Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon Online
Edited by: Alwin Kloekhorst
Hittite is the oldest attested Indo-European language and therefore of paramount importance for comparative Indo-European linguistics. Although in the last few decades our knowledge of the synchronic and historical linguistics of Hittite has profoundly increased, these new insights have not been systematically applied to the whole Hittite material. This book fills this gap by, for the first time, providing an etymological dictionary of the entire Hittite lexicon of Indo-European origin in which all words are treated in a coherent way. Furthermore, it provides a thorough description of the synchronic phonological system of Hittite as well as a comprehensive study of the Hittite historical morphology and phonology. The result is a monumental handbook that will form an indispensable tool for Indo-Europeanists and Hittitologists alike.
See Brill.com for more information on print edition.
Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon Online
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
fricative s
laryngeals h1 h2 h3
liquids l r
nasals m n
semivowels i u
vowels e o
ē ō[1]
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
fricative[2] s
affricate[3] ts
‘laryngeals’ ʔ H Hw
liquids l r
nasals m n
vowels i, ī u, ū
e, ē o, ō
a, ā
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
1.3.1 Cuneiform script
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.[4]
The cuneiform 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.[5] Just as in Akkadian, the writing system is basically phonetic.[6] Nevertheless, a word can be written logographically with so-called sumerograms (i.e. the logograms that are derived from the Sumerian script,[7] e.g. DINGIR ‘god’) or with akkadograms (i.e. as if in Akkadian,[8] 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,[9] 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.[10] 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[11]; the Hittite reading of the sumerogram MUNUS ‘woman’ is disputed[12]; 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.
1.3.2 Stops
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.[13] 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’.[14] 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,[15] have failed.[16] We rather have to interpret these cases as spelling conventions.
Nevertheless, it 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 allophones.
Kimball (1999: 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.
Melchert (1994a: 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,[17] 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.
I therefore 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’.[18] 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.[19]
Since in 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.[20] 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/.[21] Since the moment of the creation of this reduplicated form is unknown, it does not shed much light on the situation in Hittite, however.[22] On the contrary, the stem ḫatuk- ‘terrible’, which probably reflects *h2tug‑, shows lenition of PIE *t to Hitt. /d/ in the initial cluster *h2t-[23] 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 initial ḫ‑. 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.
For the 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’.
Summarizing, with 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.
1.3.3 Glottal stop
In Kloekhorst 2006b, I have argued that in word-initial position Hittite possesses a phonemic glottal stop /ʔ/. 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/[24] 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.[25]
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.[26] Note that if *h1 would have been lost in this position, we would expect a spelling **pa-ri-ip-ra-a-i = **/priprā́i/.
1.3.4 Affricate
It is generally assumed that the consonant ‑z-[27] must be phonetically interpreted as an affricate [ts],[28] 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/,[29] 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/.[30] 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/.
Yoshida’s attempt (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 convincing.[31]
1.3.5 Fricatives
I assume the following phonemic fricatives:
Fortis /H/ /Hw/ /S/
Lenis /h/ /hw/ /s/
The difference 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 form /tárHwtsi/.[32]
1.3.6 Resonants
The following resonants are phonemic:
Fortis /R/ /L/ /N/ /M/
Lenis /r/ /l/ /n/ /m/
Again, the 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-.[33]
1.3.7 Syllabic resonants
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/.[34] This cannot be correct, as can be seen from the 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 as /ʔarS‑/, containing the vowel /a/.[35] 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 [6] 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.
Alternatively, we 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 § 2.3.2.2f, 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-.
In word-initial 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 /uəlHántsi/.
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‑/ < */kwske/a‑/, the regular outcome of *gwhn-sḱé/ó‑.
Consequently, I 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 phonological /ʔarS- / ʔrS‑/. 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, however.
1.3.8 Semi-vowels
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 case.
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-,[36] 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/, /ʔpadryétsi/ or /ʔpadriyétsi/? 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/.
A similar 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.[37] 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 represent /wrʔā́ni/, 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.[38] 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 instance: /ʔau‑/ + /‑ueni/ > */ʔáuueni/ > /ʔáumeni/.[39]
1.3.9 Vowels
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,[40] 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),[41] 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‑/.
1.3.9.1 Plene spelling
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/.[42]
Although a long vowel is usually the result of accentuation, a plene spelled vowel cannot automatically be regarded as accented.[43] 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.
In word-initial 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 îU-Ú- (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/ here.
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,[44] but the fact is that aberrant spellings exist and one must accept that they are not always explicable in an orthographic or phonetic sense.
1.3.9.2 E/I-Ambiguity
Many signs are ambiguous regarding their vocalic value: they can be read with either ‑e- or ‑i-.[45] The only unambiguous signs are E, I, TE, TI, îÉ (but îI 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”.[46] 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”.
Nevertheless, 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[47] 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 undesirable.[48]
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. 1.4.8.1d. 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 § 1.3.9.6.
1.3.9.3 Plene 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.
Nevertheless, 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 (§ 1.4.9.1, § 1.4.9.2), 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.
Plene spellings 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,[49] some seem to show a real accented long /ī/.[50]
1.3.9.4 The signs U and Ú
Hittite uses two phonetic signs that are traditionally transliterated with the vowel u, namely É = U and S = Ú.[51] 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,[52] it has never gained a broad acceptance.[53] 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.[54] 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.[55]
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°.[56]
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[57] < *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/
(a-uš-zi) pa-a-i
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°, = /ʔoNa/i‑/, 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°, = /ʔupa/i‑/, and uda-i / ud- ‘to bring (here)’, spelled ú-d°, = /ʔud(a)-/.
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.
1.3.9.4a Word-initially before vowels
_aC : Here we basically find only the spellings u̯a- and ú-u̯a‑. The spellings ú-a° and u-a° are extremely rare,[58] whereas the spelling u-u̯a- occurs in the middle paradigm of au-i / u- ‘to see’ only.[59] 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);[60] the spelling ú-u̯a- = /ʔua-/ (e.g. ú-u̯a-a-tar /ʔuā́dr/ ‘inspection’ < *Huótr;[61] 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’ < *uéḱti).
_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’ < *uedo‑.
Summarizing, in 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 /o/.
1.3.9.4b Word-initially before consonants
There are only a few examples here.[62] The verb ur-āri, which reflects *urh1óri, is in OS texts consistently spelled ú-ra-a-ni, pointing to /urʔā́ni/.[63] 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.
1.3.9.4c Word-internally between consonant and vowel
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,[64] 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 Cu-ú-u̯a- 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/.
Note however, that as we have seen in § 1.3.9.4a above, there is a distinction in the sequence #ʔ_a, namely ú-u̯a- = /ʔua‑/, 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.
1.3.9.4d Word-internally between vowels
a_a : We find the spellings °a-u-a°, °a-u̯a‑, °a-ú-u̯a- 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.[65]
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 occur.
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.[66] 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/.
1.3.9.4e Word-internally between vowel and consonant
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°,[67] in MS texts predominantly °a-ú-n° and occasionally °a-u-n°,[68] in NS texts predominantly °a‑u‑n°.[69] 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)).[70] 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 here.
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 above).
ḫar-na-a-ú-uš (KUB 9.22 ii 40) is a mistake for ḫar-na-iš ‘sap’, and therefore irrelevant.[71]
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.
acc.pl. 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/ < */HárSaius/.
iš-ḫu-na-ú-uš (KBo 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[72] 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/ < */talugaius/.
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.[73]
i_C
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,[74] 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‑.
acc.pl.c. 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+.
acc.pl.c. 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- / kuu̯a- 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:[75] 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 = /mÏumnit/ < */mÏuunit/; 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 /prSiÜLi/ < *bhrs-ié-ul+.
acc.pl. 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.
instr. 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.
nom.pl. 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/ > /aon/.
e_C
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/,[76] spelled ḫé-ú-un, develops through /Héun/ into younger /Héon/, spelled ḫé-e-u-un.[77] For this lowering, compare the lowering of /au/ to /ao/ in front of /n/ in § 1.3.9.4e. 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 of mei̯u- / 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.
1.3.9.4f 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),[78] 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),[79] 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.[80]
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).[81] 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).[82] 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 error.
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.[83] 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 purposes here.
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)).[84] 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.[85] Once, we find the spelling mu-ú-ga-it (KBo 3.7 i 13). Since this text contains a number of aberrancies,[86] I regard this spelling as an error as well.
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).[87] 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.[88] 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.[89] 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).[90] 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)).[91] 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).[92] 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 thus: nom.-acc.sg. 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 /u/.
ḫ_C
Whenever the consonant ḫ precedes a plene ‑u‑, this vowel is always spelled with the sign U.[93] This seems to indicate that all instances of */HuC/ have yielded Hitt. /HoC/. As we saw above (§ 1.3.9.1), 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 combination îU-U‑. To make the problem more transparent, I have taken the liberty to cite the ‘ligature’ îU+U (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.[94] 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/?
Another problem 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‑.
C_ḫ
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-/.
C_i
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‑].
C_k
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-/.
C_l
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’.[95] 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 ḫ.
C_m
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/,[96] 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 ḫ.
C_n
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/ (§ 1.3.9.4e). 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-.[97] 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))[98] 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.[99]
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.[100]
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.[101]
The 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-.[102]
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.
C_p
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 represents /ʔup°/ (see § 1.3.9.4), reflects *h2ou + *h1p-oi‑. Since this verb is a quite recent univerbation of the preverb *h2ou, which in isolation yielded /ʔu/, 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.
C_r
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)).[103] With *Cour yielding /Caur/ and *Cur > /Cor/, the only way to explain lu-ú-ri- ‘disgrace’ /lūri-/ is by reconstructing *leh1u-ri-.[104] 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 preceding ‑i- may have been crucial.
C_s
First we should keep in mind that *Cous > Hitt. /Caus/, e.g. a-uš-te-en ‘you must see’ < *Hou-sten.[105] 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.
The acc.pl.c. 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/.[106]
The acc.pl.c. 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, see above).
C_t
It must be borne in mind that *Cout > Hitt. /Caut/, e.g. a-ut-ta ‘you (sg.) saw’ < *Hóu-th2e.[107] 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/.[108] 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/.
The hapax 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-/ here).
C_z
The only case is ku-ú-uz-za ‘wall’, for which see under C_t.
C_ʔ
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 contained /ʔ/: */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/[109]
C_m -- /ū/ --
C_n OH /au/ /ū/ /u/ /o/ < *CuHn ? /o/ < *Cóm
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
NH /ao/[110] /ū/ /o/[111] /o/121 /o/
C_p /o/ /o/ /o/
C_r /au/ /o/[112] /o/
C_s OH /au/ /ū/ /u/ /u/[113] < *°C(o)ms /o/ < *Cóms
↓ ↓
NH /o/[114] /o/
C_t /au/ /ū/ --
C_ʔ /o/ /ū/ --
1.3.9.4g 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,[115] 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.[116]
1.3.9.4h 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,[117] 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,[118] 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/.
1.3.9.5 Conclusions 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/.
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 [6] 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. § 1.4.4.3 and § 1.4.4.4). We also find this vowel in secondary initial clusters *u̯T- (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].
(3) Before 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. § 1.4.8.1d). 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].
Because these 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.[119]
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.
So, the phonological vowel chart can be given as follows:
/ī/ /i/ /u/ /ū/
/ə/
/e/ /o/
/ā/ /a/
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- = [kɨsC] < *KsC, this chart should be adapted to:
/ī/ /i/ /ɨ/ /u/ /ū/
/e/ /o/
/ə/
/ā/ /a/
1.3.10 Overview of the Hittite phoneme inventory
After having 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)
stops
/b/ /d/ /g/ /gw/ (lenis)
affricate /ts/
glottal stop /ʔ/
/H/ /Hw/ /S/ (fortis)
fricatives
/h/ /hw/ /s/ (lenis)
/R/ /L/ /N/ /M/ (fortis)
resonants
/r/ /l/ /n/ /m/ (lenis)
/ī/ /i/ /u/ /ū/
/ə/
vowels /e/ /o/
/ā/ /a/
1.4 Changes from PIE to Hittite
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.).
1.4.1 Lenition
Lenition is the phenomenon that an original fortis consonant becomes lenis. We can distinguish two situations in which lenition regularly takes place.[120]
(1) Intervocalic fortis consonants are lenited after an accented long vowel.[121] Note that this includes the reflexes of the monophthongizations of *ei, *oi, *eu and *ou[122] as well as the reflex of *ó, which yields Hitt. /ā́/ through PAnat. /Ö/.[123] 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’;[124] *nóh2ei > Hitt. /nā́hi/, na-a-ḫi ‘he fears’.[125]
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.).
(2) Intervocalic fortis consonants are lenited between two unaccented vowels.[126] 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);[127] *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).
1.4.2 Fortition
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’;[128] 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.
1.4.3 Stops
1.4.3.1 *p
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’.
1.4.3.2 *b
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/.
1.4.3.3 *bh
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’.
1.4.3.4 *t
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’;[129] *h2entetio- > Hitt. /Hantetsia-/, ḫa-an-te-ez-zi-i̯a- ‘first’; *h1és-ti > OHitt. /ʔésts/, e-eš-za >> Hitt. /ʔéstsi/, e-eš-zi;[130] see § 1.4.8.1c 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.
1.4.3.5 *d
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/[131]: *diËus > Hitt. /sÏus/, ši-i-ú-uš ‘god’; *diéuot- > Hitt. /síuat‑/, ši-i-u̯a-at-t° ‘day’; see at § 1.4.8.1c 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’.
1.4.3.6 *dh
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.[132]
1.4.3.7 *ḱ
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’.[133] 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’ < *stérḱti.
1.4.3.8 *œ
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.
1.4.3.9 *œh
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’.
1.4.3.10 *k
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.
1.4.3.11 *g
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’.
1.4.3.12 *gh
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‑.
1.4.3.13 *kw
The normal reflex of *kw is Hitt. /kw/[134]: *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.[135] 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 in *RḱC and *RkC, see above).
1.4.3.14 *gw
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’.
1.4.3.15 *gwh
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‑.
1.4.4 Fricative
1.4.4.1 *s
Word-initially before vowels, *s is retained as such: *sV- > Hitt. /#sV‑/: *sésti > Hitt. /séstsi/, še-eš-zi ‘he sleeps’; *sókh1-ei > Hitt. /sā́ki/, ša-a-ak-ki ‘he knows’; *sup-ó-ri > Hitt. /supā́ri/, šu-up-pa-ri ‘he sleeps’; *sih2- > Hitt. /sī‑/, ši-i- ‘one’.
Word-initially 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’.[136] 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.
1.4.4.2
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 > Hitt. /ʔéssi/, 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’).[137]
*VslV > Hitt. /VslV/: *h1és-l+ > Hitt. e-eš-li-it, e-eš-lu-ut ‘I must be’.
*VsmV > Hitt. /VsmV/: *h1ésmi > Hitt. /ʔésmi/, 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’.[138]
*VPsV > Hitt. /VPSV/ (where P = any labial stop): *h1épsi > Hitt. /ʔépSi/, e-ep-ši ‘you seize’; *dhebhsu- > Hitt. /tebSu‑/, te-ep-šu- ‘?’.[139]
*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/:[140] *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’.
1.4.4.3
The reflexes of clusters involving *Rs and *RHs need special attention, especially the difference between clusters with and without laryngeals.
*VrsV > Hitt. /VRV/: *h1orso- > Hitt. /ʔaRa‑/, a-ar-ra- ‘arse’.
*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 birth’.[141]
*VnsV > 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 is correct.
*VlHsV: no examples.
*VmHsV > Hitt. /VnsV/: *h2ómh1-s-ei > Hitt. /ʔā́nsi/, a-a-an-ši ‘he wipes’.
*VnHsV > Hitt. /VntsV/: *œénh1-su- > Hitt. /kéntsu‑/, ge-en-zu- ‘lap’.
*VrHsC > Hitt. /VrɨsC/: *uerh1-sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /uerɨské/á‑/, ú-e-ri-iš-ke/a- ‘to call (impf.)’.[142]
*VlHsC > Hitt. /VLɨsC/: *ḱélh1st > Hitt. /káLɨsta/, kal-li-iš-ta ‘he called’.
*VmHsC > Hitt. /VMɨsC/: *demh2sh2ó- > Hitt. /taMɨsHā́‑/, dam-me-iš-ḫa-a- ‘damage’.[143]
*VnHsC: no examples.
*CrsV > Hitt. /CrSV/: *krs-éntu > Hitt. /krSántu/, kar-ša-an-du, kar-aš-ša-an-du ‘they must cut’.
*ClsV > Hitt. /ClSV/: *kwlsénti > Hitt. /kwlSántsi/, gul-ša-an-zi, gul-aš-ša-an-zi ‘they carve’.
*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 (impf.)’.
*ClHsC > 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.)’.[144]
*CnHsC > Hitt. /CəSɨC/: *h3nh3sḱé/ó- > Hitt. /HəSɨké/á‑/, ḫa-aš-ši-ke/a- ‘to sue (impf.)’.
1.4.4.4
In clusters containing *s and stops we often see the rise of the anaptyctic vowel /ɨ/[145] (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.)’;[146] *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.)’;[147] *⁽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 (below).
1.4.4.5
The reflex of word-final *s is /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 > Hitt. /kÜts/, 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. /ʔā́rs/, a-ar-aš ‘he arrived’; *kers > Hitt. /kárs/, kar-aš ‘cut!’.[148]
*-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 ‑u̯ar.
1.4.5 Laryngeals
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 Hittite.
1.4.5.a
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):
PIE PAnat. PIE PAnat.
*h2e- > *Ha- *h2o-
*h3e- > *Ho- *h3o- *ʔo-
*h1e- > *ʔe- *h1o-
*h2R- > *HR- *h2T- > *HT-
*h3R-
*h3T-
*ʔR- *T-
*h1R- *h1T-
The reflexes of the PAnatolian sequences in Hittite are as follows:
PAnat. */Ha‑/ > 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’.
PAnat. */Ho‑/ > Hitt. /Ha‑/: *h3érōn+s > PAnat. */Hórōns/ > Hitt. /Hā́ras/, 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/, e-eš-ḫar ‘blood’.
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’.
PAnat. */HR‑/ > 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 PAnat. */ʔrV‑/, 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’.[149]
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- > PAnat. */Hdánt‑/ > 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’.
PIE *h1/3T- > 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’.
1.4.5.b
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):
PIE PAnat. early OH late OH
*Vh2V > */VHV/ > /VHV/ > /VHV/
*Vh3V
*/VʔV/ > /VʔV/ > /VV/
*Vh1V
Examples:
*Vh2V: *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); etc.
*Vh1/3V: *h2éih3-eu-eies > 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.)’;[150] *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’.
1.4.5.c
PIE PAnat. Hitt.
*Vh2T
*Vh3T */VʔT/ > /ÅT/
*Vh1T
(T = 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/.
Examples: *dhéh1t > 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 >> */u̯ʔgánti/ > pre-Hitt. /uəʔgánti/ > Hitt. /uəkántsi/, u̯a-ak-kán-zi ‘they bite’; *dóh3th2e > PAnat. */dÖʔta/ > Hitt. /tā́ta/, da-a-at-ta ‘you took’.
1.4.5.d
PIE PAnat. Hitt.
*Vh2s > */VHs/ > /VHs/
*Vh3s /ÅsC/ and /Ås#/
*/Vʔs/ /ÐsV/
*Vh1s /VSÕ/
Examples:
*Vh2s: *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.
*Vh1/3s: *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’.
1.4.5.e
PIE PAnat. Hitt.
*Vh2R > */VHR/ ? > /VHR/ ?
*Vh3R /ÅRC/
*/VʔR/ /ÐRV/
*Vh1R /VRRÕ/
Examples:
*Vh2R:[151] *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’.
*Vh1/3R: *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’.
1.4.5.f
PIE PAnat. Hitt.
*Th2V
*Th3V */TʔV/ > /TV/
*Th1V
(T = 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.[152]
Examples: *‑th2e > 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’;[153] *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’.[154]
1.4.5.g
PIE PAnat. Hitt.
*sh2V > */sHV/ > /sHV/
*sh3V
*/sʔV/ > /SV/
*sh1V
Examples:
*sh2V: *sh2óiei > PAnat. */sHÖiē/ > 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’.
*sh1/3V: *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’.
1.4.5.h
PIE Hitt.
*#Rh2V
*#Rh3V /#RV/
*#Rh1V
Examples: *lh1énti > Hitt. /lántsi/, la-an-zi ‘they loosen’; *lh1uti- > Hitt. /lutsi‑/, lu‑uz-zi- ‘public duty’; *mh2óiei > Hitt. /mā́i/, ma-a-i ‘he grows’.
1.4.5.i
PIE PAnat. Hitt.
*CRh2V
*/CRHV/ > /CRHV/
*CRh3V
*CRh1V > */CRʔV/ > /CRʔV/
Examples:
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’;[155] *œrh1ód- > PAnat. */grʔÖd‑/ > Hitt. /krʔā́d‑/, ka-ra-a-t° ‘entrails’; *h1rh1iéti > PAnat. */ʔrʔiéti/ > Hitt. /ʔrʔiétsi/, a-ri-e-ez-zi ‘he consults an oracle’.
1.4.5j
PIE Hitt.
*VRh2V
*VRh3V /VRRV/
*VRh1V
Examples: *h1órh1ei > 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’.
1.4.5.k
Interconsonantally, the three laryngeals are all lost,[156] 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‑/, ge-en-zu- ‘lap’.[157]
In clusters 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 §1.4.4.3, the treatment of *s, for details.
1.4.5.l
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. ending; *sókweh2 > Hitt. /sā́gwa/, ša-a-ku-u̯a ‘eyes (nom.-acc.pl.)’;
*h1oh1suh2 > 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!’.[158]
1.4.6 Liquids
1.4.6.1 *l
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/.
Examples: *lóh1ei > 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’.
1.4.6.1a Fortition
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: 165.
1.4.6.2 *r
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/.
Examples: *h1rénti > 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.
Assimilation: *h1órh1ei > Hitt. /ʔā́Ri/, a-ar-ri ‘he washes’; *h2orh3ei > Hitt. /HaRai/, ḫar-ra-i ‘he grinds’; *h1orso- > Hitt. /ʔaRa‑/, a-ar-ra- ‘arse’.
1.4.6.2a Loss
Word-final *r is lost after unaccented *o or *ō.[159] 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-.
Examples: *h1éh1s-or > 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.)’.
1.4.6.2b Fortition
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, pár, ḫar, šar; but this does not go for me-er-ra- and kat-te-er-ra‑). Cf. Melchert (1994a: 165-6) for another interpretation.
1.4.6.2c Dissimilation
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/.
1.4.7 Nasals
1.4.7.1 *m
Word-initially 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.
Word-initially before stops, we would expect that *mC- yields Hitt. /mC‑/, phonetically realized as [əmC‑]. The only example is *mdhró- > Hitt. /ndrā́‑/, an‑ta‑ra-a- ‘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‑/.
Word-initially 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’.
1.4.7.1a
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’[160]; *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 (acc.pl.c. ending).
*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’;[161] *h1rmnié/ó- > Hitt. /ʔrMnió‑/, 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 § 1.4.7.1c 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‑/, dam-me-eš-ḫa-a- ‘damaging’.
*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[162]: *h2imno- > Hitt. /HiMa‑/, ḫi-im-ma- ‘imitation’; *œhimnént- > Hitt. /kiMánt‑/, gi-im-ma-an-t° ‘winter’.
*Vmn# > Hitt. /Vmn/: *h1érmn > Hitt. /ʔérmn/, e-er-ma-an ‘illness’; *h3néh3mn > Hitt. /lā́mn/, la-a-ma-an ‘name’.
*VmrV > Hitt. /VMrV/: *œhimro- > Hitt. /kiMra‑/, gi-im(-ma)-ra- ‘field’.
*Vmr# > Hitt. /VMr/: *nómr > NH /láMr/, lam-mar ‘moment’.[163]
1.4.7.1b
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.
Word-finally after consonant: *°Cm > OH /°Cun/[164] > NH /°Con/[165]: *h1épm > OH /ʔépun/, e-ep-pu-un > NH /ʔépon/, e-ep-pu-u-un ‘I seized’.
1.4.7.1c Fortition
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) ‘bulrush’; etc.
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 § 1.4.7.2e).
1.4.7.2 *n
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.
Word-initially 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 > na-a-ḫi).
1.4.7.2a
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 *dhbhonœh‑u‑).
*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‑/ < *n-mi¤ant-.
*CnnC > Hitt. /CnɨnC/: *h3rnngénti > Hitt. /Hrnɨngántsi/, ḫar-ni-in-kán-zi ‘they make disappear’.
*CniV > Hitt. /CniV/: *h3nié/ó- > Hitt. /ʔnié/á‑/, a-ni-e°, a-ni-i̯a- ‘to work’.
*ClnC > Hitt. /ClɨnC/?: *h1lnœhénti > Hitt. /lɨngántsi/, li-in-kán-zi ‘they swear’ (if the preform is correct).
*CmnC > Hitt. /CmɨnC/: *h2mnœhénti > Hitt. /Hmɨngántsi/, ḫa-me-in-kán-zi ‘they betroth’; *tmnkénti > Hitt. /tmɨnkántsi/, ta-me-en-kán-zi ‘they attach’.
1.4.7.2b
*VnV > Hitt. /VnV/: *h3ér-on-os > Hitt. /Hā́ranas/, 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/[166]: 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 ‑u̯ar.[167]
*VnHsV > Hitt. /VntsV/: *œénh1-su- > Hitt. /kéntsu‑/, ge-en-zu- ‘lap’.
*VnnV > Hitt. /VNV/: *ḱun-no- > Hitt. /koNa‑/, ku-u-un-na- ‘right, favourable’.[168]
*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 body’, etc.[169]
*VnuV > Hitt. /VuV/: *gwhén-uen > Hitt. /kwéuen/, ku-e-u-en ‘we killed’; mān + =u̯a > Hitt. ma-a-u̯a, ma-a-u-u̯a.[170]
1.4.7.2c
*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 / ‑ānn‑).
*Vd(h)nV > Hitt. /VdnV/: *h2uidnos > Hitt. /Huidnas/, ḫu-it-na-aš ‘game, wild animals’ (gen.sg.); *(h3)ud-nei- > Hitt. /(ʔ)udné‑/, ut-ne-e- ‘land’.
*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 correct).
1.4.7.2d
Word-finally, *n is retained as such, so *‑Vn > Hitt. /‑Vn/ and *‑Cn > Hitt. /‑Cn/.
Examples: *h2ón > 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’.
1.4.7.2e Fortition
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.
1.4.7.2f Dissimilation
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.
1.4.8 Semi-vowels
1.4.8.1 *i
Word-initially before vowels *i is retained, except before *e: *iugom > Hitt. /iugan/, i-ú-ga-an ‘yoke’ vs. *ieg-o- > Hitt. /éga‑/,[171] e-ka- ‘ice’; *iéu-on-[172] > Hitt. /éuan‑/,[173] e-u̯a-n°, a kind of grain.[174] 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.
Word-initially before consonant *i is retained as such: *imié/ó- > Hitt. /imié/á‑/, i‑mi-e°, i-mi-i̯a- ‘to mingle’.
1.4.8.1a
Interconsonantally, *i 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‑/,[175] ḫa-an-za‑a‑aš‑ša- ‘offspring’; *usié/ó- >> */u̯sié/á-/[176] > */uəsié/á-/ > OH /uəSé/á‑/, u̯a-aš-še/a-[177] ‘to put on clothes’.
For the sequence *ViC, cf. the treatment of the diphthongs *ei, *ēi, *oi and *ōi below.
Intervocallicaly, *i is dropped without a trace, e.g *CéC-ei-os > pre-Hitt. */CéCaias/ > Hitt. /CéCas/ (gen.sg. ending of i-stem adjectives).[178] 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:[179] *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).[180]
An intervocalic cluster *VHiV yields OH /ViV/ with lengthening of the preceding vowel (if possible).[181] 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 steals’.[182]
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]
1.4.8.1b
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.[183]
If nom.-acc.pl.n. 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.
1.4.8.1c Assibilation
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’;[184] *h2énti > Hitt. /Hánts/, ḫa-an-za ‘in front’; *h1ésti > OH /ʔésts/, e-eš-za ‘he is’[185]; *diËus > Hitt. /sÏus/, ši-i-ú-uš ‘god’; *diéu-ot- > Hitt. /sÏuat‑/, ši-i-u̯a-at-t- ‘day’. This means that we must reckon with a development */ti/ = *[t:i] > *[t:j] > *[tç] > *[tS] > [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.[186]
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 vocalic element.[187]
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.[188] If taišzi- ‘hay-barn’ indeed reflects *dhoh1-es-ti-, as argued s.v., however, then the postulation of non-assibilation in *‑sti- is incorrect.
1.4.8.1d Lowering
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° (NS).
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).[189]
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 šiš-zi.[190]
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‑).[191] It cannot be coincidental that exactly these consonants[192] also cause a preceding /u/ to get lowered to /o/ (cf. § 1.3.9.4f). 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‑.
1.4.8.2 *u
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’;[193] *usnié/ó- > Hitt. /uSnié/á‑/, uš-(ša‑)ni-e°, uš-(ša‑)ni-i̯a- ‘to put up for sale’.
1.4.8.2a
Interconsonantally, *u yields either /u/ or /o/: see § 1.3.9.4ff. for an elaborate treatment.
In the sequence *CuV, *u in principle yields /u/ (see § 1.3.9.4c 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’.[194] Remarkable is the outcome of *CHuV, which yields Hitt. /ComV/[195]: *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’.
For the development of *CVuC, see the treatment of the diphthongs *eu, *ēu, *ou and *ōu below.
Intervocalically, *u is retained as /u/ (see § 1.3.9.4d 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.)’.
A special development is the change of *uuV to /umV/ and of *VuuC to /VmuC/:[196] *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[197] ‘we see’.
1.4.8.2b
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/
1.4.9 Vowels
1.4.9.1 *e
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 > /aRCC/.[198]
In the position *éKsC, *e yields Hitt. /a/: *téksti > */tákstsi/ > Hitt. /tákɨstsi/, 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’.[199]
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.
In word-final 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/.
1.4.9.1a
It has been claimed that a sequence *eRH yields Hitt. /aRH/,[200] 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.
1.4.9.1b
If *e does not get coloured due to one of the positions mentioned above, it shows the following developments.
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.
Examples: *sésti > 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’.
When unaccented, *e weakens to /a/ in post-tonic open syllables[201] and to /i/[202] elsewhere (in pretonic open and closed syllables and in post-tonic closed syllables).[203] In word-final position, unaccented *e is dropped.[204]
Examples: *h1esh2enós > Hitt. /ʔishanā́s/, iš-ḫa-na-a-aš ‘blood (gen.sg.)’; *nébhes > /nébis/ ne-e-pí-iš, ne-pí-iš ‘sky’;[205] *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’.[206]
1.4.9.2 *ē
When accented, the development of *Ë 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’; *°CËr > 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 Hitt. /‑as/.
1.4.9.2a
When unaccented, *ē yielded Hitt. /e/, and therewith differs from the reflex of unaccented short *e: *h1ésēr > Hitt. /ʔéser/, e-še-er ‘they were’.
This indicates 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/,[207] unaccented *ē developed into /e/.
1.4.9.2b
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 interpretations).[208]
1.4.9.3 *o
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 long vowel.
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/.[209] So *óCCV > OH /ā́CCV/ > NH /áCCV/, whereas *óCV and *óC# yield OH/NH /ā́CV/ and /ā́C#/.
Examples for 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 > OH/NH /tā́ru/, ta-a-ru ‘wood’.
Examples for word-final syllables: *dhœhmós > Hitt. /tgnā́s/, ták-na-a-aš ‘earth (gen.sg.)’; *h1esh2enós > Hitt. /ʔisHanā́s/, iš-ḫa-na-a-aš ‘blood (gen.sg.)’.
1.4.9.3a
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’.[210] 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.
1.4.9.3b
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.).
1.4.9.3c
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’.
A special development of *o is found in the acc.pl.c. ending *°Coms > OH /°Cus/ > NH /°Cos/, cf. § 1.3.9.4f.
1.4.9.4 *ō
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)’.[211] 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’.
1.4.10 Diphthongs
1.4.10.1 *ei
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’;
*néih1/3-o > 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’.
When unaccented, *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 represents /slÏga/ < *sléi⁽œ⁾-o.
1.4.10.2 *ēi
The only secure example of *ēi that I know of is *ud-nËi > Hitt. /udné/, ut-ne-e ‘land’.
1.4.10.3 *oi
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,[212] *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 following paradigm:
PIE OH
*dhh1-ói-h2ei > /téHe/ te-e-eḫ-ḫé >> /téHi/ te-e-eḫ-ḫi
*dhh1-ói-th2ei > */táite/ >> /táiti/ da-it-ti
*dhh1-ói-ei > */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.).
1.4.10.4 *ōi
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.)’.
1.4.10.5 *eu
The diphthong *eu (i.e. *CeuC) is monophthongized to /u/ or /o/, depending on the surrounding sounds. For an elaborate treatment, cf. § 1.3.9.4f. 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.).
1.4.10.6 *ēu
The only possible instance of *ēu that I know of is *œhrh1-Ëu > Hitt. /krʔÜ/, ka-ru-ú ‘early’ if this reconstruction is correct.[213]
1.4.10.7 *ou
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 § 1.3.9.4f for an elaborate treatment.
1.4.10.8 *ōu
To my 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 yields /āu/.
[1] 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 form ḫuu̯appi. 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.
[2] 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 regard.
[3] 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/.
[4] Cf. Coulmas 2003: 41-9; Fischer 2001: 47-57.
[5] 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.
[6] In transliteration, phonetic signs are given in small italics.
[7] Sumerograms are transliterated in Roman capitals.
[8] Akkadograms are transliterated in italic capitals.
[9] Note that the Akkadian phonetic complement is transliterated in superscript.
[10] Determinatives are transliterated in superscript as well.
[11] But cf. MUNUSduttarii̯ata/i-.
[12] See the discussion s.v. *kuu̯an-.
[13] Durham 1976: 364.
[14] 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.
[15] E.g. Oettinger 1979a: 551f.
[16] 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 value”.
[17] Compare ki-iš-ḫa ‘I become’ /kísHa/ < *kíi̯sHa < *œéis-h2o vs. ki-i-ša ‘he becomes’ /kÏsa/ < *kíi̯sa < *œéis-o.
[18] Similarly, I use the term fortited for describing an original lenis stop that has become a fortis one (in analogy to lenited).
[19] Contra e.g. Melchert 1994a: 92, who calls this phenomenon a “regressive voicing assimilation”.
[20] 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”.
[21] Cf. Melchert 1994a: 19.
[22] 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‑/.
[23] 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 *h1ep-.
[24] 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].
[25] Ibid.: 117 for the sign A as ’ax.
[26] See s.v. parai-i / pari- ‘to blow’ fur further treatment.
[27] 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 respectively.
[28] 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.
[29] With /S/ as found in [e-ez-za-a]š-ši, cf. § 1.4.4.2.
[30] 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).
[31] The only secure examples of assibilation of *di- in Hittite show an outcome š-, namely šīuš ‘god’ < *diËus and šīu̯att- ‘day’ < *diéu̯ot-.
[32] /Hw/ is the regular outcome of PIE *‑h2u-, On the basis of the fact that *‑h2u- yielded the Lycian monophoneme q = [kw], I conclude that /Hw/ was already phonemic at the Proto-Anatolian stage.
[33] 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.
[34] E.g. Melchert 1994a: 125.
[35] 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.
[36] 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.
[37] At least in OS texts, cf. the regular development of OH ú-ra-a-ni /urʔā́ni/ > MH/NH u̯a-ra-a-ni = /uərʔā́ni/ ‘burns’.
[38] 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 as /tárutsi/?
[39] Which incidentally shows that */VuuV/ yields /VumV/, and not **/VmuV/).
[40] 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/.
[41] All examples are taken from Dercksen fthc.
[42] Note that this word often is spelled ne-pí-iš as well, without a plene ‑e-.
[43] Moreover, not every accented vowel gets lengthened, as we will see in the treatment of the historical phonological developments below.
[44] 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.
[45] 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 and ME).
[46] 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 of controversy”.
[47] 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.
[48] 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.
[49] Certainly in li-i-ik < *h1lénœh.
[50] Thus zi-i-ik, which reflects *tíH-ge (cf. chapter 2.1).
[51] 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 (C) is only used in GIŠLE-U5 ‘wooden tablet’; U8 (W) 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).
[52] E.g. Hart 1983: 124-132; Eichner 1980: 156f.
[53] 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”.
[54] As a comparable phonomenon, Rieken refers to the ‘breaking’ of *u to O in front of r, h and Ø in Gothic.
[55] 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 erkennen läßt”.
[56] Note that all alleged instances of a spelling u-up-p° of this verb and its derivatives are false: cf. s.v. uppa-i / upp-.
[57] 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).
[58] 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.
[59] 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.
[60] Or /uə‑/, e.g. u̯a-ra-a-ni = /uərʔā́ni/ ‘burns’ or u̯a-al-ḫa-an-zi = /uəlHántsi/ ‘they hit’.
[61] 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-, u̯antii̯e/a‑); 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.
[62] 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’ (§ 1.3.4.9.f).
[63] From MH times onwards, this verb is spelled u̯a-ra-a-ni = /uərʔā́ni/, but this is irrelevant here.
[64] Namely that every /u/ following /H/ or /h/ automatically turns into /o/.
[65] 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-.
[66] 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].
[67] a-ša-ú-ni (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?)).
[68] a-ša-ú-ni (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)).
[69] a-ša-u-ni (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)).
[70] Cf. Rieken 1999: 352.
[71] 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’.
[72] Cf. CHD L-N: 1.
[73] 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˜/.
[74] 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.
[75] 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.
[76] For /‑ʔ‑/, cf. § 1.4.5.b.
[77] Or /Héun/ > /Hé˜/, cf. note 83.
[78] Besides a few times a-pu-un, but these are irrelevant here.
[79] Besides a few times a-pu-uš, but these are irrelevant here.
[80] Except URULa-aḫ-ḫu-ú-i-i̯a-aš-ši-iš (Bronzetafel i 69).
[81] Puhvel HED 4: 153 incorrectly cites the form of KBo 21.22, 10 as “ki-nu-ú-pí”.
[82] Besides a few times ku-uš.
[83] See CHD L-N: 26 for attestations.
[84] See CHD L-N: 86f. for attestations.
[85] See CHD L-N: 319f. for attestations.
[86] 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.
[87] See CHD L-N: 333 for attestations.
[88] See CHD P: 373f. for attestations.
[89] See CHD P: 400 for attestations.
[90] See CHD P: 387 for attestations.
[91] See CHD P: 402 for attestations.
[92] Cf. Melchert 1993a: 232.
[93] 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.
[94] Just as the ‘ligature’ I+A (†) is cited xA, the ligature ME+EŠ (^) is cited MEŠ, and SISKUR.SISKUR ("") is cited SÍSKUR.
[95] Cf. Rieken 2005 for a similar view of these words.
[96] 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.
[97] 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’.
[98] Incorrectly cited in CHD L-N: 330 as “mu-u-un-na-a-it”.
[99] 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.
[100] This means that in effect we are dealing with a preservation of PIE *o as Hitt. /o/ in the position *Cóm.
[101] One could think of e.g. *prtuHn- < *prtH-u-n- vs. *prtH-o-un- > partāun-.
[102] The original distribution must have been ūḫC° vs. ūnḫV°, so **ūḫzi / ūnḫanzi.
[103] Thus also Rieken 2005.
[104] Unless we assume that the two forms that are spelled lu-ú-ri- (cf. § 1.3.9.4f 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/.
[105] 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.
[106] Cf. note 83.
[107] 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.
[108] 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.
[109] Possibly /o/ when in *C_lVback and in *CulH.
[110] Or /a˜/, cf. note 83.
[111] Or /˜/, cf. note 87.
[112] 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/.
[113] Or /ų/, cf. note 83.
[114] Or /˜/, cf. note 87.
[115] 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.
[116] 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.
[117] 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.
[118] The reconstruction of ši-i-iš-ḫa-u as *si-sh2ou is far from certain, q.v.
[119] 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.
[120] 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.
[121] This rule is first formulated by Eichner 1973: 79.
[122] 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 Hitt. /e/.
[123] 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 to /b/.
[124] This example shows that the assimilation of *VmsV to /VSV/ antedates the process of lenition.
[125] 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.
[126] First suggested by Eichner 1973: 10086.
[127] Compare the Lycian ending ‑χaga < PAnat. */‑Haha/.
[128] This example shows that the rise of the epenthetic vowel /ɨ/ in a cluster *VKsC postdates the fortition of */g/ to /k/ before ‑šk-.
[129] Possibly through a stage */Htsé/á‑/ in which the suffix ‑i̯e/a- was secondarily restored.
[130] With secondary addition of ‑i in analogy to the other present verbal endings in ‑i (-mi, ‑ši, ‑u̯eni, ‑tteni).
[131] 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.
[132] Contra Kimball 1999: 292 who explicitly states that “*dh was not assibilated before *y”.
[133] 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-.
[134] Contra Melchert 1994a: 61, who claims that “[t]he PIE voiceless labiovelar */kw/ is [..] weakened to PA[nat.] */gw/ in medial position”.
[135] 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.
[136] See at § 1.4.8.1d 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.
[137] 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.
[138] 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.
[139] 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.
[140] 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.
[141] Since lenition is a PAnat. feature, the assimilation of *VmsV to /VSV/ must be PAnatolian as well.
[142] 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)-.
[143] 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-.
[144] 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-.
[145] See also Kavitskaya 2001: 278f. for a treatment of the anaptyctic vowel /ɨ/ and the factors that determine its place within a cluster.
[146] 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.
[147] Note that OH ḫi-in-ga-aš-ke/a- /Hinkské/á‑/ yields MH ḫi-in-ki-iš-ke/a- /Hinkɨské/á‑/.
[148] 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/.
[149] 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-.
[150] This form shows that the lost of intervocalic /ʔ/ is a late OH phenomenon.
[151] 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’.
[152] 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.
[153] 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/.
[154] This latter example shows that *h1 does not cause fortition of a preceding *D.
[155] 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.
[156] 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.
[157] This latter example shows that the loss of *h1 predates the development *eRCC > Hitt. /aRCC/.
[158] 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.
[159] 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.
[160] Also attested as še-me-en-zi and ši-me-en-zi = /sɨméntsi/.
[161] 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.
[162] Cf. Melchert 1994a: 81.
[163] 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 > Hitt. ‑ātar).
[164] Or /°Cų/, cf. note 83.
[165] Or /°C˜/, cf. note 83.
[166] In word-final position there is (at least graphically) no difference between /S/ and /s/, and I will therefore write /Vs#/ here.
[167] 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‑/.
[168] 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/.
[169] 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’.
[170] 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-.
[171] Or /ʔéga‑/?
[172] Note that the etymology is uncertain.
[173] Or /ʔéuan‑/?
[174] 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-.
[175] This form shows that the assimilation of *VsiV > /VSV/ postdates the lenition of intervocalic fortis consonants due to a preceding long accented vowel.
[176] With *u̯- in analogy to the full grade stem *u̯es-, cf. the lemma u̯ešš-tta, u̯ašše/a-zi.
[177] Attested from MH times onwards as u̯aššii̯e/a-zi, with restored suffix ‑i̯e/a-.
[178] 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.
[179] 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).
[180] 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).
[181] Note that in the case of Hitt. /e/ and /o/ I do not reckon with phonemic length, and that therefore these vowels do not get lengthened.
[182] 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/.
[183] This implies that the loss of word-final *i took places in several stages, probably determined by the preceding consonant.
[184] 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).
[185] Replaced by e-eš-zi with restored ‑i in OS texts already.
[186] 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).
[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.
[188] 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.
[189] Although here we might be dealing with the secondary introduction of the full grade stem ēšḫ- from the nom.-acc.sg. ēšḫar.
[190] 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/.
[191] 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.
[192] 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.
[193] 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-
[194] 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.
[195] Through */CouV/? See below for *CuuV > Hitt. /CumV/.
[196] 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 § 1.3.9.4f 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.
[197] The form a-ú-ma-ni is MH and replaces OH ú-me-e-ni < *Hu-uéni.
[198] 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/.
[199] 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.
[200] Melchert 1994a: 83.
[201] Cf. Melchert 1994a: 138.
[202] This /i/ can itself in younger Hittite become subject to the lowering to /e/ as described in § 1.4.8.1d, cf. *nébhes > OH /nébis/, ne-e-pí-iš (OS) > NH /nébes/, ne-pé-eš (NS).
[203] 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.
[204] 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.
[205] See s.v. nepiš for explanation of the oblique cases nepišV.
[206] 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.
[207] Which must be dated to the 18th-17th century BC, cf. s.v. nepiš- ‘sky’.
[208] 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).
[209] 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-.
[210] 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.
[211] Or /‑ā́s/ if we assume that the expected spelling *ku-u̯a-a-aš = /kuā́s/ is unattested only by chance.
[212] 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.
[213] See s.v. for the possibility that this word reflects *œhréh1-u.