Kloekhorst (2008: 21); Hoffner / Melchert (2008: 16); Patri (2009: 89)

Abstract In this article it will be argued that in Old Hittite the signs TA and DA are not used interchangeably, as is commonly believed, but in fact represented different sounds. The cuneiform syllabary that was taken over by the Hittites from their North Syrian neighbours 1 possesses in its CV series separate signs to distinguish voiceless from voiced stops, e.g. TA vs. DA, KA vs. GA, KI vs. GI, etc. Yet, already in the beginning of Hittite studies it was noticed that many Hittite words are sometimes spelled with one member of such pairs, and sometimes with the other. 2 For instance, the word for 'they eat' is sometimes spelled a-ta-an-zi, with the sign TA, and sometimes a-da-an-zi, with the sign DA; the verb 'to open up' is sometimes spelled ki-nu-, with the sign KI, and sometimes gi-nu-, with the sign GI; etc. In the Hittitological literature it is therefore generally stated that in spelling the choice between the signs for the voiceless stop and the signs for the voiced stop is random, and that the use of a specific sign in a given word has no bearing whatsoever on the phonology of the stop it denotes. 3 In Kloekhorst 2010, I opposed this view, however, arguing that in word-initial position the signs for the voiceless stops (TA, KA, KI, etc.) represent phonologically different sounds from those represented by the signs for the voiced stops (DA, GA, GI, etc.). This of course begs the question whether also in word-internal position such a distinction is present. 1 Especially the ductus as found in Old Babylonian texts from Alalah (Tell Açana, level VII) resembles the typical Hittite ductus best, cf. Rüster / Neu (1989: 15)

The origin of the Proto-Indo-European nominal accent-ablaut paradigms

In this paper, I will discuss the origin of the different nominal accent-ablaut paradigms that can be reconstructed for (late) Proto-Indo-European, and argue that new insights into several peculiarities of the Hittite nominal case system may have interesting consequences for this topic. In order to do so, it is important that we first have a good understanding of the nature and development of Proto-Indo-European ablaut and its correlation with accent.NWO276-70-026Descriptive and Comparative Linguistic

Ejective stops in Hittite: evidence for a phonemic length distinction

In this article, it is argued that Hittite did not only possess a series of long ejective stops, as has previously been proposed, but that it also knew a series of short ejective stops. In this way, the Hittite stop system can be analysed as consisting of two types of stops, plain and ejective ones, with both types showing a length opposition: plain short /t/ vs. plain long /tː/, and ejective short /t’/ vs. ejective long /t’ː/.Descriptive and Comparative Linguistic

Anatolian

After giving a concise overview of all members of the Anatolian language family, this chapter offers an in-depth discussion of the family’s phylolinguistic make-up. It discusses all major linguistic arguments on the basis of which it can be determined that Anatolian is a single branch within the wider Indo-European language family, as well as the linguistic arguments that can be used for drawing a family tree of Anatolian. It is argued that the first split in the Anatolian branch is between the Hittite branch and a branch that comprises all other Anatolian languages. In the latter branch, first Lydian and then Palaic split off, after which the remaining language develops into Proto-Luwic, the ancestor of the Luwian and Caro-Lycian branches. This phylolinguistic reconstruction of the Anatolian family includes a discussion of the possible dates of all nodes in its tree and of its Proto-Anatolian ancestor language. The chapter also assesses the place of Anatolian within the Indo-European family as a whole on the basis of a discussion of possible closer relationships between Anatolian and other branches of Indo-European, as well as of the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis.Descriptive and Comparative Linguistic

Luwians, Lydians, Etruscans, and Troy: the linguistic landscape of Northwestern Anatolia in the pre-classical period

It is debated which language or languages may have been spoken in the northwestern part of Anatolia – including the area where Troy was situated – during the second millennium BCE. This article will argue that at the end of the Bronze Age (the second half of the second millennium BCE) the eastern part of this region, the land of Māša, was home to speakers of an early version of Lydian, whereas in its western part, the land of Wiluša, the main language was Proto-Tyrsenic, the ancestor of Etruscan.Descriptive and Comparative Linguistic

Hittite ‘water’

Descriptive and Comparative Linguistic

The spelling of clusters of dental stop + sibilant in Hittite

In this article it is argued that the Hittite ts-sound spelled by z-signs was not a monophonemic affricate /ts /, as is often assumed, but that Hittite instead contained several clusters of dental stop + sibilant. We can distinguish four of such clusters in intervocalic position: (1) lenis /t/ + lenis /s/, which is spelled Vz-zV; (2) lenis /t/ + fortis /sː/, which is spelled Vz-šV; (3) fortis /tː/ + lenis /s/, which is spelled Vz-zV; and (4) fortis /tː/ + fortis /sː/, which is spelled Vt-šV.Descriptive and Comparative Linguistic

The phonetics and phonology of Hittite intervocalic fortis and lenis stops

In the field of Hittite linguistics there is a longstanding debate on the phonetics of the Hittite fortis and lenis stops in intervocalic position, and on how to phonologically interpret the distinction between these two series. Although it is usually assumed that the two series were distinct in voice, /t/ vs. /d/, respectively, arguments in favor of a length distinction, /tː/ vs. /t/, have been put forward as well (Melchert 1994 and Kloekhorst 2008; 2014; 2016). This article will discuss two recent treatments of this topic: one by Simon (2020), who specifically argues against a length distinction, and adduces new arguments in favor of the traditionally assumed voice distinction; and one by Patri (2009; 20191)), who rather posits a distinction /th / vs. /d/. It will be argued that the arguments used by both Simon and Patri are untenable, and that all evidence rather points to a length contrast, /tː/ vs. /t/.Descriptive and Comparative Linguistic