HITTITE aši, āšma AND THE DEICTIC ORIGINOF INDO-EUROPEAN SIGMATIC VERBAL FORMATION

SHIELDS, Jr., Kenneth

Portal Czasopism Naukowych (E-Journals)

Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 
vol. 12 Kraków 2007 
 
 
 
Kenneth  SHIELDS,  Jr.  (Millersville) 
 
 
HITTITE  aši,  āšma  AND  THE  DEICTIC  ORIGIN 
OF  INDO-EUROPEAN  SIGMATIC  VERBAL  FORMATIONS 
 
 
For many years now, I have endorsed the idea that a number of Indo-
European verbal inflectional and derivational suffixes found in a variety of 
dialects derive from original deictic particles affixed to verb structures as a 
means of specifying the time of verbal action or state (cf., e.g., Shields 1981a, 
1981b, 1982, 1983, 1986a, 1986b, 1988a, 1988b, 1989a, 1989b, 1992a, 1992b, 
1997a, 1997b, 1999). In short, I have argued that when deictic elements (X) 
were affixed to third person singular constructions in *-F,TP
1
PT two reanalyses were 
possible: 
(1) *-F-X > *-X 
(2) *-F-X > *-X-F. 
The first reanalysis gave rise to inflectional suffixes, and the second to 
formative (derivational) elements. Because the third person singular tends to 
impose its form on other members of its paradigm (cf. Benveniste 1971), reana-
lyzed structures like these were subject to analogical extension. I have further 
proposed that the deictic system of Indo-European was originally binary, organ-
ized simply as here-now : not-here-now (cf. Shields 1992a: 18-21), although 
deictic particles could express varying degrees of remoteness from here-now 
(cf. Schmid 1972). Among the first Indo-European verbal structures which I 
explained in this way were the sigmatic ones (Shields 1981a, 1992a: 35-40), 
which include aorists, futures, subjunctives, desideratives, preterites, presents, 
and inflectional second-third person markers. I have demonstrated at length how 
the sigmatic element in all of these constructions could be derived from a 
deictic particle in *(e/o)s with not-here-now signification, especially since the 
past, future, and irrealis are all manifestations of the not-here-now. Although I 
believe that my evidence for the existence of such a deictic in *(e/o)s is suffi-
cient to justify my hypothesis, I now wish to expand that evidence based on some 
very compelling research by Goedegeburre (2002/03) and Hoffner (2002/03). 
                                                 
TP
1
PT I follow Watkins (1962: 90-106, 1969: 49-50) in reconstructing *-F as the original 
exponent of the third person singular. 
134 KENNETH  SHIELDS,  JR. 
My argument for a deictic in *(e/o)s with not-here-now signification 
includes such data as an attested locative suffix in *-s (e.g., loc. pl. *-s-i [< *-s + 
the deictic particle *-i]: Gk. -si; *-su [< *-s + the deictic particle *-u]: TP
2
PT Gk. -su, 
Skt. -su, OCS -xъ, Lith. -su), since locative markers frequently evolve from 
deictics (Markey 1979: 65); an attested genitive suffix in *(e/o)-s (e.g., gen. sg. 
*-e/os: Skt. -as, Gk. -os, Lat. -is, etc.), since genitive markers, too, tend to arise 
from deictics (Lyons 1968: 500); and an attested demonstrative in *s- (e.g., 
*so-: Skt. sá[s], Gk. hó, Go. sa), since demonstratives likewise generally have 
their origin in deictic particles (Brugmann 1911: 311). This latter demonstrative 
form in *so-, which, according to Brugmann (1904: 20, 1911: 312), possessed 
“Dér-Deixis” (a non-proximal deixis), I have derived from a contamination of 
the deictics *(e/o)s (specifically, its zero grade) and *e/o (cf. Hirt 1927: 10-11). 
However, Goedegeburre (2002/03) and Hoffner (2002/03) provide significantly 
more direct evidence for a not-here-now deictic in *(e/o)s. 
Goedegeburre (2002/03: 1) argues that Hittite attests “a pronoun/adjective 
aši,” which “is not an anaphoric pronoun,” as has been assumed (cf. Laroche 
1979: 148 and Puhvel 1984),TP
3
PT “but the 3P
rd
P
 person demonstrative ‘yon’ instead, 
accompanying the 1P
st
P
 person demonstrative kā- ‘this, near me’ and the 2P
nd
P
 per-
son demonstrative apā- ‘that, near you’.” According to Goedegeburre (2002/03: 
3), “this three-term system did not only exist in later Hittite, we also have to 
assume that it already was fully functional in Old Hittite.”TP
4
PT She supports her 
point that aši was a genuine demonstrative by showing that it meets all the typo-
logical criteria which have been posited for demonstratives, and she carefully 
documents the “3P
rd
P
 person distal” deictic value of aši, “with a secondary use as 
a disassociative marker” – a function in keeping with its primary deixis.TP
5
PT Be-
cause of the close etymological connection between demonstratives and deictic 
particles, one can easily posit a deictic etymon for the Hittite form. 
Although Goedegeburre (2002/03) does not provide an etymology of aši, I 
would suggest that it derives from a late contamination of the deictic/demon-
strative *(e/o)s (specifically, its o-grade) and a comparable element *i (cf. Hirt 
1927: 11). Such contamination of deictics/demonstratives is a common develop-
                                                 
TP
2
PT Hirt (1927: 11-12) provides ample evidence for the reconstruction of this particle. 
TP
3
PT Prior to Laroche (1979), “the view … was that aši and the other forms [of its para-
digm] were demonstratives, albeit anaphoric ones” (cf. Friedrich 1960: 68) (Goede-
geburre 2002/03: 3). 
TP
4
PT For example, Friedrich & Kammenhuber (1975: 400) contest the antiquity of the 
form. 
TP
5
PT That is, “the use of aši indicates a kind of cognitive distance, for which a better term 
might be disassociation” (Goedegeburre 2002/03: 22). “To summarize, even if an 
entity is in the presence of a Speaker and somehow associated with him, it is still 
possible to use aši in order to express the negative or disassociating emotional 
attitude of the Speaker towards the entity” (Goedegeburre 2002/03: 24). 
  HITTITE  aši,  āšma …  135 
ment because of the need to reinforce the deixis of these forms (cf. Lane 1961: 
469). Although the original deictic force of *i seems to have been here-now 
expression, as evidenced by its presence in primary verbal suffixes used to mark 
present tense, this original particle was subject to weakening of its deictic force 
in the dialects. In Latin, for example, the demonstrative i-s (nom. sg. masc.), i-d 
(nom.-acc. sg. neut.), derived from deictic *i, has third-person value. Indeed, in 
regard to this Latin demonstrative, Schmid (1972: 10) identifies its deictic value 
as ‘yon,’ or, in his words, “nicht näher bestimmt.” If one assumes the same 
development of *i in Hittite, then it is not surprising that non-proximal *(e/o)s 
and *i were contaminated there. It is interesting to note that other members of 
the suppletive paradigm of which aši is a part lend themselves to a similar 
etymology involving the contamination of deictics. For example, the Old Hittite 
nom.-acc. sg. neut. eni is probably a contamination of the non-proximal deictic 
*(e/o)n (cf. Shields 1992a: 29) and *i, while the Old Hittite acc. sg. common 
uni probably reflects a contamination of the deictics *u (with “there and then” 
signification, cf. Hirt 1927: 11-12), *(e/o)n in zero grade, and *i. 
Hoffner (2002/03: 81) proposes that the Hittite adverbial form āšma con-
tains an original deictic element which “was not proximal (close to or on the 
‘deictic center’), but distal.” That is, its function was to add temporal distance to 
the verbal action or state, marking it as “decidedly then,” or distant to the 
“deictic center.” Moreover, he asserts that āšma is to be etymologically con-
nected to aši (2002/03: 81-83),TP
6
PT although he points out that “since āšma is an 
adverb (or interjection), not a pronoun, and is further relatively rare in preserved 
texts, we cannot expect to be able to identify examples of all [the typological 
demonstrative] uses for [aši].” Nevertheless, Hoffner’s argument for an etymo-
logical connection between āšma and aši “focus[es] … on three aspects of 
distance or remoteness: (1) temporal, (2) spatial, and (3) dissociative” (2002/03: 
83). He maintains that the final -ma of āšma results from the contamination of 
the deictic/demonstrative āš with another particle in -a/-ma, widely attested in 
Hittite. Of course, he notes the difference in vocalic length of the initial 
segments of āšma and aši and argues that, “since in Hittite texts from Boğazköy 
word-initial writings like a-a-, e-e-, i-i-, and u-u- are confined to Hurrian, 
Luwian and Hattian words,” aši may have had a long initial which was not 
represented in writing, or, less likely, that “an alternate account could suppose 
compensatory vowel lengthening accompanying contraction” for āšma (2002/03: 
82). In my own view, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that the long-initial of 
āš-ma could have resulted from the contamination of the deictic particle *(e/o)s 
with the non-proximal deictic *e/o (cf. Hirt 1927: 10-11), i.e., *e/o + *e/os > āš. 
Alternatively, if Voyles (2004: 152) is correct in his assertion that historical 
                                                 
TP
6
PT Hoffner thereby rejects *sem- ‘one’ (cf. Eichner 1992: 43-44) and kāšma ‘see, be-
hold’ (Puhvel 1983: 671) as possible underlying etyma for āšma. 
136 KENNETH  SHIELDS,  JR. 
vowel length was lost in early Hittite; that “in languages where phonemic vowel 
length has been lost, stressed vowels tend to be phonemically lengthened”; and 
that in Hittite “the first vowel in a word receives the main stress,” it is reason-
able to suppose that *e/os underlies both aši and āšma and that only the latter 
represents in explicit orthographic form the vocalic length which both came to 
exhibit as a result of the lengthening of initial stressed syllables in later Hittite. 
In this brief paper, I have attempted to demonstrate that the recent analyses 
formulated by Goedegeburre and Hoffner of Hittite aši and āšam as original, 
genuine demonstrative/deictic forms with non-proximal deictic force lends 
support to my own proposal that Indo-European verbal suffixes in general and 
sigmatic suffixes in particular derive from the reanalysis of deictic particles, a 
case in point being the non-proximal deictic particle *(e/o)s. I have also at-
tempted to provide some insight into the etymology of these Hittite forms and 
those paradigmatically associated with them. 
 
 
Kenneth Shields, Jr. 
Millersville University 
English Department 
P.O. Box 1002 
Millersville, PA 17551-0302, USA 
 
 
R e f e r e n c e s  
 
Benveniste, E. 
 1971. “Relationships of Person in the Verb”, [in:] Problems in General 
Linguistics, M. Meek (trans.), 195-204, Coral Gables, FL: University 
of Miami Press. 
Brugmann, K. 
 1904. Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen, Strass-
burg: Trübner. 
 1911. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen 
Sprachen, Vol. 2.2, Strassburg: Trübner. 
Eichner, H. 
 1992. “Anatolian”, [in:] J. Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals, 
28-96, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Friedrich, J. 
 1960. Hethitisches Elementarbuch I, Heidelberg: Winter. 
Friedrich, J. & A. Kammenhuber 
 1975. Hethitisches Wörterbuch, Vol. 1, Heidelberg: Winter. 
  HITTITE  aši,  āšma …  137 
Goedegebuure, P. 
 2002/03. “The Hittite 3P
rd
P
 Person/Distal Demonstrative aši (uni, eni, etc.)”, 
Die Sprache 43, 1-32. 
Hirt, H.  
 1927. Indogermanische Grammatik, Vol. 3, Heidelberg: Winter. 
Hoffner, H. 
 2002/03. “Hittite a-aš-ma”, Die Sprache 43, 80-87. 
Lane, G. 
 1961. “On the Formation of the Indo-European Demonstrative”, Language 
37, 469-475. 
Laroche, E. 
 1979. “Anaphore et deixis en anatolien”, [in:] E. Neu & W. Meid (eds.), 
Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, 147-152, Innsbruck: Institut für 
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 
Lyons, J. 
 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. 
Markey, T. L. 
 1979. “Deixis and the u-Perfect”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 7, 65-
75. 
Puhvel, J. 
 1983. “Review of J. Friedrich & A. Kammenhuber, Hethitisches Wörter-
buch, Band I: A, Lieferung 6/7”, Journal of the American Oriental 
Society 103, 670-672. 
 1984. Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vols. 1-2, Berlin: Mouton. 
Schmid, W. 
 1972. Die pragmatische Komponente in der Grammatik, Mainz: Akademie 
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. 
Shields, K. 
 1981a. “On Indo-European Sigmatic Verbal Formations”, [in:] Y. Arbeit-
man & A. Bomhard (eds.), Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical 
Linguistics, in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns, 263-279, Amsterdam: 
Benjamins. 
 1981b. “The Indo-European Third Person Plural Verbal Suffix”, Linguistica 
21, 105-118. 
 1982. “The Origin of the Germanic Dental Preterite: A New Proposal”, 
Leuvense Bijdragen 71, 427-440. 
 1983. “Hittite Imperative Endings in -u and Their Indo-European Origins”, 
Hethitica 5, 119-129. 
 1986a. “The Lithuanian Imperative Suffix -k(i)”, Baltistica 22, 48-55. 
138 KENNETH  SHIELDS,  JR. 
 1986b. “The Origin of the Germanic r-Preterites”, Amsterdamer Beiträge 
zur älteren Germanistik 24, 1-10. 
 1988a. “Tense, Linguistic Universals, and the Reconstruction of Indo-Euro-
pean”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 16, 241-252. 
 1988b. “The Indo-European Origins of the Germanic Third Weak Class”, 
Leuvense Bijdragen 77, 43-56. 
 1989a. “The Origin of the Thematic Vowel”, Indogermanische Forschun-
gen 94, 7-20. 
 1989b. “The Origin of the Umbrian Perfect Suffix *-nky-”, Historische 
Sprachforschung 102, 74-83. 
 1992a. A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology, Amsterdam: Ben-
jamins. 
 1992b. “The Origin of the Oscan-Umbrian f-Perfect and the Latin u-Per-
fect”, Živa Antika 41.2, 15-19. 
 1997a. “The Origin of the Vedic 2nd Sing. Imperative in -si”, Indo-Iranian 
Journal 40, 149-155. 
 1997b. “Typological Plausibility and the Deictic Origin of the Germanic 
Dental Preterite”, Leuvense Bijdragen 86, 125-129. 
 1999. “On the Origin of Tocharian B 3rd Sg. Act. Pres.-Subj. -(ä)m ”, 
Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 8, 241-246. 
Voyles, J. 
 2004. “A Reassessment of Hittite Historical Phonology”, International 
Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 9, 145-163. 
Watkins, C. 
 1962. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb, Dublin: Institute for Ad-
vanced Studies. 
 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik, Vol. 3, Heidelberg: Winter. 
 


HITTITE aši, āšma AND THE DEICTIC ORIGIN OF INDO-EUROPEAN SIGMATIC VERBAL FORMATIONS

http://www.ejournals.eu/sj/index.php/SEC/article/download/1096/1092

HITTITE aši, āšma AND THE DEICTIC ORIGIN OF INDO-EUROPEAN SIGMATIC VERBAL FORMATIONS

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Portal Czasopism Naukowych (E-Journals)