/, mu-un-na-an-zi ‘they hide’; sunh1/3énti
> Hitt. /suNántsi/, šu-un-na-an-zi ‘they fill’.
*Vns > Hitt. /VS/: de/ons-u- (or *de/oms-u‑)
> Hitt. /taSu‑/, da-aš-šu- ‘powerful’; *ḱuéns-ti > Hitt. /kuáStsi/,
ku-u̯a-aš-zi ‘he kisses’; *h3érōns
> Hitt. /Hā́ras/,
ḫa‑a-ra-aš ‘eagle’; *ḱuÖns > Hitt. /kuā́s/, ku-u̯a-aš ‘dog’; *kwtruËns > Hitt. /kwtruás/, ku-ut-ru-u̯a-aš ‘witness’; *‑uén-s >
Hitt. /‑uás/, ‑u̯a-aš, gen.sg. of the verbal noun in
*VnHsV > Hitt. /VntsV/: *œénh1-su- > Hitt. /kéntsu‑/,
*VnnV > Hitt. /VNV/: *ḱun-no- > Hitt. /koNa‑/, ku-u-un-na- ‘right, favourable’.
*VnmV > Hitt. /VMV/: see Kimball (1999: 324) for
examples like ma-a-am-ma-an < *mān-man, ad-da-am-ma-an < *attan=man ‘my
father’, tu-ek-kam-ma-an < *tuekkan=man ‘my
*VnuV > Hitt. /VuV/: *gwhén-uen >
Hitt. /kwéuen/, ku-e-u-en ‘we killed’; mān + =u̯a > Hitt. ma-a-u̯a, ma-a-u-u̯a.
*VPnV (in which P = any labial stop) > Hitt.
/VPnV/: *h3epnos > Hitt. /Hapnas/, ḫa‑ap-pa-na-aš ‘baking kiln (gen.sg.)’; *dhebh-n(e)u-
> Hitt. /tebnu‑/, te-ep-nu- ‘to diminish’.
*VtnV > Hitt. /VNV/: ‑ótno > Hitt. /‑ā́Na/, °Ca-a-an-na (inf.II ending); *‑otnos
> Hitt. /‑ā́Nas/,
°Ca-a-an-na-aš (gen.sg. of abstracts in ‑ātar
*Vd(h)nV > Hitt. /VdnV/: *h2uidnos
> Hitt. /Huidnas/, ḫu-it-na-aš ‘game, wild animals’ (gen.sg.); *(h3)ud-nei-
> Hitt. /(ʔ)udné‑/,
*VKnV (in which K = any velar stop) > Hitt.
/VKnV/: *dlughnéuti > Hitt. /tslugnÜts/, za-lu-uk-nu-za ‘he delays’.
*ÕHnV > Hitt. /ÐnV/: *tiéh1no-
> Hitt. /tséna‑/, ze-e-na- ‘autumn’.
*VHnÕ > Hitt. /VNÕ/: *h3eh3nóh3- >
Hitt. /HaNá‑/, ḫa-an-na- ‘to sue’.
*VsnV > Hitt. /VSnV/: e.g. *usni̯é/ó- > Hitt. /uSnié/á‑/, uš-ni-i̯a‑, uš-ša-ni-i̯a- ‘to put up for sale’.
*VmnV > Hitt. /VMV/: *h2imno- >
Hitt. /HiMa‑/, ḫi-im-ma- ‘imitation’.
*VrnV > Hitt. /VrnV/: *h3ernou- >
Hitt. /Harnau‑/, ḫar-na-u- ‘birthing chair’.
*VlnV > Hitt. /VLV/: *uélnu- > Hitt. /uéLu‑/, ú-e-el-lu- ‘pasure’ (if this etymology is
Word-finally, *n is
retained as such, so *‑Vn > Hitt. /‑Vn/ and *‑Cn > Hitt. /‑Cn/.
> Hitt. /Hā́n/, ḫa-a-an ‘draw water!’; *h1érmn
> Hitt. /ʔérmn/,
e‑er-ma-an ‘illness’; *h3néh3mn
> Hitt. /lā́mn/,
la-a-ma-an ‘name’; *séh2n
> Hitt. /sáHn/, ša-aḫ-ḫa-an ‘feudal service’.
Fortition of OH intervocalic
/n/ to NH /N/ seems to have taken place in the following examples: a-ap-pa-na-an-da (OS) > a-ap-pa-an-na-an-da
(NS) ‘behind’; a-ra-u̯a-ni- (OS) > a-ra-u̯a-an-ni- (NS) ‘free’; i-na-ra- (OS) > in‑na‑ra-
(MS, NS) ‘vigour’. If we compare cases like ini ‘this (nom.-acc.sg.n.)’, genu- ‘knee’, šīuna- ‘god’ and zēna- ‘autumn’, in which
intervocalic /n/ remains throughout the Hittite period, it seems that fortition
only took place when /n/ did not follow the accented vowel.
In the words lāman /lā́mn/ ‘name’ < *h3néh3mn,
lammar /láMr/ ‘moment’ < *nómr
and armalii̯e/a-tta(ri) /ʔrmlié/á-/ ‘to be ill’ < *h1rmn-ié/ó-
(besides armanii̯e/a-tta(ri)) we seem to be dealing with dissimilation
of *n to /l/ due to the nasal consonant *m in the same word.
Word-initially before vowels *i
is retained, except before *e: *iugom > Hitt. /iugan/, i-ú-ga-an ‘yoke’ vs. *ieg-o- >
Hitt. /éga‑/, e-ka- ‘ice’; *iéu-on- > Hitt. /éuan‑/, e-u̯a-n°, a kind of grain. If Hitt. i-ú-uk ‘yoke’ represents /iÜg/ < *iéug, it would
show that loss of *i in front of *e must postdate the
monophthongization of *eu to /ū/ here.
before consonant *i is retained as such: *imié/ó- > Hitt.
/imié/á‑/, i‑mi-e°, i-mi-i̯a- ‘to mingle’.
is in principle retained (but see below at ‘assibilation’): *h1ité+n
> Hitt. /ʔitén/,
i-it-te-en ‘go!’; *h2imno-
> Hitt. /HiMa‑/, ḫi-im-ma- ‘imitation’; *h2érœis > Hitt. /Hárgis/, ḫar-ki-iš ‘white’; *œhim-n-ént- > Hitt. /kiMánt‑/, gi-im-ma-an-t- ‘winter’; *kwis
> Hitt. /kwis/, ku-iš ‘who’.
In the sequence *CiV,
*i in principle is retained as well (but see below at ‘assibilation’): *h3nié/ó-
> Hitt. /ʔnié/á‑/,
a-ni-e°, a-ni-i̯a- ‘to work’, *h3rgié/ó- > Hitt. /Hrgié/á‑/, ḫar-ki-e°, ḫar-ki-i̯a- ‘to get lost’, *ḱrsié/ó- > Hitt. /krSié/á‑/, kar‑aš‑ši-i-e° ‘to cut’; etc.
Note that *VsiV yields Hitt. /VSV/, however,
as is seen in e.g. *iugosio- > Hitt. /iugaSa‑/, i-ú-ga-aš-ša- ‘yearling’; *h2msósio- > Hitt. /Hntsā́Sa‑/, ḫa-an-za‑a‑aš‑ša- ‘offspring’; *usié/ó- >> */u̯sié/á-/ > */uəsié/á-/ > OH /uəSé/á‑/, u̯a-aš-še/a- ‘to put on clothes’.
For the sequence
*ViC, cf. the treatment of the diphthongs *ei, *ēi, *oi
and *ōi below.
*i is dropped without a trace, e.g *CéC-ei-os > pre-Hitt.
*/CéCaias/ > Hitt. /CéCas/ (gen.sg. ending of i-stem adjectives). When the *i is surrounded by
non-identical vowels (e.g. *‑aie‑, *‑aii‑, *‑aiu‑),
the loss of *i causes compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel: *CÕC-ei-i > pre-Hitt. /CÕCaii/ > Hitt. /CÕCāi/, °Ca-a-i
(dat.-loc.sg. ending of i-stem adjectives); *CÕC-ei-ēs > pre-Hitt. */CÕCaies/ > Hitt. /CÕCāes/, °Ca-a-eš
(nom.pl.c. ending of i-stem adjectives); *CÕC-ei-ms > pre-Hitt. */CÕCaius/ > Hitt. /CÕCāus/, °Ca-a-uš (acc.pl.
ending of the i-stem adjectives); *°Co-ié-mi > pre-Hitt.
/°Caiémi/ > Hitt. /°Cāémi/, °Ca-a-e-mi (1sg.pres.act. ending of the ḫatrae-class).
cluster *VHiV yields OH /ViV/ with lengthening of the preceding vowel
(if possible). The newly created intervocalic
/i/ is again lost in NH times: *h2uh1iénti > OH
/Hoiántsi/, ḫu-i̯a-an-zi > NH /Hoántsi/, ḫu-u̯a-an-zi ‘they run’; *teh2iéti
> OH /tāiétsi/, ta-a-i-ez-zi, da-i-e-ez-zi ‘he
In words with the
sequence *ViHV, we first find monphthongization of the diphthong to /e/
(see also below at the treatment of the diphthongs *ei and *oi):
*méih2ur > OH /méhur/, me-e-ḫur ‘period, time’; *néih1/3-o
> OH /néʔa/, ne-e-a ‘he turns’; *h2éih3um
> OH /Héʔun/,
ḫé-e-un ‘rain (acc.sg.)’; *h2éih3-eu-ēs
> OH /Héʔaues/,
ḫé-e-a-u-e-eš ‘rains (nom.pl.)’. Note that
in the latter three examples intervocalic /ʔ/ is lost only in the late OH
period, as we can see from spellings like OS ḫé-e-i̯a-u-e-š=a = /Héaues/, phonetically
realized as [Héi̯aues] and MH/MS ne-e-i̯a-ri = /néari/, phonetically
realized as [néi̯ari]
Forms like i-it ‘go!’ < *h1idhi
and te-e-et ‘speak’ < *dhéh1dhi
seem to show regular loss of word-final *i. This means that the
synchronic word-final ‑i as attested in the dat.-loc.sg. ending and the
verbal present endings (‑mi, ‑ši, ‑zi, etc.) must be
the result of a wide-scale restoration.
ke-e ‘these’ indeed reflects *ḱih2, as will be suggested s.v. kā-
/ ki- / kū‑, then it shows that in
word-final *Cih2#, *i is lowered to /e/ due to the
following *h2 (just as *°Cuh2 yields Hitt.
/°Co/, cf. nom.-acc.pl.n. a-aš-šu-u /ʔáSo/ < *°s-u-h2).
This implies that zi-i-ik ‘you’ < *tíH+⁽œ⁾ reflects *tíh1.
As is well-known, *i
causes assibilation of preceding dental consonants. We must distinguish between
two separate instances of assibilation, however. On the basis of an
etymological connection between Hitt. šarāzzi(i̯a)- ‘upper’ and Lyc. hrzze/i- ‘upper’, we must assume that
already in PAnatolian *t is assibilated to */ts/ in a cluster
*VtiV (cf. s.v. ‑(e)zzi(i̯a)‑). Note that here the *i is
retained (although it eventually is lost in Lyc., where no synchronic trace of
*i can be found). The assibilation of dentals in the sequences *TiV-,
*CTiV and *-Ti is a specific Hittite development. Note that here
in principle *i is lost: *tiéh2-oi- > Hitt. /tsáHai‑/,
za-aḫ-ḫa-i- ‘battle’; *tióh2-ei
> Hitt. /tsā́hi/, za-a-ḫi ‘he hits’; *tiéh1-o
> OH /tséʔa/, ze-e-a ‘cooks’; *h2t-ié/ó-
> Hitt. /Htsié/á‑/, ḫa-az-zi-e°, ḫa-az-zi-i̯a- ‘to pierce’; *h2énti > Hitt.
/Hánts/, ḫa-an-za ‘in front’; *h1ésti
> OH /ʔésts/,
e-eš-za ‘he is’; *diËus > Hitt. /sÏus/, ši-i-ú-uš ‘god’; *diéu-ot- >
ši-i-u̯a-at-t- ‘day’. This means that we must
reckon with a development */ti/ = *[t:i] > *[t:j] > *[tç]
> [ts] =
/ts/ and */di/ = *[ti] > *[tj] > *[ç] > *[S] > [s] = /s/. We therefore
have to assume that in forms like e-ep-zi ‘he seizes’ < *h1épti,
ap-pa-an-zi ‘they seize’ < *h1pénti,
ḫa‑az‑zi-e°, ḫa-az-zi-i̯a- ‘to pierce’ < *h2tié/ó-
the ‑i- has been restored. In the first two cases in analogy to the
other present endings in ‑i (‑mi,
‑ši, etc.), in the latter in analogy to other verbs with the ‑i̯e/a-suffix.
Note that the
verbs zinu-zi ‘to make cross’ < *h1t-i-neu-
and zinni-zi / zinn- ‘to finish’ < *ti-ne-h1-
/ *ti-n-h1- may show that despite the fact that in *TiC
*i caused assibilation of the dental consonant, it was retained as a
On the basis of
the equation between Hitt. dalugašti- ‘length’ and Pol. długość ‘length’ < *d(o)l(u)gh-osti‑,
Joseph (1984: 3-4) argues that in a cluster *‑sti- assibilation did
not take place, which would have a parallel in Greek, cf. εἶσι ‘he goes’ < *h1éiti
vs. ἐστί ‘he is’ < *h1ésti. If taišzi- ‘hay-barn’ indeed reflects *dhoh1-es-ti-,
as argued s.v., however, then the postulation of non-assibilation in *‑sti-
In some words we encounter
lowering of OH /i/ to NH /e/:
apiniššan ‘thus’ > apeneššan: a-pí-ni-iš-š°
(OS) > a-pé-e-ni-eš-š° (NS).
ḫalzišša-i / ḫalzišš- ‘to call (impf.)’ > ḫalzešš-: ḫal-zi-iš-š° (OS, MS) > ḫal-ze-eš-š° (NS).
ḫišša- ‘carriage pole’ > ḫešša-: ḫi-iš-š° (OH/NS) > ḫe-eš-š° (NS, 1x).
ḫištā, ḫištī ‘mausoleum(?)’ > ḫeštā, ḫeštī: ḫi-iš-t° (OS, MS) > ḫé-eš-t° (MS, NS).
ini ‘this’ > eni: i-ni
(MS) > e-ni (MS, NS)
iniššan ‘thus’ > eniššan: i-ni-
(MS) > e-ni- (NS).
īšša-i / īšš- ‘to do, to make (impf.)’ > ešša-i
/ ešš-: i-iš-š° (OS) > iš-š° (MS) > (e‑)eš‑š°
išḫā- ‘master’ > ešḫ- : iš-ḫ° (OS, MS, NS) > (e‑)eš-ḫ° (NS).
išḫan- ‘blood (obl.)’ > ēšḫan-: iš-ḫa-n° (OS, MS) > e-eš-ḫa-n° (MS, NS).
iš(ša)nā- ‘dough’ > eššana-: iš-(ša‑)n°
(OS, MS, NS) > (e‑)eš-ša-n° (NS).
kīnu-zi ‘to open (up)’ > kenu-: ki-i-nu-
(MS) > ke-e-nu- (NS).
lilḫuu̯a-i / lilḫui- ‘to pour’ > lelḫuu̯a-: li-il-ḫ° (MS) > le-el-ḫ° (MS, NS).
li(n)k-zi ‘to swear’ > lenk-: li-in-k°
(OS, MS) > le-en-k° (NS).
mimma-i / mimm- ‘to refuse’ > memm-:
mi-im-m° (OS, MS) > mi-im-m° (NS).
mišriu̯ant- ‘perfect’ > mešriu̯ant-: mi-iš-ri- (MS) > me-eš-ri-
(NS), me-iš-ri- (NS).
šīna- ‘figurine, doll’ > šena-:
ši-i-n° (OS, MS) > še-(e‑)na- (NS).
šiš-zi ‘to proliferate’ > šeš-:
ši-iš- (OS, MS) > še-iš‑, ši-eš‑, še-eš- (NS).
šišša-i / šišš- ‘to impress’ > šešš-:
ši-iš-š° (MS, NS) > še-eš-š° (NS).
šišḫa-i / šišḫ- ‘to decide’ > šešḫ-: ši-iš-ḫ° (MS) > še-eš-ḫ° (NS).
šiššur- ‘irrigation’ > šeššur-:
ši-iš-š° (MS) > še-eš-š° (NS).
titḫ-a ‘to thunder’ > tetḫ-: ti-it-ḫ° (OS, MS) > te-e-et-ḫ° (OH/MS) > te-et-ḫ° (NS).
u̯arrišša-i / u̯arrišš- ‘to help’ > u̯arrešš-: u̯a-ar-ri-iš-š° (NS) > u̯a-ar-re-eš-š° (NS).
zinni-zi / zinn- ‘to finish’ > zenn-: zi-in-n°
(OS, MS) > ze-en-n° (NS).
Melchert (1984a: 154) explains
these forms as showing “a simple assimilation: i is lowered to e
before a low vowel a in the next syllable”. As he notices himself, there
are a number of words that contradict this formulation, however, e.g. idālu- and iu̯ar. Moreover, this rule cannot
account for the lowering in e.g. ini, ḫištī, kīnu-zi and
In my view,
lowering in these words is determined by the intervening consonants: /i/ >
/e/ in front of s, n, m and clusters involving /H/ (‑lḫ- and ‑tḫ‑). It cannot be coincidental that
exactly these consonants also cause a preceding /u/ to
get lowered to /o/ (cf. § 18.104.22.168f). Note that lowering of /i/ to /e/ in
front of s and n also explains the high number of NS spellings of
the nom.sg.c. and acc.sg.c. forms of i-stem nouns and adjectives with
the vowel ‑e‑.
Word-initially before vowels *u
is retained as such: *uódr > Hitt. /uā́dr/, u̯a-a-tar ‘water’; *uéḱti > Hitt. /uéktsi/, ú-e-ek-zi ‘he wishes’.: *uei(e)s
> Hitt. /ués/, ú-e-eš ‘we’; etc. Word-initially
before consonants *u is retained as well: *urh1ór(i)
> OH /urʔā́ni/,
ú-ra-a-ni > MH/NH /uərʔā́ni/, u̯a-ra-a-ni ‘it burns’; *usnié/ó- > Hitt. /uSnié/á‑/, uš-(ša‑)ni-e°,
uš-(ša‑)ni-i̯a- ‘to put up for sale’.
yields either /u/ or /o/: see § 22.214.171.124ff. for an elaborate treatment.
In the sequence *CuV,
*u in principle yields /u/ (see § 126.96.36.199c for the fact that in
Hittite there is no reason to assume a phonemic difference between /CuV/ and
/CoV/). Note that in *Tuo (where T = any dental stop or *n),
*u is lost: *duoiom > Hitt. /tā́n/, ta-a-an ‘for the second time’; *h1eduól-u-
> Hitt. /ʔidā́lu‑/, i-da-a-lu- ‘evil’; *nu-os >
Hitt. /nas/, na-aš ‘and he’. Remarkable is the outcome of *CHuV,
which yields Hitt. /ComV/: *dh3uéni
> Hitt. /toméni/, tu-me-e-ni ‘we take’; *bhdhh2-uén-ti
> Hitt. /ptomántsi/, pát-tu-u-ma-an-zi ‘to dig’; *su-n-H-¾μ > Hitt. /suNomər/, šu-un-nu-mar ‘filling’.
development of *CVuC, see the treatment of the diphthongs *eu, *ēu,
*ou and *ōu below.
*u is retained as /u/ (see § 188.8.131.52d for the demonstration that
intervocalically there is no phonologic difference between /u/ and /o/): *néuo-
> Hitt. /néua‑/, ne-e-u̯a- ‘new’; *dhébh-eu-ēs
> Hitt. /tébaues/, te-e-pa-u-e-eš ‘little (nom.pl.c.)’; *HH-ió-ueni
> Hitt. /ʔiáuani/,
i-i̯a-u-u̯a-ni ‘we do’; *h2rœ-nóu-i > Hitt. /Hrgnā́ui/, ḫar-ga-na-ú-i ‘palm (dat.-loc.sg.)’.
development is the change of *uuV to /umV/ and of *VuuC to
/VmuC/: *CÕC-eu-ms > *CÕC-au-us > Hitt. /CÕCamus/, °Ca-mu-uš
(acc.pl.c. ending of u-stems); *CC-nu-uéni > Hitt. /CCnuméni/,
°nu-me-e-ni (1sg.pres.act. ending of
causatives in ‑nu‑); *CC-nu-uénti > Hitt. /CCnumántsi/,
°nu-ma-an-zi (inf.I ending of causatives in
‑nu‑); *h2óu-ueni > Hitt. /ʔáumani/, a-ú-ma-ni ‘we see’.
In word-final position, *u
is retained as such: *dhébhu > Hitt. /tébu/, te-e-pu ‘little (nom.-acc.sg.n.)’;
etc. Note that nom.-acc.pl.n. a-aš-šu-u /ʔáSo/, which contrasts with
nom.-acc.sg.n. a-aš-šu /ʔáSu/, shows that word-final *‑Cuh2
yields Hitt. /‑Co/
There are a number of positions
in which PIE *e gets coloured.
When adjacent to
*h2, *e gest coloured to PAnat. /a/, which yields
Hitt. /a/ in both accented and unaccented position: *h2énti
> Hitt. /Hánts/, ḫa-an-za ‘in front’; *h2épti
> Hitt. /Háptsi/, ḫa-ap-zi ‘he attaches’; *péh2ur
> Hitt. /páHwr/, pa-aḫ-ḫur, pa-aḫ-ḫu‑u̯a-ar ‘fire’; *péh2so
> Hitt. /páHsa/, pa-aḫ-ša ‘he protects’; *léh2pt(o)
> Hitt. /lā́pta/,
la-a-ap-ta ‘he glowed’; *h1esh2enós
> Hitt. /ʔisHanā́s/, iš-ḫa-na-a-aš ‘blood (gen.sg.)’; *peh2uénos
> Hitt. /paHwénas/, pa-aḫ-ḫu-e-na-aš ‘fire (gen.sg.)’.
When adjacent to
*h3, *e gets coloured to PAnat. /o/ and ultimately
merges with the reflex of PIE *o, yielding /ā́/ when accented and /a/ when unaccented: *h3érōn+s
> Hitt. /Hā́ras/,
ḫa-a-ra-aš ‘eagle’; *h3épr
> Hitt. /Hā́pr/,
ḫa-a-ap-pár ‘business’; *h3néh3mn
> Hitt. /lā́mn/,
la-a-ma-an ‘name’. Note that when
accented this vowel does not lenite a following consonant, whereas PIE *ó
> PAnat. /Ö/
does. This explains the difference between *‑ótr > PAnat. /‑Ödr/ > Hitt. /‑ā́dr/, °a-a-tar (abstract suffix) and *h3épr
> PAnat. /Hópr/ > Hitt. /Hā́pr/, ḫa-a-ap-pár ‘business’.
In the position *énT
(in which T = any dental consonant), *e yields Hitt. /a/: *h1sénti
> Hitt. /ʔsántsi/,
a-ša-an-zi ‘they are’; *gwhnénts
> Hitt. /kwnánts/, ku‑na‑an‑za ‘killed’; *h2uh1énts
> Hitt. /Hoánts/, ḫu-u̯a-an-za ‘wind’; *srbhuéns
> Hitt. /srɨbuás/,
ša-ri-pu-u̯a-aš ‘of drinking’.
In the position *eRCC
(in which R = any resonant and C = any consonant), *e
becomes Hitt. /a/: *bhérsti > Hitt. /párstsi/, pár-aš-zi ‘he flees’; *kérsti
> Hitt. /kárstsi/, kar-aš-zi ‘he cuts’; *stélœhti > Hitt. /ɨstálgtsi/, iš-tal-ak-zi ‘he levels’; *h1érsti
> Hitt. /ʔárstsi/,
a-ar-aš-zi ‘he flows’; *bhérh2/3ti
> Hitt. /párHtsi/, pár-aḫ-zi, pár-ḫa-zi ‘he pursues’; *térh2-u-ti
> pre-Hitt. */térHwtsi/ > Hitt. /tárHwtsi/,
tar-ḫu-uz-zi, tar-uḫ-zi ‘he conquers’. Note however
that *œénh1su- yields Hitt. /kéntsu‑/, ge-en-zu- ‘lap, abdomen’, which shows
that a sequence *éRh1CV develops into *eRCV before *eRCC
In the position *éKsC,
*e yields Hitt. /a/: *téksti > */tákstsi/ >
ták‑ki-iš-zi, ták-ke-eš-zi ‘he
unifies’; *négwh-s-ti > Hitt. /°nágwstsi/,
na-na-ku-uš-zi ‘it becomes dark’.
In the position *enK
(in which K = any velar), *e yields Hitt. /i/: *h1lénœhti > */língtsi/ > Hitt.
/lígtsi/, li-ik-zi ‘he swears’.
In the position *ueT
(in which T = any dental consonant), *e yields Hitt. /i/: *uet-
> Hitt. /uit‑/, ú-i-it-t° ‘year’; *uedo- >
Hitt. /uida‑/, ú-i-da- ‘wet’; *sóuetest- > šāu̯itišt- ‘weanling’.
In some positions
we seem to be dealing with i-umlaut, causing *e to become Hitt.
/i/: *mélit- > Hitt. /mílit‑/, mi-li-it-t° ‘honey’; *tinéh1ti
> Hitt. /tsinítsi/, zi-in-ni-iz-zi ‘he finishes’; *dhurnéh1ti
> Hitt. /tuərnítsi/, du-u̯a-ar-ni-iz-zi ‘he breaks’. The exact
conditions are not fully clear to me.
position, *é yields Hitt. /i/ when accented: *Hu-sḱé > Hitt. /ʔuskí/, uš-ki-i ‘look!’; *h1gwhsḱé > Hitt. /ʔkwskí/, ak-ku-uš-ki-i ‘drink!’; *h1dsḱé > Hitt. /ʔdsɨkí/, az-zi-ik-ki-i ‘eat!’. Note that e.g. ḫu-it-ti ‘draw!’ < *h2ueTH-ié
shows that *°Cié# yields Hitt. /°Cí/, probably through */°Cií/.
It has been claimed that a sequence *eRH
yields Hitt. /aRH/, but I disagree with this
assumption. Alleged examples in favour of this development like *uélh3ti
> Hitt. /uálHtsi/ ‘hits’ and *bhérh2/3ti
> Hitt. /párHtsi/ ‘pursues’ rather show the development *eRCC
> /aRCC/, whereas šalli- / šallai- ‘big’ (usually reconstructed *selh2-i‑)
and tarra-tta(ri) ‘to be able’ (usually
reconstructed *terh2‑o‑) may be interpreted otherwise (see
their respective lemmata). On the basis of erḫ- / araḫ- / arḫ- ‘boundary’ < *h1er-h2-
/ *h1r-eh2- / *h1r-h2-
and šerḫa- (an object to rinse feet with)
< *sérh2/3-o- (?), I assume that *e in a sequence *eRHV
does not get coloured in Hittite.
If *e does not get
coloured due to one of the positions mentioned above, it shows the following
When accented, *é
merges with *Ë, *éh1 and *éi and develops into Hitt.
/é/. Note that this vowel is often spelled with a plene vowel in open syllable and
in monosyllabic words, which indicates that in these positions it was rather
long phonetically. Phonologically, there is no use to indicate length, however,
since the reflexes of *é, *Ë, *éh1 and *éi
have merged under the accent, and the original distinction in length has been
given up. It should be noted that *é does not lenite a following
consonant, whereas *Ë, *éh1 and *éi do. This means that
the merger of *é with the reflexes of *Ë, *éh1 and *éi
is a rather recent phenomenon, which postdates the lenition of intervocalic
consonants due to a preceding long accented vowel.
> Hitt. /séstsi/, še-eš-zi, še-e-eš-zi ‘he
sleeps’; *nébhes > Hitt. /nébis/ ne-e-pí-iš, ne-pí-iš ‘sky’; *pédom
> Hitt. /pédan/, pé-e-da-an, pé-da-an ‘place’; *kwérti
> Hitt. /kwértsi/, ku-e-er-zi, ku-er-zi ‘he cuts’; *œhésr > Hitt. /kéSr/, ke-eš-šar ‘hand’; *dhéh1mi
> Hitt. /témi/, te-e-mi, te-mi ‘I say’.
*e weakens to /a/ in post-tonic open syllables and to /i/ elsewhere (in pretonic open and closed
syllables and in post-tonic closed syllables). In word-final position,
unaccented *e is dropped.
> Hitt. /ʔishanā́s/, iš-ḫa-na-a-aš ‘blood (gen.sg.)’; *nébhes
> /nébis/ ne-e-pí-iš, ne-pí-iš ‘sky’; *pesén¬s > Hitt. /pisénus/, pí-še-e-nu-uš ‘men (acc.pl.)’; *CéC-ueni
> Hitt. CeCuu̯ani (1pl.pres.act. forms); *CéC-teni
> Hitt. CeCtani (2pl.pres.act. forms); *=kwe >
Hitt. /=kw/, V=k-ku ‘and’; *tokwe
> Hitt. /takw/, ták-ku ‘if, when’.
When accented, the development
does not differ
from the development of *é: I have not been able to find a spelling
difference between the reflexes of *Ë and *é that would
indicate a phonetic and/or phonological difference.
Examples: *h2stËr+s > Hitt. /Hstérts/,
ḫa-aš-te-er-za ‘star’; *§Ër > Hitt. /kér/, ke-er ‘heart’, *sËr > Hitt. /sér/, še-e-er, še-er ‘above, on top’;
> Hitt. /°Cér/, °Ce‑e‑er (3pl.pret.act. ending), *ud-nËi > Hitt. /udné/, ut-ne-e ‘land’.
There is one
case, in which *Ë yields a different reflex, however: PIE *diËus yields Hitt. /sÏus/, ši-i-ú-uš ‘god’. It is not
clear to me what caused the raising of *ē > /ī/ here. The fact that the
sequences *di- > Hitt. /s‑/ precedes *ē hardly can be
decisive, cf. *tiéh1-no- > /tséna‑/, zé-e-na- ‘autumn’. Perhaps the raising
is comparable to the one seen in *ueT- > Hitt. /uiT‑/.
On the basis of
the assumption that Hitt. “šumanza” would mean ‘cord, binding’ and
reflects *sh1u-mēn+s (~ Gr. ὑμήν ‘sinew’), it was generally
believed that *‑ēn+s yielded Hitt. /‑ants/, ‑anza, whereas
‑ōn+s > /‑as/, ‑aš (as in *h3érōn+s
> Hitt. ḫāraš). Since “šumanza” now must be interpreted as belonging to (Ú)šumanzan- ‘bulrush’, which has nothing
to do with Gr. ὑμήν, the development *‑ēn+s
> ‑anza cannot be upheld. Instead, on the basis of *kwtruËn+s > Hitt. /kwtruás/,
ku-ut-ru-u̯a‑aš ‘witness’, we should rather
conclude that *‑ēn+s merged with *‑ōn+s and yielded
When unaccented, *ē
yielded Hitt. /e/, and therewith differs from the reflex of unaccented short *e:
*h1ésēr > Hitt. /ʔéser/, e-še-er ‘they were’.
that the distinction between *ē and *ĕ was present up to a quite
recent stage: only after the weakening of unaccented *ĕ to /a/ and /i/, unaccented *ē developed into /e/.
None of the alleged instances
where the sequences *h2ē, *h3ē, *ēh2
or *ēh3 are thought to have yielded Hitt. ‑ḫe- or ‑eḫ- (Eichner’s Non-Colouration Law) can in my
view withstand scrutiny (see s.v. ḫai(n)k-tta(ri), NA₄ḫekur, ḫenkan-, LÚḫippara‑, Éḫištā, Éḫištī, kane/išš-zi, mēḫur / mēḫun‑, piḫa‑, šēḫur / šēḫun- and u̯eḫ-zi / u̯aḫ- for alternative
In the case of *o it is
important to note that it shows different reflexes when part of a diphthong (*oiC
and *ouC). The diphthongs will be treated below.
When accented, *ó yields
OH /ā́/ in
initial and word-final syllables (but not in internal syllables, see below).
Since *ó causes lenition, the development to a long vowel must antedate
the period of lenition of intervocalic consonants due to a preceding accented
In OS texts, the reflex
/ā́/ is almost consistently
spelled with plene ‑a‑, in open as well as closed syllables. In
MH and NH originals, we hardly find plene spellings in closed, non-final
syllables anymore, which indicates that /ā́/ has been phonetically shortened in these
syllables in the post-OH period, and merged with /á/. So *óCCV > OH /ā́CCV/ > NH /áCCV/, whereas *óCV
and *óC# yield OH/NH /ā́CV/ and /ā́C#/.
initial syllable: *stóph2ei > OH /ɨstā́pHe/, iš-ta-a-ap-ḫé > NH /ɨstápHi/, iš-ta-ap-aḫ-ḫi ‘I plug up’; *stópei > OH/NH /ɨstā́bi/, iš-ta-a-pí ‘he plugs up’; *ḱónkh2ei > OH /kā́nkHe/, ga-a-an-ga-aḫ-ḫé > NH /kánkHi/, ga-an-ga-aḫ-ḫi, kán-ga-aḫ-ḫi ‘I hang’; *dóh3-h2ei
> OH /tā́He/,
da-a-aḫ-ḫé > NH /táHi/, da-aḫ-ḫi ‘I take’; *ḱós > OH/NH /kā́s/, ka-a-aš ‘this’; *dóru >
word-final syllables: *dhœhmós > Hitt. /tgnā́s/, ták-na-a-aš ‘earth (gen.sg.)’; *h1esh2enós
> Hitt. /ʔisHanā́s/, iš-ḫa-na-a-aš ‘blood (gen.sg.)’.
In internal syllables
(non-initial and non-final), *ó yielded Hitt. /á/, however: *tr⁽ḱ⁾‑nó-h1-h2ei > OHitt. /trnáHe/, tar-na-aḫ-ḫé ‘I release’; *mi-móh1-ei
> Hitt. /miMái/, mi-im-ma-i ‘he refuses’. This explains the difference
between *dóh3-h2ei > OH /tā́He/, da-a-aḫ-ḫé ‘I take’ and *h1poi-dóh3-h2ei
> OH /petáHe/, pé-e-ta-aḫ-ḫé ‘I bring’, etc.
A special development of *ó
is found in the following positions: *Cóm# > Hitt. /Cón/, Cu-u-un
and *Cóms# > Hitt. /Cós/, Cu-u-uš.
Examples: *ḱóm > Hitt. /kón/, ku-u-un ‘this one’ (acc.sg.c.); *h1o-bhóm
> Hitt. /ʔabón/,
a-pu-u-un ‘that one’ (acc.sg.c.); *ḱóms > Hitt. /kós/, ku-u-uš ‘these ones’ (acc.pl.c.); *h1o-bhóms
> Hitt. /ʔabós/,
a-pu-u-uš ‘those ones’ (acc.pl.c.).
When unaccented, *o
usually yields Hitt. /a/: *pédom > Hitt. /pédan/, pé-e-da-an, pé-da-an ‘place’, *pérom
> Hitt. /péran/, pé-e-ra-an, pé-ra-an ‘before’, *h1éh1s-o
> Hitt. /ʔésa/,
e-ša ‘he sits down’.
development of *o is found in the acc.pl.c. ending *°Coms > OH
/°Cus/ > NH /°Cos/, cf. § 184.108.40.206f.
The reflex of *ō seems
to have merged with the reflex of *ŏ. When accented, *Ö yields Hitt. /ā́/: *udÖr > Hitt. /uɨdā́r/, ú-i-ta-a-ar, ú-e-da-a-ar ‘water’.
Note that *Ön+s
yields Hitt. /‑ás/, *ḱuÖn+s > Hitt. /kuás/, ku-u̯a-aš ‘dog(man)’. When unaccented, *ō yields Hitt.
/a/: *h3érōn+s > Hitt. /Hā́ras/, ḫa-a-ra-aš ‘eagle’; *h1ndhuéh2ōs
> Hitt. /ʔnduáHas/,
an-tu-u̯a-aḫ-ḫa-aš ‘human being’.
When accented, *éi merges with the reflexes of *é, *éh1 and *Ë and yields Hitt. /é/ (but note
that *éi lenites a following
intervocalic consonant, whereas *é does not): *h1éi-h2ou > Hitt. /ʔéhu/, e-ḫu ‘come!’; *h2éih3-u-s
> Hitt. /Héus/, ḫé-e-ú-uš ‘rain’;
> OH /néʔa/, ne-e-a > MH /néa/, ne-e-i̯a ‘he turns’; *h2ou + *h1éiti
> Hitt. /ʔuétsi/,
ú-e-ez-zi ‘he comes’; *méih2ur
> Hitt. /méhur/, me-e-ḫur ‘period’.
*ei yields Hitt. /e/: *u̯órs-ei > OH /uā́rSe/, u̯a-ar-aš-še ‘he harvests’; *dóh3-h2ei
> OH /tā́He/,
da-a-aḫ-ḫé. Note that as we can see from
the examples, the reflex of *Cei is identical with the reflex of *h2ei
(through pre-Hitt. */Hai/).
In the sequence *Kei-
(in which K = any velar) the diphthong *ei was first raised to *‑ii‑,
which yielded Hitt. /i/ in closed syllable and /ī/ in open syllable: *ḱéito > Hitt. /kíta/, ki-it-ta ‘he lies’ (note that /t/ =
[t:] counts as a geminate that closes the syllable); *œéis-h2o > Hitt. /kísHa/, ki-iš-ḫa ‘I become’; *œéis-o > Hitt. /kÏsa/, ki-i-ša ‘he
becomes’ (see s.v. ki-tta(ri) and kīš-a(ri)
/ kiš- for an elaborate treatment of this development). A similar
raising may be found in ša-li-i-ga ‘he touches’ if this
The only secure example of *ēi
that I know of is *ud-nËi > Hitt. /udné/, ut-ne-e ‘land’.
The diphthong *oi shows
two reflexes. When preceding a dental consonant, *oi yields /ai/. It
should be noted that when accented, *ói does not yield /ā́i/ in this environment, as one
could expect on the basis of *ó > /ā́/, but rather /ái/, with a short ‑a‑.
Before all other consonants and in absolute auslaut, *oi becomes
monophthongized to /e/. Note that in the sequence *óiV, we find the
normal reflex of *ó, namely pre-Hitt. */ā́iV/ > Hitt. /ā́V/.
These developments explain the
> /téHe/ te-e-eḫ-ḫé >> /téHi/ te-e-eḫ-ḫi
> */táite/ >> /táiti/ da-it-ti
*/tā́ie/ > */tā́e/ >> /tā́i/ da-a-i
Other examples: *œróits > Hitt. /kráits/, ka-ra-i-iz ‘flood’; *dhh1-ói-s
> Hitt. /táis/, da-iš ‘he placed’; *ḱóinos > Hitt. /káinas/, ka-i-na-aš, ga-e-na-aš ‘in-law’; *ḱói > Hitt. /ké/, ke-e ‘these’ (nom.pl.c.).
To my knowledge, this diphthong only occurs
in the diphthong-stems and yields /āi/: *tlh2Öi > Hitt. /tslHā́i/, za-al-ḫa-a-i, a vessel; *h2urtÖis > Hitt. /Hurtā́is/, ḫur-da-a-iš, ḫur-ta-iš ‘curse’; *h2urtÖim > Hitt. /Hurtā́in/, ḫur-da-a-in, ḫu-ur-ta-in ‘curse (acc.sg.)’.
The diphthong *eu (i.e.
*CeuC) is monophthongized to /u/ or /o/, depending on the surrounding
sounds. For an elaborate treatment, cf. § 220.127.116.11f. Note that in *euV,
we find the normal development of *e, e.g. *néuo- > Hitt.
/néua‑/, ne-e-u̯a- ‘new’, *dhébh-eu-os
> Hitt. /tébauas/, te-pa-u-u̯a-aš ‘little, few’ (gen.sg.).
The only possible instance of *ēu
that I know of is *œhrh1-Ëu > Hitt. /krʔÜ/, ka-ru-ú ‘early’ if this reconstruction
The diphthong *ou yields
Hitt. /au/ (with short a) before dental consonants (including *r):
*h2óuth2ei > Hitt. /ʔáuti/, a-ut-ti ‘you (sg.) see’; *h2óusten
> Hitt. /ʔáusten/,
a-uš-te-en ‘you (pl.) must see’; *h2óuri-
> Hitt. /ʔáuri‑/,
a-ú-ri- ‘look-out’. In other positions
*ou is monophthongized to /u/ or /o/, depending on the surrounding
sounds. See § 18.104.22.168f for an elaborate treatment.
knowledge, the diphthong *ōu only occurs in diphthong-stems like *h3ér-nōu
> Hitt. /Hárnāu/, ḫar-na-a-ú ‘birthing chair’, *h2érœ-nōu > Hitt. /Hárgnāu/, ḫar-ga-na-ú ‘palm, sole’, etc., where it
 Note that I do not reconstruct a PIE
phoneme “a” or “ā”: all PIE forms for which some scholars
reconstruct *a or *ā should be interpreted otherwise. For an
extensive treatment of most of these words, cf. Lubotsky 1989. Eichner 1988:
132-3 adduces a few more forms that in his view must contain PIE *a or *ā,
but these are incorrect as well. (1) “*ntˀs-”
‘nose’ must reflect *neh2-s‑, *nh2-es‑,
*nh2-s- (cf. Kortlandt 1985a: 119). (2) “*ktˀrh-” ‘to proclame’ is based on Skt. kārú- ‘singer’ and kīrtí- ‘fame’. The former may reflect *keh2rú-,
the latter *krh2-tí- with metathesis from *kh2r-tí-
(Schrijver 1991: 4). (3) “*hi̯aœ-” ‘to praise’ is based on Gr. ἁγνός, ἅγιος ‘holy’ besides Skt. yajñá- ‘sacrifice’. The former two words reflect *ih2œ- (cf. Beekes 1988c: 24-5) and the latter *ieh2œ-nó- (with loss of laryngeal before media + consonant, cf.
Lubotsky 1981: 135). (4) “*h2u̯ap-”
‘to harm’ is based on “heth. huapzi ‘schädigt’ (mit grundstufigem ă)”
besides PGerm. *ubilaz ‘evil’. The cited form, ḫuu̯apzi,
is the NH secondary replacement of an original ḫi-conjugated
Because all ḫi-verbs reflect *o/Ø-ablaut, the Hitt. stem ḫuu̯app-
must reflect *h2uoph1- with o-grade (s.v. ḫuu̯app-i / ḫupp-). (5) “ku̯as-”
‘to kiss’ is based on “heth. kuu̯ašzi
‘küßt’ mit grundstufigem ă”. As I show under its lemma, the Hittite verb
in fact is kuu̯ašš-zi with geminate ‑šš-, which cannot be
explained by a reconstruction *kuaš-. I therefore reconstruct *kuens-,
which would explain the vowel ‑a- as well as the geminate ‑šš-
by regular sound laws. Note that the nasal is visible in Gr. κυνέω ‘to kiss’ as well.
 Melchert (1994a: 53, 63) works with PIE
*[z] > PAnat. *[z] as well, a “voiced allophone of */s/”, giving e.g. “Hitt.
ḫašduēr ‘twigs, brush’ < (virtual) *h2o-zd-wËr” as an example. Since I do not see any indication of
voicedness as a distinctive feature in Proto-Indo-European, PAnatolian or
Hittite (see especially § 1.3.2 below), I will not follow him in this
 Cf. Melchert 1994a: 53, 62 for the
observation that on the basis of the etymological connection between the Hitt.
suffixes -(e)zzi(i̯a)- (as in šarāzzi(i̯a)- ‘upper’) and Lyc. -zze/i- (as in hrzze/i-
‘upper’) we must assume that assibilation of *t in the sequence *VtiV
is already a Proto-Anatolian development, and that we therefore must
reconstruct a PAnat. phoneme /ts/.
 Cf. Coulmas 2003: 41-9; Fischer 2001:
 It has often been claimed that “diese Form
der Keilschrift [= the Old-Babylonian cursive] im Zusammenhang mit Kriegszügen
des hethitischen Großkönigs îattušili
I. nach Nordsyrien (um 1550 v. Chr. gemäß der Kurzchronologie) von dort nach îattuša [...] gelangt sei” (HZL: 15). The
discovery of a text (Kt k/k 4) at Kültepe (Kaniš) that palaeographically
occupies “eine Position zwischen dem “Normal-aA [= altassyrischen]” Duktus
einerseits und dem altsyrischen und dem althethitischen andererseits” (Hecker
1990: 57) shows that the transfer of the Syro-Babylonian scribal tradition into
Asia Minor may have been a more gradual proces that predates the Hittites’
occupation of îattuša.
 In transliteration, phonetic signs are
given in small italics.
 Sumerograms are transliterated in Roman
 Akkadograms are transliterated in italic
 Note that the Akkadian phonetic complement
is transliterated in superscript.
 Determinatives are transliterated in
superscript as well.
 But cf. MUNUSduttarii̯ata/i-.
 See the discussion s.v. *kuu̯an-.
 Some signs are hardly used in the Hittite
texts: e.g. BA predominantly occurs in names; GU is attested only once with a
phonetic value ([p]a-an-gu-uš (StBoT 25.13 ii 9 (OS))); BE is used with
the values pát, pít or pét only.
 E.g. Oettinger 1979a: 551f.
 Cf. Melchert 1994a: 13-4: “While a great
number of words are spelled consistently with either the voiceless or voiced
sign, this usage does not correspond in any meaningful way with the voicing
quality of the sounds being indicated, based on their expected inherited
 Compare ki-iš-ḫa ‘I become’ /kísHa/ < *kíi̯sHa < *œéis-h2o vs. ki-i-ša ‘he becomes’ /kÏsa/ < *kíi̯sa
 Similarly, I use the term fortited
for describing an original lenis stop that has become a fortis one (in analogy
 Contra e.g. Melchert 1994a: 92, who calls
this phenomenon a “regressive voicing assimilation”.
 Melchert (1994a: 20) is aware of this fact
and therefore calls the “devoicing of word-initial stops”, which he assumes for
Hittite as well as for Palaic and CLuwian, “an areal feature across Anatolia”.
 Cf. Melchert 1994a: 19.
 It is for instance possible that kikkiš-
was created at a (post-Proto-Anatolian) period when the initial stops had
merged into the fortis series, but that later on all initial stops became lenis
again, so that attested kikkiš- in fact represents /gikis‑/.
 Which implies that we must assume that in
forms like ḫappeššar ‘limb’ < *h2p-éh1sh1r,
ḫattant- ‘clever’ < *h2t-ént-,
or appanzi ‘they seize’ < *h1pénti,
where the fortis stop at first sight seems to have been retained in a similar
initial cluster, these consonants were in fact restored on the basis of the
full grade stems *h2ep-, *h2et- and
 Cf. Durham 1976: 109 for the observation
that in the Akkadian texts written in Boğazköy the sign Ú could be used as ’ux,
i.e. with initial ’aleph = [ʔ].
 Ibid.: 117 for the sign A as ’ax.
 See s.v. parai-i / pari-
‘to blow’ fur further treatment.
 Spelled with the signs ZA, ZE/I, ZÉ, ZU,
AZ, E/IZ, UZ, GAZ, ZUL and ZUM, which in Akkadian are used for the emphatic º: ºa, ºé/í, ºe/i, ºú, aº, e/iº, uº, gaº, ºul and ºum
 Cf. Kouwenberg (2003: 83) who states that
Akk. “emphatic” º in fact was
glottalized /s/, which was realized as an affricate /ts/. Kimball’s suggestion (1999: 107) that “it is
possible that °Z° represents a voiced pre- or postconsonantal /z/ resulting
from voicing assimilation (e.g. za-ma-an-kur “beard” = [zmã(n)kur] (?) < IE *smóḱwµ “beard” [...])” is entirely ad hoc: cf. cases
where Hitt. ša-mV reflects etymological *smV.
 With /S/ as found in [e-ez-za-a]š-ši,
cf. § 22.214.171.124.
 E.g. ḫur-za-ke/a- = /Hortske/a‑/, which is the imperfective
in ‑ške/a- of ḫuu̯art-i / ḫurt- (cf. the one spelling ḫur-za-aš-ke/a-), or ‑an-za = /‑ants/, which is a
nom.sg.c. in ‑s of the suffix ‑ant- (cf. the spelling ‑an-za-aš-ša
/‑antSa/ = ‑anz + =(i̯)a).
 The only secure examples of assibilation of
*di- in Hittite show an outcome š-, namely šīuš ‘god’ < *diËus and šīu̯att- ‘day’ < *diéu̯ot-.
 /Hw/ is the regular outcome of
PIE *‑h2u-, On the basis of the fact that *‑h2u-
Lycian monophoneme q = [kw], I conclude that /Hw/ was already phonemic at the
 So all PIE roots that seemingly had an
initial *r‑, must in fact have had either *h1r‑,
*h2r- or *h3r‑, the regular outcomes
of which in Hittite were /ʔr‑/,
/Hr‑/ and /ʔr‑/, spelled ar‑, ḫar- and ar‑, respectively.
 E.g. Melchert 1994a: 125.
 Note that the ‘plene’ spelling in this case
does not indicate vowel length, but rather must be read as ’a-ar-aš-
with the sign A = ’ax.
 One could argue that this rule has ceased
to operate at the time that /ləgnuwántsi/ has become the phonemic
form, but this is incorrect: the development “/uw/” > /um/ is synchronically
still operative as can be seen from e.g. aumeni ‘we see’. This form is a MH creation that
replaced OH umēni: if at that time the development /uw/ >
/um/ had ceased to operate, the secondary form au- + ‑u̯eni should have yielded **auu̯eni.
 At least in OS texts, cf. the regular
development of OH ú-ra-a-ni /urʔā́ni/
> MH/NH u̯a-ra-a-ni = /uərʔā́ni/ ‘burns’.
 A special case is the verb tar(k)u-zi ‘to dance’. As I will show s.v., this verb
reflects *terkw-, of which the buccal part of *kw
is lost in the cluster *rkwC (compare e.g. ḫarzi ‘he has’ < *h2érkti). So *térkwti
> Hitt. tar-ú-zi and, more importantly, impf. *trkwsḱé/ó- > OH ta-ru-uš-ke/a- > NH tar-ú-iš-ke/a-. Does the NH form tar-ú-iš-ke/a- have to be
interpreted as /trwɨské/á‑/ and
therefore OH ta-ru-uš-ke/a- as /trwské/á‑/ and tar-ú-zi as /tárwtsi/?
Or can we assume that in NH tar-ú-iš-ke/a- the NH suffix-variant /‑ɨské/á‑/ has been secondarily introduced and
that OH ta-ru-uš-ke/a- can be interpreted as /truské/á‑/ and tar-ú-zi
 Which incidentally shows that */VuuV/ yields /VumV/, and not **/VmuV/).
 Except clusters that include labiovelars or
the phoneme /Hw/: e.g. ku-ra-an-zi ‘they cut’ = /kwrántsi/,
tar-ḫu-uz-zi ‘he conquers’ = /tárHwtsi/.
 All examples are taken from Dercksen fthc.
 Note that this word often is spelled ne-pí-iš
as well, without a plene ‑e-.
 Moreover, not every accented vowel gets
lengthened, as we will see in the treatment of the historical phonological
 One could assume that these spellings are
scribal errors (da-a-ga-an for da-ga!-a!-an
and ta-a-ga-an for ta-ga!-a!-an),
but this does not explain da-a-ga-a-an. One could alternatively assume
that these spellings reflect phonetically real forms, e.g. with anaptyxis in
the initial cluster and accent retraction (so /tágan/), but this is hardly
credible and still does not explain da-a-ga-a-an.
 This goes for the signs PÉ/Í, DE/I, GE/I,
KE/I, îE/I, RE/I, LE/I, ^E/I5, ZE/I, E/IP, E/IT, E/IK, E/Iî (which can be read Aî and Uî as well), E/IR, E/IM, E/IZ, KE/IP, KE/IR, KE/IŠ, KE/IT9, LE/IK, LE/IŠ,
NE/IR, PE/IR, PE/IŠ, ŠE/IR, TÉ/ÍN, DE/IR, TE/IR and TE/IŠ, whereas the sign NI
can be read NÉ as well and MI likewise MÉ (in spite of the separate signs NE
 Which has led the editors of CHD to the
unfortunate choice to consider the two vowels equivalent for the purpose of alphabetization
and to list them in the i position. Note that in the revised preface of
CHD L-N: xii the tone is milder: “It is well-known that the vowels e and
i often interchange in the spelling of Hittite words. In the earliest
texts scribes clearly sought to maintain a distinction. What consistency
underlies later usage and whether the post-OH spelling conventions also reflect
a continuing phonological distinction between e and i are matters
 Note that the line reads (5) ku-iš-ki
i-eš-zi, in which the preceding ‑i- of kuiški may have
triggered this scribal error.
 Note that Kimball is not always careful in
citing her examples. For instance, on p. 68-9 she cites the OS forms “a-ne-e-mi
StBoT 25, 3 II 2, a-ne-ẹ-[nu-un KBo III 22 Rs, 48” as examples of words
where the sign NE is used instead of NI. This is incorrect: the words are in
fact a-ni-e-mi and a-ni-ẹ[-nu-un], and therewith are
spelled just as all the other forms in the paradigm of anii̯e/a-zi, namely with the sign NI.
 Certainly in li-i-ik < *h1lénœh.
 Thus zi-i-ik, which reflects *tíH-ge
(cf. chapter 2.1).
 The sign Ù (Í) only occurs akkadographically as the
conjunction Ù ‘and’ and sumerographically as Ù ‘dream’ and in LIBIR.RA
(= Ù.RA) ‘old’; the sign U4 ()) only occurs as such in the sumerogram U4.SAKAR
‘crescent of the moon’ (its normal value in Hittite is ut, UD or UTU); U5
is only used in GIŠLE-U5 ‘wooden tablet’; U8
is only used as part of the sumerogram USDUîA (= U8.LU.îI.A) ‘sheep and goats’; U19 (–) is only used as
such in the sumerograms DUMU.(NAM.)LÚ.U19.LU ‘human being’, IM.U19.LU
‘southwind, south’, LÚ.(NAM.)U19.LU ‘human being’ and NAM.LÚ.U19.LU
‘humanity’ (its normal value in Hittite is URU).
 E.g. Hart 1983: 124-132; Eichner 1980: 156f.
 E.g. Melchert 1994a: 26 states that
“[c]ontrary to a number of claims, there is no good evidence that the Hittites
use the signs u and ú to indicate phonemically distinct vowels”.
 As a comparable phonomenon, Rieken refers
to the ‘breaking’ of *u to O in front of r, h and Ø in Gothic.
 For instance, Rieken assumes that in front
of ‑s- an old /u/ remains /u/ and therefore is always spelled with Ú (a-šu-ú-ša-, a-ú-li-ú-šº, ḫa-pu-ú-šº, etc.). This is contradicted by ku-u-uš and a-pu-u-uš, however, which are both attested thus
hundreds of times. She acknowledges that these forms form “eine wirkliche
Ausnahme” and states that “[e]ine überzeugende Erklärung hierfür sich nicht
 Note that all alleged instances of a
spelling u-up-p° of this verb and its derivatives are false: cf. s.v. uppa-i
 In accordance with the view expressed
above, we may expect that the oldest spelling of this form must have been **ú-uš-te-e-ni,
cf. impf. ú-uš-ke/a- (OS).
 To my knowledge, the spelling ú-a°
only occurs in ú-ar-aš-ḫa-an-zi (KUB 10.66 vi 4), which duplicates u̯[a-ar-aš-ḫa-an-zi] (KBo 7.48, 12), and in ú-a-i̯a-at-ten ‘you must send’ (KUB 14.14 ii 36), which
clearly is an error for normal u-i-i̯a-at-ten (see s.v. ui̯e-zi / ui̯- ‘to send’). The spelling u-aº
is only attested in KBo 24.11 rev.? (10) [...]x-še-eš u-an-za an-na-n[e-kº],
in which the interpretation of u-an-za (or 10-an-za?) is unclear.
 The attestation “u-u̯a-al-lu-uš” (KUB 29.1 iv 9) in my view is to be read as 10 u̯a-al-lu-uš (see s.v. UZUu̯alla-, u̯alli-).
The spellings u-u̯a-al-ḫ° and u-u̯a-al-aḫ-° are found in one text only, KBo 16.50 obv. 10, 15,
20, and are so exceptional when compared to the other spellings of u̯alḫ- (±300 times with u̯a- in my files) that we can safely disregard them.
 Or /uə‑/, e.g. u̯a-ra-a-ni = /uərʔā́ni/ ‘burns’ or u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi = /uəlHántsi/ ‘they hit’.
 Of words that are normally spelled with u̯a-, we find only a few forms that show ú-u̯a-:
ú-u̯a-an-ti-u̯a-an-ta-az ‘lightning(?)’ (KUB 17.10 ii 3) instead of
normal u̯a-an-t° (see s.v. u̯ant-, u̯antae-,
ú-u̯a-ar-ra ‘help’ (KUB 31.4 obv. 3) instead of normal u̯a-ar-r° (see s.v. u̯arri- / u̯arrai-); ú‑u̯a-ar-ka-an-ta-an ‘fat’ (KBo 3.60 ii 3) instead of normal u̯a-ar-k° (see s.v. u̯arkant-); ú-u̯a-ar-ša-ma-an ‘firewood’ (KUB 32.129 iv 3) instead of
normal u̯a-ar-š° (as attested in ibid. 4, see s.v. GIŠu̯aršma-); and ú-u̯a-aš-ta-i ‘offends’ (KBo 3.28 ii 10) instead of
normal u̯a-aš-t° (see s.v. u̯ašta-i / u̯ašt-).
Since these are all unique forms that cannot compete with the manifold
attestations with u̯a- of the words to which they belong, I
disregard them. The spelling ú-u̯a-aḫ-nu-u̯a-ar (KBo 3.2 i 66 passim), instead of correct u̯a-aḫ-nu-mar is clearly due to the fact that the author of this horse-training text
is non-native. The only word that shows genuine alteration is (u)u̯āi- ‘woe’: u̯a-a-i-in (StBoT 25.3 iv 14, 40, StBoT 25.7 iv 9); ú-u̯a-a-i-in (StBoT
25.4 iv 27, 35, StBoT 25.7 iv 5); ú-u̯a-a-i
(KBo 3.6 i 29, StBoT 24 i 34, iii 56, KUB 21.12+ iii 39, Bronzetafel iv 9, 16,
27, KUB 26.32 i 14, KUB 22.70 obv. 16); and ú-u̯a-i (VSNF 12.125 obv. 5, 10, 11, KUB 16.10, 7, KUB 23.1+
ii 32). Since this word is clearly onomatopoetic, it is irrelevant here.
 All other apparent examples like ui̯e-zi / ui̯- ‘to send’, ūk ‘I’, ūnna-i / ūnni- ‘to send (here)’, uni ‘that’, unu-zi ‘to decorate’, ūpp-zi ‘to come up (of the sun)’, uppa-i
/ uppi- ‘to send (here)’, ūrki- ‘trace’, ūššii̯e/a-zi ‘to open (curtains)’ and uda-i
/ ud- ‘to bring (here)’ reflect *H(V)uC°,
and therefore are treated under the paragraph ‘Word-internally between
consonants’ (§ 126.96.36.199.f).
 From MH times onwards, this verb is spelled
u̯a-ra-a-ni = /uərʔā́ni/, but
this is irrelevant here.
 Namely that every /u/ following /H/ or /h/
automatically turns into /o/.
 In a-ú-e-er and a-ú-er (never **a-u-e-er) ‘they saw’ and ma-ú-er (never **ma-u-er) ‘they fell’, the
spelling with ‑ú- is influenced by the spelling of the diphthong /au/,
which in these verbs is always spelled °a-ú-CV°. The word la-la-ú-e-ša- ‘ant’ (never **la-la-u-e-ša-) is the
Luwian variant of Hitt. la-la-ku-e-ša-.
 The spelling ni-u-i-i[t] (KUB
31.91, 5), instr. of nēu̯a-, must represent the same form as the spelling
ne-e-u-it, and therefore should be read né-u-i-i[t].
(KBo 6.2+ iii 49 (OS)), pár-ta-ú-ni-t=u-uš (KBo 17.1 i 6 (OS)), [pá]r-ta-ú-na-aš
(KUB 36.49 i 8 (OS?)).
(KBo 6.3 iii 53 (OH/NS)), a-ša-ú-na-az (KUB 30.10 obv. 15 (OH/MS)),
pár-ta-ú-ni-it (KUB 32.122, 6, 7 (MS?)) vs. a-aš-ši-i̯a-u-ni-it (KUB 33.62 ii 20 (OH/MS)) and ḫu-et-ti-i̯a-u-ni
(KUB 15.34 iv 61 (MH/MS)).
(KUB 13.5 ii 22 (OH/NS)), a-ša-u-na-az (KUB 13.4 iv 59 (OH/NS), KUB 24.3
ii 12 (MH/NS)), pár-ta-u-na-az (KBo 8.155 ii 9 (NS)), pár-da-u-na-az
(KBo 27.163, 7 (MH/NS)), pár-da-a-u-na-za (KBo 33.188 iii? 14
(MH/NS)), pár-ta-a-u-ni-it (KBo 4.2 i 4 (OH/NS), KUB 15.31 i 35, ii 40
(MH/NS)), pár-ta-u-ni-it (KUB 15.32 i 37 (MH/NS), KBo 15.48 ii 6, 27
(MH/NS)), pár-ta-u-na-aš (VBoT 125, 3 (NS)), ša-ra-u-na-an-za
(KUB 18.11 rev. 5 (NH)) vs. ḫar-ša-ú-n[i] (175/w obv. 8 (NS)), ḫar-ša-ú-na[-aš] (KBo 6.34 ii 39 (MH/NS)) and pár-ta-ú-ni-it (KUB
33.8 ii 16 (fr.), 17 (fr.) (OH/NS)).
 Cf. Rieken 1999: 352.
 The text is quite corrupt: KUB 9.22 ii (39) DUGkap-pí=ma-a=š-ša-an ku-iš
(40) ḫar-na-a-ú-uš la-ḫu-an-zi should actually have been ... ku-iš ḫar-na-iš la-ḫu-an-za ‘what sap has been poured into the vessel’.
 Prof. Kortlandt informs me that from a
typological point of view the lowering of /au/ to /ao/ before /n/ should be
interpreted as the rise of nasal vowels: /aun/ > /a˜/.
 A sequence °aiu° does not originally
occur in Hittite words: pa-a-i-ú ‘he must give’ is a secondary formation
instead of more original pa-a-ú < *h1pói-u, in which
the stem pāi- was restored. All other cases where we find °aiu°,
we are dealing with either names or words of foreign origin.
 Note that CHD L-N: 307 incorrectly cites nom.sg.c. “mi-u-uš”
(KUB 39.41 obv. 17 (NS), KUB 33.38 iv 10 (OH/MS)): these forms actually are mi-ú-uš.
 For /‑ʔ‑/, cf. § 1.4.5.b.
 Or /Héun/ > /Hé˜/, cf. note 83.
 Besides a few times a-pu-un, but
these are irrelevant here.
 Besides a few times a-pu-uš, but
these are irrelevant here.
 Except URULa-aḫ-ḫu-ú-i-i̯a-aš-ši-iš (Bronzetafel i 69).
 Puhvel HED 4: 153 incorrectly cites the
form of KBo 21.22, 10 as “ki-nu-ú-pí”.
 Besides a few times ku-uš.
 See CHD L-N: 26 for attestations.
 See CHD L-N: 86f. for attestations.
 See CHD L-N: 319f. for attestations.
 E.g. e-ša-a-ri (iv 13) instead of normal e-ša-ri, ḫu-ma-an (i 15) instead of ḫu-u-ma-an, ḫé-u-uš (ii 22) instead of normal ḫé-mu-uš.
 See CHD L-N: 333 for attestations.
 See CHD P: 373f. for attestations.
 See CHD P: 400 for attestations.
 See CHD P: 387 for attestations.
 See CHD P: 402 for attestations.
 Cf. Melchert 1993a: 232.
 The only exception in the whole Hittite
corpus, ḫu-ú-ni-ik-zi (KBo 6.2 i 16), must be a mistake, as we
have seen above.
 Just as the ‘ligature’ I+A (†) is cited xA, the ligature ME+EŠ (^) is cited MEŠ, and SISKUR.SISKUR ("") is cited SÍSKUR.
 Cf. Rieken 2005 for a similar view of these
 Also in šar-lu-u-ma-aš /srlomás/, gen.sg. of the verbal noun of šarlae-zi ‘to
exalt’, although in this case we are dealing with a secondary tarn(a)-class
ending instead of expected šarlāu̯ar.
 Note that normally *ou yields au
in front of *n, but in this case we are dealing with a pre-Hittite
univerbation of the preverb *h2ou, which in isolation yielded
/ʔu/, and the verb nai-i / ni- ‘to turn’.
 Incorrectly cited in CHD L-N: 330 as “mu-u-un-na-a-it”.
 Or this form, which is attested in a MS
texts, represents /?(a)runi/ < *h3(o)ru-n-i,
in which the lowering of /Cun/ to /Con/, which starts within the MH period, has
not taken place yet.
 This means that in effect we are dealing
with a preservation of PIE *o as Hitt. /o/ in the position *Cóm.
 One could think of e.g. *prtuHn-
< *prtH-u-n- vs. *prtH-o-un-
 The original distribution must have been ūḫC° vs. ūnḫV°,
so **ūḫzi / ūnḫanzi.
 Thus also Rieken 2005.
 Unless we assume that the two forms that
are spelled lu-ú-ri- (cf. § 188.8.131.52f as well as s.v.) are mistakes. Then, on the
basis of a-ni-u-ur < *h3n-ié-ur, we should assume
that /Ceur/ > /Cor/.
 Note that ūššii̯e/a-zi ‘to draw open (of curtains)’, spelled ú-uš-ši-
and uš-ši- = /ʔuSie/a‑/,
reflects an univerbation of the preverb *h2ou and the verb *h1s-ié/ó-,
which took place at a stage when *h2ou had already become
/ʔu/ in isolation.
 Note that uda-i / ud- ‘to bring (here)’, which is spelled ú-d°
= /ʔud°/, reflects a univerbation of the preverb
*h2ou and the verb *deh3- which took place
at a stage in which *h2ou had already become /ʔu/ in isolation.
 Note that the handcopy of KUB 23.8 seems to
show a form u̯a-aḫ-nu-u-u[t] in line 7. The photograph of this tablet (available through
Hetkonk), in my view rather shows u̯a-aḫ-nu-u[t], however. Compare also line 8 where the
photograph clearly shows i-da-a-lu, which turns up in the handcopy as i-da-za-lu.
 Possibly /o/ when in *C_lVback
and in *CulH.
 Or /a˜/, cf. note 83.
 Or /˜/, cf. note 87.
 On the basis of a-ni-u-ur < *h3n-ié-ur. If lu-ú-ri- indeed reflects *leh1uri-,
then *Ceur > Hitt. /Cūr/ with the exception that *ieur
> Hitt. /ior/.
 Or /ų/, cf.
 Or /˜/, cf. note 87.
 This consistency is also found in the
spellings of names: e.g. mGa-aš-šu-ú or mKa-aš-šu-ú
is never spelled **mKa/Ga-aš-šu-u; mUz-zu-u
is never spelled **mUz-zu-ú.
 The two remarkable spellings ge-en-zu-ú
(KUB 31.127 i 4) instead of normal ge-en-zu and šu-ú-u̯a-ru-ú (KUB 12.29, 3) instead of normal šu-(ú-)u̯a-ru do not contradict this: they are just occasional
spellings that stress the u-ness of the word-final vowel.
 The words šīšḫau and garāu are real hapaxes, GIŠmarāu
occurs in dat.-loc.sg. ma-ra-a-u-i (1256/v obv. 3) as well.
 The reconstruction of ši-i-iš-ḫa-u as *si-sh2ou is far from certain,
 A concrete case could e.g. be the
nom.-acc.sg. form sākan ‘oil’ followed by the enclitic possessive
pronoun =šmi-, =šma-, =šme- ‘your (pl.), their’, which
should have been spelled **šākašmet ‘your / their oil’, representing [sā́gəsmed] < *[sā́gənsmed] < *só⁽œ⁾(h)n=smed.
 Lenition is found in the other Anatolian
languages as well, under the same conditions (cf. Melchert 1994a: 60 for
examples), which implies that this was a PAnat. phenomenon. See Adiego 2001 for
the argumentation that viewed in moraic terms the two lenition rules can be
regarded as one.
 This rule is first formulated by Eichner
 This shows that at the moment that lenition
took place, the result of the monophthongization of *ei and *oi
was */ē/, which was still different from original short */ĕ/, which did not
cause lenition. Only later on, probably as a result of the loss of a
distinction in length between */ē/ and */ĕ/ in unaccented syllables (due to the
weakening of unaccented */ĕ/ to /i/ and /a/), accented */ē/ and /ĕ/ merged into
 This is the only reasonable way in which we
can explain the frequent alternation in ḫi-verbs
between a lenis stem-final consonant in 3sg.pres.act. and a fortis one in
3pl.pres.act., e.g. ištāpi / ištappanzi, which reflects *stópei / *stpénti,
where *ó > PAnat. /Ö/ > Hitt.
/ā́/ caused lenition of the following *p
 This example shows that the assimilation of
*VmsV to /VSV/ antedates the process of lenition.
 Examples like ārri ‘he washes’ < *h1órh1ei
and šākki ‘he knows’< *sókh1ei
show that at the moment of lenition *‑rh1- and *‑kh1-
phonologically still counted as clusters (lenition only affects intervocalic
consonants!). So the assimilation of *Vrh1V to /VRV/ and the
disappearance of *h1 in *Ch1V only took
place after the lenition.
 First suggested by Eichner 1973: 10086.
 Compare the Lycian ending ‑χaga < PAnat. */‑Haha/.
 This example shows that the rise of the
epenthetic vowel /ɨ/ in a cluster *VKsC
postdates the fortition of */g/ to /k/ before ‑šk-.
 Possibly through a stage */Htsé/á‑/
in which the suffix ‑i̯e/a- was secondarily restored.
 With secondary addition of ‑i in
analogy to the other present verbal endings in ‑i (-mi, ‑ši,
 The assibilation of *d- > /s/ in
front of *i must be post-PAnatolian, since it does not occur in the
other Anatolian languages (e.g. Luw. (d)Tiu̯ad- ‘Sun-god’ < *diéuot-, Pal. tiuna- ‘god’ < dieu-). Note, however,
that no examples of *VdiV > /VsiV/ (a development that on the basis
of *VtiV > PAnat. */VtsiV/ could a priori be expected to
have taken place in PAnatolian as well) are known.
 Contra Kimball 1999: 292 who explicitly
states that “*dh was not assibilated before *y”.
 We would expect lenition of *ḱ to /g/ here (*sóḱr > **/sā́gr/
like *‑ótr > Hitt. /‑ā́dr/, °a-a-tar), but apparently /k/ was restored in
analogy to the oblique cases /skn‑/ < *sḱ-n-.
 Contra Melchert 1994a: 61, who claims that
“[t]he PIE voiceless labiovelar */kw/ is [..] weakened to PA[nat.]
*/gw/ in medial position”.
 The preservation of *kw-
in kutruen- < *kwtru-en- ‘witness’
then must be due to restoration in analogy to the expected full grade form *kwetur-,
which is not attested in Hittite anymore, however.
 See at § 184.108.40.206d below for the fact that this i- does not
partake in the lowering of OH /i/ to NH /e/ before /s/, which indicates that
this vowel was phonologically different from /i/ < *i.
 The geminate ‑šš- in the CLuwian
cognate īš(ša)ra/i- ‘hand’ may show that fortition of *s
to /S/ before *r is PAnatolian already.
 Note that all instances of Vši̯V in Hittite must be of secondary origin, e.g. āššii̯e/a-tta(ri) is a secondary ‑i̯e/a-extension of āšš-ari; peššii̯e/a-zi and ūššii̯e/a-zi are secondary formations of pe+šii̯e/a-zi and u+šii̯e/a-zi; u̯ašii̯e/a-zi ‘to buy’ is a secondary stem on the basis
of original u̯āš-i / u̯aš-; u̯ešii̯e/a-tta(ri) is based on the noun u̯eši- / u̯ešai-; etc.
 Although the spelling ‑Vp-šV- does
not reveal anything about whether the ‑s- is single or geminate and
although no spellings can be found that expressly indicate singleness (never **-pa-šV-)
or geminateness (never **-pa-aš-šV), the fact that the *s fortites
to /S/ in *VKsV and *VTsV makes it highly plausible, in my view,
that this happened in *VPsV as well.
 Melchert 1994a: 77 states that *Vh2sV
> Hitt. VššV on the basis of his reconstruction of the genitival
suffix ‑ašša- as *‑eh2so-. See s.v. ‑ašša- for a discussion of this etymology, which
seems incorrect to me.
 Since lenition is a PAnat. feature, the
assimilation of *VmsV to /VSV/ must be PAnatolian as well.
 Perhaps we must assume on the basis of *VlHsC
> /VLɨsC/ and *VmHsC > /VMɨsC/ that the regular outcome of *VrHsC
was /VRɨsC/ and that in ú-e-ri-iš-ke/a- the
single ‑r- was introduced from the indicative u̯er(ii̯e/a)-.
 If ḫa-a-ni-iš, ḫa-a-ni-eš /Hā́nɨs/
‘wipe!’ < *h2ómh1s and ḫa-a-ni-iš-šu-u̯a-ar, ḫa-a-ni-eš-š[u-u̯a-ar] /Hā́nɨSuər/
‘wiping’ < *h2ómh1s-¾µ are really phonetically regular, the different outcome
may be due to the preceding leniting *ó. Note that these forms may also
show that the ‑m- in damme/išḫā- at one point has been restored in analogy
to the verb tamāšš-zi / tame/išš-.
 Although on the basis of *CmHsV >
Hitt. /CnɨSV/ we may rather have to assume that
regularly *CmHsC yields /CnɨsC/
and that in dameške/a- the ‑m- has been restored in analogy
to the verb tamāšš-zi / tame/išš-.
 See also Kavitskaya 2001: 278f. for a
treatment of the anaptyctic vowel /ɨ/
and the factors that determine its place within a cluster.
 Note that there is no anaptyctic vowel in ḫur-za(-aš)-ke/a- /Hortské/á‑/ ‘to curse (impf.)’ < *h2urt-sḱé/ó-, iš-pa-an-za-aš-ke/a- /ispndské/á‑/ ‘to libate (impf.)’ < *spnd-sḱé/ó- and ma-al-za(-aš)-ke/a- /məldské/á‑/ ‘to recite (impf.)’ < *mldh-sḱé/ó-. This must be due to the fact that a resonant
is preceding the dental consonant.
 Note that OH ḫi-in-ga-aš-ke/a- /Hinkské/á‑/ yields MH ḫi-in-ki-iš-ke/a- /Hinkɨské/á‑/.
 The ‑z in ḫa-aš-te-er-za /Hstérts/ ‘star’ < *h2stËr + s must be due to the secondary attachment of
the commune nom.sg. ending ‑s to the stem /Hstér/.
 Note that in ú-u̯a-an-zi /ʔuántsi/ ‘they see’ < *Hu-énti and ú-u̯a-a-tar /ʔuā́dr/ ‘inspection’ < *Hu-ótr the /ʔ‑/ must be restored on the basis of e.g. ú-me-e-ni /ʔuméni/ ‘we see’ and uš-te-e-ni /ʔusténi/ ‘you see’. The form ú-u̯a-an-ši-ke/a- ‘to copulate (impf.)’ = /ʔuənsɨke/a‑/ goes back to *h1/3unsḱé/ó- in which the initial laryngeal is regularly retained
before vocalic ‑u-.
 This form shows that the lost of
intervocalic /ʔ/ is a late OH phenomenon.
 Since none of the examples is fully
certain, this sound law must be regarded as provisional. Note however that
Kimball’s example (1999: 400) in favour of a development *Vh2nV
> Hitt. VnnV is incorrect, see s.v. u̯annum(m)ii̯a-. In word-final position, note the difference between *séh2n
> Hitt. /sáHn/, ša-aḫ-ḫa-an ‘feudal service’ and *duéh2m
> Hitt. /tuā́n/, tu-u̯a-a-an ‘to this side’. The latter development may
be PIE already, which is commonly referred to as ‘Stang’s Law’.
 This fortition may have been
PAnatolian already, if indeed CLuw. ‑d(d)uu̯ar(i) (2pl.midd. ending) reflects *‑dhh2u-,
see s.v. ‑ttuma(ri), ‑ttumat(i), and cf. Melchert 1994a: 77.
 This latter example shows that the
laryngeal must have been present up to the times of assibilation of dentals by
a following ‑i-. Because this assibilation is pre-Hittite only, and not
Proto-Anatolian, the laryngeal was still present at the PAnatolian stage, hence
the PAnat. reconstruction */TʔV/.
 This latter example shows that *h1
does not cause fortition of a preceding *D.
 This example is crucial. If *pri-prh1-ói-ei
would have yielded Hitt. **/priprā́i/, without
retention of *h1 as /ʔ/, it would have been spelled **pa-ri-ip-ra-a-i.
 I regard the apparent retention of
interconsonantal laryngeals in e.g. pár-aḫ-zi = /párHtsi/ < *bhérh2/3ti
and u̯a-al-aḫ-zi = /uálHtsi/ < *uélh3ti
as secondary: the laryngeal must have been restored on the basis of 3pl.pres. *bhrh2/3énti
and *ulh3énti where it was regularly retained.
 This latter example shows that the loss of
*h1 predates the development *eRCC > Hitt. /aRCC/.
 Apparent retention of *h2
and *h3 as /H/ in word-final position in words like ma-ni-i̯a-aḫ ‘distribute!’ < virtual *mniéh2
and u̯a-al-aḫ ‘strike!’ < virtual *uélh3
is of course due to restoration in analogy to the rest of the paradigm.
 Cf. Eichner 1973: 9878, Melchert
1994a: 87 and Kimball 1999: 354-5. Eichner formulates the rule too broad
(“[a]uslautendes ‑r schwindet generell nach unbetontem Vokal”): compare
Kimball who points out that loss is only found after the vowel ‑a-
(retention of *‑r after unaccented *u is found in e.g. *péh2ur
> Hitt. pa-aḫ-ḫur ‘fire’; Eichner’s example *pérur
> Hitt. pé-e-ru rather shows dissimilation due to the first
‑r-). Note that Eichner explains the final ‑r in u̯ātar ‘water’ as analogical after nom.-acc.pl. u̯itār, but this is unnecessary: Hitt. u̯ātar represents /uā́dr/
< *uódr in which *‑r never stood after a vowel.
 Also attested as še-me-en-zi and ši-me-en-zi = /sɨméntsi/.
 Note that this form is not attested with
the spelling **ša-am-ma-na-an-zi. This could either be ascribed to
chance, or it could indicate that in this form the lenis /m/ of the singular, *smén-
> /smén‑/, has been introduced. The form is also attested as še-em-na-an-zi
= /sɨmnántsi/, cf. note 170.
 Cf. Melchert 1994a: 81.
 This form shows that fortition of *m
in front of ‑r- postdates the lenition of intervocalic fortis consonants
due to a preceding *ó (including *‑óCr#, cf. *‑ótr >
 Or /°Cų/, cf. note 83.
 Or /°C˜/, cf. note 83.
 In word-final position there is (at least
graphically) no difference between /S/ and /s/, and I will therefore write
 The 2sg.pres.act. form ku-e-ši ‘you kill’ reflects pre-Hitt. */kuénsi/,
which must show restoration of the stem kuen- in expected **/kuáSi/ <
*gwhénsi. So the fact that *VnsV here yields /VsV with
single ‑š- is due to the fact that the disappearance of *n in
this restored form postdates the development *‑ensV- > Hitt. /‑aSV‑/.
 The verb šamenu-zi ‘to make (something/-one) pass by’ reflects
pre-Hitt. *smen-n(e)u-, which must be a secondary formation replacing
expected *smn-n(e)u-. So the fact that *VnnV here yields /VnV/
with single ‑n- is due to the fact that the disappearance of *n
in this form postdates the development *VnnV > /VNV/.
 Technically, most of these examples reflect
*VmmV, however. The 1sg.pres.act. form ku-e-mi ‘I kill’ < pre-Hitt. */kuénmi/ seems to
show a development *VnmV > Hitt. /VmV/ with single ‑m-. I
assume that this */kuénmi/ was a restored form that replaced expected */kuéMi/
< *gwhénmi, and that the development pre-Hitt. *VnmV
> Hitt. /VmV/ is due to the fact that the disappearance of *n in this
form took place after the development *VnmV > /VMV/ had come to an
end. This also explains forms like tu-uz-zi-ma-an < *tuzzin=man ‘my army’ and ḫu-uḫ-ḫa-ma-an < *ḫuŸŸan=man ‘my grandfather’.
 See CDH L-N: 144 for attestations of these
forms. Occasionally, the ‑n- is restored, yielding ma-a-an-u̯a. The preservation of ‑n- in *h3unuénti
> Hitt. /ʔunuántsi/, ú-nu-u̯a-an-zi ‘they adorn’ is due to restoration of the
causative suffix ‑nu-.
 Note that the etymology is uncertain.
 Note that e.g. i̯a-an-zi ‘they go’ < *h1iénti
and i-i̯a-an-t- ‘sheep’ < *h1iént- (?)
show that *i is not lost in the word-initial sequence *h1ie-.
 This form shows that the assimilation of *VsiV
> /VSV/ postdates the lenition of intervocalic fortis consonants due to a
preceding long accented vowel.
 With *u̯-
in analogy to the full grade stem *u̯es-, cf. the lemma u̯ešš-tta, u̯ašše/a-zi.
 Attested from MH times onwards as u̯aššii̯e/a-zi, with restored suffix ‑i̯e/a-.
 See at the lemma of nom.pl.c. ending ‑eš
for my view that contraction of *‑eie- to *‑ē- must have happened
earlier than the loss *i between other vowels as described here.
 This explains the fact that in the oblique
cases of i-stem adjectives the ‑a- of the suffix, which must go
back to post-tonic *e in open syllable (*CÕC-ei-V), is often spelled plene (e.g. ḫar-ša-a-i, ḫar-ša-a-eš, ḫar-ša-a-uš), whereas such a plene spelling is virtually absent in
the oblique cases of u-stem adjectives (e.g. a-aš-ša-u-i, a-aš-ša-u̯a-az,
a-aš-ša-u-e-eš, a-aš-ša-mu-uš < *CÕC-eu-V).
 Also intervocalic ‑i- from secondary
sources is lost with lengthening of the preceding vowel: e.g OH /páiitsi/,
pa-i-iz-zi ‘he goes’ > MH /pā́itsi/, pa-a-iz-zi (see s.v. pai̯i-zi / pai- for an extensive treatment).
 Note that in the case of Hitt. /e/ and /o/
I do not reckon with phonemic length, and that therefore these vowels do not
 In this latter verb, intervocalic /i/ is
nevertheless often found in NH forms because of restoration of the suffix ‑i̯e/a-: NH ta-a-i-e-ez-zi = /tāiétsi/ and NH ta-a-i-i̯a-zi = /tāiátsi/. Compare, however, phonetically
regular 2pl.pres.act. ta-a-et-te-ni (NH) = /tāéteni/.
 This implies that the loss of
word-final *i took places in several stages, probably determined by the
 Possibly through a stage */Htsé/á‑/
in which the suffix ‑i̯e/a- was secondarily restored. Note that
Melcher’s equation (1994a: 62) between HLuw. ha-zi-mi-na and Hitt. ḫazzii̯e/a-, on the basis of which he assumes that
assibilation in a cluster *CtiV took place in PAnatolian as well (with
retention of *i), cannot
be substantiated (cf. s.v. ḫatt‑a(ri), ḫazzii̯e/a-zi).
 Replaced by e-eš-zi with restored ‑i in OS texts
 Similarly in tāi̯e/a-zi ‘to steal’ (cf. note 192) and in u̯ašše/a-zi >> u̯aššii̯e/a-zi ‘to put on clothes’ (cf. note 187).
 The verb zanu-zi ‘to cook (trans.)’ < *tih1-neu-
shows that *h1 at one point had enough vocalic quality to
prevent *i from becoming vocalic too.
 This would mean that the forms e-eš-zi
‘he is’ < *h1ésti (instead of expected **e-eš-ti), še-eš-zi ‘he sleeps’ < *sésti (instead of
expected **še-eš-ti), etc. all show (a trivial) generalization of the
assibilated ending ‑zi.
 Although here we might be dealing with the
secondary introduction of the full grade stem ēšḫ- from the nom.-acc.sg. ēšḫar.
 Melchert’s reformulation (1994a: 133) of
this rule as /‑iCCa‑/ > /‑eCCa‑/, i.e. “a kind of “a-umlaut” in closed
syllables” (apparently to explain idālu- and iu̯ar) still does not account for these forms. Rieken’s
treatment (1996: 294-7) of the lowering cannot fully convince either (her
formulation of the conditioning environments, namely -iCCa- > -eCCa
and i > e “zwischen zwei Dentalen (t, n, s)
oder zwischen l und einem der genannten Laute”, does not account for all
examples, like ḫištā). Moreover, many of the examples of e~i
that she cites in fact are cases where I assume the epenthetic vowel /ɨ/.
 The absence of lowering in kiššan ‘thus’ (but compare the one spelling ke-eš-ša-an
(KBo .4 iii 17)) and kinun ‘now’ seems to be caused by the connection
with kī ‘this (nom.-acc.sg.n.)’ (although ki-nu-un
in principle can be read ke-nu-un as well). Note that words like gimmant- and gimra- are spelled with GI-IM- that can in
principle be read gi-im- as well as ge-em-. Cases like innara° and inan- are real counter-examples, however: they
never show lowering.
 There are no examples of /um/, though. Note
that the i- that emerges in initial clusters of the shape *sT-
did not partake in this lowering and therefore must have been phonologically
different from /i/ < *i and pretonic *e.
 This example shows that ‘vocalization’ of *R
in the initial sequence *uRC- is an inner-Hittite phenomenon: PIE *uRC-
> OH /uRC‑/ > MH/NH /uəRC‑/. This also fits the words ulkiššara- (OH/NS) > u̯alkiššara- (NS) ‘skilled’ and u̯alkuu̯a- ‘bad omen(?)’ (earliest attested in a MS
texts) if this indeeds reflects *ulkwo-. This would mean that
u-ur-ki- ‘track, trail’ cannot go back to *urK-, but
must represent /ʔorKi‑/ < *h1/3urKi-
 E.g. tuu̯ān /tuā́n/ ‘to this side’ < *duéh2m shows
that this development only occurs when *u precedes *o, and not
when it precedes “*ā”. The loss of *u in *Tuo therefore
must be dated to the period before the merger of *o and PAnat. *a/ā.
 Through */CouV/? See below for *CuuV
> Hitt. /CumV/.
 Prof. Kortlandt (p.c.) points out to me
that a development of *u to /m/ is phonetically incomprehensible:
nasilization does not occur spontaneously. He therefore suggests that /m/ in
these cases must be interpreted as /w/
(i.e. a consonantal /ų/) and that the nasalization must be due to
contact with other nasal vowels or nasal consonants. E.g. °Camuš
(acc.pl.c. ending of u-stems) is interpreted by Kortlandt as /°Cawųs/ < */°Cawųs/ (see also § 220.127.116.11f under C_š
for Kortlandt’s view that the acc.pl.c. ending ‑uš represents /‑ųs/ < *‑ms); °numēni as /°nuwéni/ in which *e has become nasalized due to *n,
and therefore causes *u to yield the nasal-vowel /ų/; etc. Similarly in *CHuV > /ComV/ as treated above: tu-me-e-ni
is interpreted by Kortlandt as /t˜wéni/; etc. Although the assumption of nasal
vowels would indeed fit other developments as well (especially the development
of OH /un/ to /on/, cf. note 83) and explain the rise of a nasal consonant
here, it remains problematic why we do not find a nasal consonant in e.g. anii̯au̯anzi ‘to work’ = /ʔniauántsi/ (instead of **anii̯amanzi = “/ʔniawËntsi/”) and why šumariške/a-zi ‘to be pregnant’, which reflects *s(e/o)uH-u̯μ+, shows ‑m- whereas no nasal consonant is
present in its preform. Moreover, nasalization as the result of dissimilation
has also occurred in ú-ra-a-ni ‘burns’ < *urāri < *urh1óri,
where there is no other nasal element that could have caused it.
 The form a-ú-ma-ni is MH and
replaces OH ú-me-e-ni < *Hu-uéni.
 In *ḱélh1st(o) the colouring of *e > /a/ did take place,
however: *ḱélh1st(o) > Hitt. /káLɨsta/, kal-li-iš-ta ‘he called’. This implies a scenario *ḱélh1st(o) > */kéLsta/ > */káLsta/ > /káLɨsta/.
 This latter form clearly shows that the
raising of *e to /i/ between *u and *T predates the
weakening of post-tonic *e to /a/ in open syllables.
 Melchert 1994a: 83.
 Cf. Melchert 1994a: 138.
 This /i/ can itself in younger Hittite
become subject to the lowering to /e/ as described in § 18.104.22.168d, cf. *nébhes
> OH /nébis/, ne-e-pí-iš (OS) > NH /nébes/, ne-pé-eš (NS).
 Cf. Melchert 1994a: 139. See s.v. nepiš-
‘sky’ for the demonstration that this weakening of unaccented *e can be
dated to the 18th-17th century BC.
 This is a powerful explanation for the
replacement of the original 3sg.pret.act. ending *‑e of ḫi-inflected verbs by the corresponding ending of the
sigmatic aorist, *‑s-t > Hitt. ‑š.
 See s.v. nepiš for explanation
of the oblique cases nepišV.
 Note that I do not follow Garrett (apud
Melchert 1994a: 184) who suggests that we are here dealing with a development *=kwe
> *=kwə > Hitt. /=kwu/, spelled V=k-ku.
 Which must be dated to the 18th-17th
century BC, cf. s.v. nepiš- ‘sky’.
 With the disappearance of the Hittite
examples in favour of ‘Eichner’s Law’, it has in my view become highly unlikely
that this law can be upheld for the whole of Indo-European, especially with
regard to words like *gwËh3us > Skt. gáus (not **jáus), Gr. βοῦς, *gwËh3um > Skt. gā́m (not **jā́m),
Gr. βῶν ‘cow’, *nËh2us > Skt. náus, Gr. ναῦς, *nËh2um > Gr. νᾶν ‘ship’, *sËh2ls > Lat. sāl, Gr. ἅλς, Latv. sãls ‘salt’ (cf. Kortlandt 1985a: 118-9) and
possibly *nēh2u- > Lat. nāvis ‘ship’, *h2ēḱ- > Lat. ācer ‘sharp’ (cf. Schrijver 1991: 130-4).
 It must be mentioned that the practice of
plene spelling is less consistent in younger texts anyway, so that it is
possible that in these texts also sequences like /ā́CV/ and /ā́C#/ are
spelled without plene ‑a-.
 Apparent counter-examples like duggāri, kištāri, etc. must reflect *CC-ór, to which
the ‘presentic’ ‑i was attached only after the development of *ó
> /ā́/ in final syllables. So *tuk-ór, *⁽œ⁾hsd-ór
> pre-Hitt. *tukkār, *kištār >> Hitt. tukkāri, kištāri.
 Or /‑ā́s/ if we assume that the expected spelling *ku-u̯a-a-aš = /kuā́s/ is
unattested only by chance.
 Except in 2sg.imp.act. of the dāi/tii̯anzi-class (e.g. da-i ‘place!’ instead of expected **te
< *dhh1-ói), where ‑ai was restored on
the basis of the stem °Cai- as found in the rest of the paradigm.
 See s.v. for the possibility that this word