Download The Position of Anatolian and more Study notes Geography in PDF only on Docsity!
Chapter Six The Position of Anatolian 6.1 History of the Question 6.1.1 Discovery and Recognition Hrozný (1917) showed that the chief administrative language of the Hittite Empire, attested in cuneiform documents from Hattusha in central Turkey dating from the 16th-13th centuries BCE, was Indo-European. Through the work of a number of scholars it was known by the 1930s that Hittite was not alone in ancient Asia Minor, but part of a new sub-branch of Indo-European now called Anatolian, along with Palaic, Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luvian, Lycian, and Lydian. Indo-Europeanists had to reckon with a large new set of data to be integrated into the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European. Due to its far more plentiful evidence and hence better understanding, Hittite remained for many decades the chief basis for comparison with the rest of Indo-European. Hittite presented a special challenge, because despite its antiquity it conspicuously lacked some key features of “classical” PIE as reconstructed chiefly on the basis of Sanskrit and Ancient Greek, with support from Latin and Avestan. In the noun there was no feminine gender distinct from the masculine. The verb showed no obvious trace of the aspectual contrast between “present” and “aorist” or of the “perfect” category at all. The subjunctive and optative moods were also missing. Hittite was typologically a synthetic and inflecting language
like those named above with recognizable Indo-European morphology, but it appeared to reflect either a more primitive or a more advanced stage of evolution than the other oldest attested representatives of the family. And precisely the choice between those alternatives quickly became the focus of a debate that has continued to the present. 6.1.2 First Responses Strictly speaking, there were nearly as many responses to the “Hittite problem” as there were Indo-Europeanists, and any generalizations run the risk of oversimplification. Nevertheless, most reactions may be fairly characterized as adopting one of three fundamental approaches. The first was to treat Hittite (respectively Anatolian) as merely one more subgroup of the Indo-European family like any other and to derive its features from the PIE already reconstructed, with a bare minimum of revisions to that model—as represented by the Grundriß of Karl Brugmann. Two articulate and nuanced presentations of this viewpoint may be found in Pedersen (1938) and Eichner (1975), but there have been many others. Since this account must assume that the features of “classical” PIE missing in Hittite are due to their having been lost there, it is often (simplistically) labeled the “Schwund-Hypothese”. While there have been important exceptions (see below), it is fair to say that this approach was dominant among Indo-Europeanists in Europe until the 1990s.
evidence demanded a radical and far-reaching revision of reconstructed PIE— meaning PIE as the source of not only Hittite, but also the non-Anatolian languages including Sanskrit, Greek and the rest. Other representatives of this viewpoint include Watkins (1969), Meid (1963) and (1975), Neu (1976 and 1985), and Adrados (1963, 1982 and 2007). Unsurprisingly, the scholars just named disagreed, sometimes markedly, on just what radical revisions should be made. 6.1.3 Stalemate and Resolution It was not at all clear by the decade of the 1980s how any compromise could be reached between the opposing models of the “Schwund-Hypothese” and that of a radical revision of PIE, cast in terms of “Indo-Hittite” or not (see the strong statement of Eichner 1975: 72). Nevertheless, several factors have since significantly altered the terms of the debate. First, there has been a significant maturation of Anatolian philology. A crucial breakthrough in our ability to establish the relative chronology of Hittite texts and manuscripts has brought reevaluation of nearly every aspect of its synchronic and diachronic grammar and a much better grasp of the Hittite facts. At the same time evidence for and our understanding of the other “minor” Anatolian languages has also dramatically improved, to the extent that these languages now actively contribute to the debate over the position of Anatolian vis-à-vis the rest of Indo-European.
Second, there has been a serious retrenchment regarding some of the evidence cited from non-Anatolian languages in support of the radically revised model for PIE. For example, while debate still continues on the precise formal details, a consensus developed by the 1980s that the Insular Celtic contrast of absolute and conjunct verbal endings reflects in some fashion the “classical” PIE system of primary and secondary endings (following Cowgill 1975a) and does not justify the radically innovative accounts of Meid (1963) and Watkins (1969).^2 Third, in response to proposals like those of Meid (1975) there has developed a widespread view that we need not view the problem as strictly a choice between Anatolian as another descendant of PIE like any other subgroup or Anatolian and PIE as representing branches of “Indo-Hittite” (see further 6.4 below). Some archaisms claimed for Hittite/Anatolian have withstood scrutiny, and any viable reconstruction of PIE must take these into account. For that reason there are now few defenders of the strict Schwund-Hypothese or of an unaltered “classical” PIE. However, continued analysis of Hittite and the other Anatolian languages brings them ever closer to the rest of Indo-European (see in detail e.g. Rieken 2009, who recognizes fewer “Indo-Hittite” features than the present essay). Furthermore, many of the remaining differences involve relatively minor
(^2) Most aspects of the very novel analyses of Neu and Adrados in the works cited
in the preceding section have also failed to win broad acceptance.
852, especially 791, and elsewhere) for a PIE “homeland” in Eastern Anatolia and the even more radical proposal of Renfrew (1987) of a central Anatolian location for the PIE speech community dating to 7000 BCE, associating the presumed movement of Indo-European languages into Europe with the spread of farming dated to that era. For further discussion of this point see Melchert 2011a. Contrary to earlier views, there has now developed a consensus among linguists that entry of Indo-European speakers into Asia Minor was much earlier than previously assumed. See Melchert (2003a: 23-6) with references to Carruba (1995), Oettinger (2002a) and others, and also Lehrman (2001: 116-7) and Yakubovich (2010: 6-7). The gist of the argument is that the attested degree of differentiation of the IE Anatolian languages such as Hittite and Luvian already by the beginning of the second millennium requires at a minimum that their divergence from Proto-Anatolian began by the middle of the third millennium. It may easily have begun as early as the end of the fourth. The further inference of “early entry” into Anatolian rests on the premise that dialectal differentiation typically results from relative geographic separation of subsets of speakers of an original (putatively) unitary language (contact effects from different sub- or adstrate languages may play an important role). The default assumption in the present case is that this separation corresponds to the scattering of Proto-Anatolian speakers across Anatolia, after they had entered as a single group. I must stress, however, that we know virtually nothing about how Indo-
European speakers entered Anatolia. We cannot exclude the possibility that the dialectal differentiation began before such entry, with the speakers of pre-Hittite, pre-Luvian, etc. moving into the area at different times. See again Melchert 2011a. As indicated earlier, for many years the relatively poor attestation of the IE Anatolian languages other than Hittite severely restricted the amount of useful information they could provide us for recovering the linguistic features of Proto- Anatolian. As a result, despite the recognition of an Anatolian subgroup, there was almost no serious reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian. This situation fostered an unfortunate tendency to effectively project the features of (Old) Hittite back to Proto-Anatolian and to reflexively view any divergences in the other languages as due to innovation on their part. Due to the superior quantity and quality of its evidence, Hittite will perforce continue for the foreseeable future to occupy a privileged position within the study of Anatolian. However, we are now in some instances able to place it in its proper place as merely one of the languages that contribute to our picture of Proto-Anatolian, confirming that like all other natural languages Hittite reflects a mixture of archaisms and innovations. To the extent allowed by current knowledge, the following discussion of the relative position of Anatolian within Indo-European will be based on what we can reconstruct for Proto-Anatolian, not merely on the facts of Hittite.
Anatolian innovations. If we limited ourselves to the other better-attested languages, the list would be substantially longer. Phonology. (1) the chief defining phonological innovation of Anatolian is the “lenition” (voicing) of PIE voiceless stops and *h 2 between unaccented morae (for this formulation see Adiego 2001, unifying what were previously treated as two separate changes, as per Eichner 1973: 79-83 and 100 86 and Morpurgo Davies 1982/83).^3 (2) unaccented long vowels inherited from PIE are shortened (Eichner 1973: 79 and 86 15 ). (3) the sequence *h 2 w became a unitary labialized voiceless fricative ([x w] or similar): see Kloekhorst 2006: 97-101 and already in nuce Jasanoff 2003: 142-3. Evidence for the change to a unitary labiovelar in Hittite comes from alternate spellings tarḫu-/taruḫ- ‘conquer’ /tarx w-/ parallel to eku-/euk- ‘drink’ /egw-/, but more importantly from the fact that the labial articulation of the new /xW/ is absorbed by following /w/, just as in the case of the labiovelar stops: Pres1Pl tarḫḫueni just like akueni. A sequence of /xw/ before /w/ would have led via *tarḫuweni to *tarḫumeni , by the Hittite rule of dissimilation of *w > m before or after /u/ (Melchert 1994a: 92 with refs.). Furthermore, in Lycian the unitary labiovelar */x W/ “hardened” into a voiceless labiovelar stop /q/.
(^3) Virtually all evidence for the alleged Proto-Anatolian “limited Čop’s Law”
proposed in Melchert (1994c) has been refuted, so the very existence of such a change must be regarded as extremely dubious.
Contrast trqqñt- (name of the Storm-god) < *tr̥h 2 wn̥t- ‘mighty’ vs. esbe- ‘horse’ < _ek̑wo-_ with a sequence of stop plus *w. A pre-Lycian sequence [xw] would have led to Lycian xb. See Melchert 2011c for the claim that _h3 w_ likewise became a unitary labiovelar /ɣw/. Since this change is assured for Hittite as well as Luvian and Lycian, it is very likely that it is already Proto-Anatolian. The question of whether any instances of Lydian q reflect this sequence deserves reexamination. Morphology. (4) Anatolian has generalized a form of the first person dual ending _-wen(i)_ as that of the first person plural (see 6.3.11 below for details). (5) already in Proto-Anatolian the non-subject stem of the orthotonic first person pronoun was *(h 1 )emú , with borrowing of the u- vocalism of the non-subject stem of the second singular pronoun *tu (Sturtevant 1933a: 192, Pedersen 1938: 74). It is likely that the enclitic non-subject form was also already *-mu , replacing *-me (shortened from *mē , as per (2) above). (6) Proto-Anatolian created a pronominal stem *obhó/í- , which definitely functioned as the orthotonic third person anaphoric pronoun. Its precise function as a deictic pronoun at the stage of PA remains indeterminate (see Melchert 2009b: 156-9 with references). (7) Proto- Anatolian developed subject enclitic pronouns for “unaccusative” verbs (see Garrett 1990a and 1996): NSgAnimate *-os , N-ASgNeuter *-od , NPlAnimate *-oi , N-APlNeuter *-oi (on the last see Jasanoff 2008: 145-8). (8) Proto-Anatolian grammaticalized the instrumental singular of the deictic/anaphoric stem *e/o- ,
6.3.2 Laryngeals The unique (partial) retention in Anatolian of the PIE “laryngeals” as consonants obviously per se furnishes no evidence for defining Anatolian as a subgroup versus the non-Anatolian languages. Scholars have proposed a number of putatively PIE rules for conditioned deletion of laryngeals. If it could be shown that one or more of these operated only outside Anatolian, they could be viewed as features establishing “Indo-Hittite”. However, some of these deletion rules almost certainly include Anatolian: see Nussbaum (1997: 182-3) on the
“Saussure-Hirt Effect” in Hittite ( *h2 wórs-o- > warša- ‘mist, steam’, *k olh 2 -mo-
‘stalk’ > kalmara- ‘ray, beam’, kalmi- ‘burning log’, etc.)^5 and Mayrhofer (1986:
- following Eichner on *h 1 ésh2 n- > Hittite ēšnaš ‘of blood’(~ Sanskrit asnás ). In the case of others known to me we cannot yet affirm with any confidence that they did not apply also to Anatolian.
“chains” of sentential clitics characteristic of most Anatolian IE languages is a Common Anatolian, not a Proto-Anatolian, development. (^5) The rejection of the latter etymologies by Kloekhorst (2008: 431) on semantic
grounds is entirely unjustified. The words are named for their shape , as is Hittite kalmuš- ‘lituus’ (i.e., a stick), which is also derived from the same source (Rieken 1999a: 211-2), pace Kloekhorst and Puhvel (1997: 29).
There is no question that various non-Anatolian languages regularly show a vocalic segment as the reflex of a laryngeal in the position between obstruents (or obstruent and word boundary). Whether this reflects a direct syllabification (“vocalization”) of the laryngeals or anaptyxis may be left open here. At issue is whether Anatolian shares in this development. Lindeman (1987: 106) and Melchert (1994a: 69-70) expressly deny this, but Kimball (1999: 388) insists that at least the word for ‘daughter’ (HLuvian tu-wa/i-tara/i- /twatra/i-/ and Lycian
kbatra- ) must reflect a preform *dhug ǝ ter- with the same vocalic reflex as seen in
Sanskrit duhitár- and Greek θυγάτηρ. Kloekhorst (2008: 903-4) boldly suggests an ablauting form *dhwegh 2 tr to avoid the need for anaptyxis in the Luvic word, but direct extra-Anatolian evidence for such an ablaut is lacking. Until we gain a better understanding of the conditioning for the loss of voiced dorsal stops in the Luvic languages and for the deletion of interconsonantal laryngeals in PIE, it is impossible to be sure whether the Luvic word for ‘daughter’ is a special case or does in fact show the same vocalic reflex of a laryngeal between obstruents as we find outside Anatolian. 6.3.3 Dorsal Stops In Melchert (1987) I argued that Luvian shows a three-way contrast of voiceless dorsal stops before front vowel (see also the independent account of Morpurgo Davies and Hawkins 1988). There I left open the question whether this reflects an
unconditioned contrast or a conditioned split of PIE *k (1987: 203). However, in
velars a conditioned split of the former (but not the latter, confirming inheritance of a three-way contrast). Whereas Albanian, as a satem language, eventually merged the back velars and labiovelars, but not before there had been a conditioned split of the latter (see most recently on this issue Matzinger 2006: 70- 73). Therefore nothing in its treatment of the PIE dorsal stops suggests that Anatolian is more archaic than any other subgroup. 6.3.4 Synchronic Phonological Rules I know of no synchronic phonological rule of PIE that can be definitively shown to be a non-Anatolian innovation. One certainly is not: both Hittite and Luvian preserve the PIE rule by which the first of two (heterosyllabic?) dental stops is dissimilated to an affricate: Hittite /e:dten/ and CLuvian /a:dtan/ ‘eat!’ (imperative 2nd plural) appear as ēz(zaš)ten [e:tsten] and āzzaštan [a:tstan].^6 In Melchert (2003b) I have argued that CLuvian īnzagan means ‘inhumation’ and reflects a similar dissimilation of dental stop to affricate before dorsal stop, what is traditionally referred to as PIE “thorn”. This claim must remain uncertain pending the discovery of a second Anatolian example of this development. In any case, however, as already noted in Melchert (1994a: 64), there is no basis for
(^6) Since a synchronic phonological rule may remain in a language indefinitely, the
objection of Hill (2003: 4) to the PIE status of the rule is entirely specious.
establishing that the appearance of “thorn” is a common non-Anatolian innovation. Positive Anatolian evidence for other synchronic phonological rules of PIE is likewise less than robust, but at least suggestive. Palaic present indicative 2nd singular mu-ú-ši to muš- ‘enjoy’ (thus with Yakubovich 2005: 117 against me and others) suggests that Anatolian inherited the PIE rule simplifying *ss to *s (Mayrhofer 1986: 120). Hittite present indicative 2nd singular ēšši ‘you are’ represents a trivial analogical restoration, just like Greek ἐσσί beside εἶ. For discussion of likely reflexes of “Sievers-Lindeman” in Hittite see Melchert (1984: 25-7 and 56-7) but compare also Eichner (1988: 137) and Melchert (1994a: 57-8). The synchronic status in Anatolian languages of regressive voicing assimilation in obstruents is dubious, but Hittite indicative preterite 3rd singular wakkiš to wak- ‘bit’ and imperfective stem akkuške- to eku-/aku- ‘drink’ appear to be relics of such a rule (see the discussions in Melchert 1994a: 57 and Kimball 1999: 300-01). Puhvel (1972) argued that the effects of “Bartholomae's Law” are visible in Hittite, because original voiceless *kt assimilates to tt , allegedly in luttai- ‘window’ < *lukto- and uttar ‘word’ < *uktr̥ , but original *ght does not, appearing as velar plus dental, due to the latter having not assimilated to [kt] in PIE, but rather having undergone progressive assimilation to [gdh], hence virtual _eigh-tu-_ ‘going’ > egdu- ‘leg’. However, the assimilation of _kt_ to tt is falsified by šaktā(i)- ‘perform sick maintenance’ < _sokto-_ (cf. Old Irish socht ‘stupor’, as
feminine svādvī́ - ‘sweet’ (beside masculine-neuter svādú- ): see e.g. Pedersen
(1938: 35-6) and Kronasser (1966: 107).^8 The entire topic was renewed by the discovery by Starke (1990: 54-85) of the phenomenon of “ i- mutation”,^9 by which many nouns and adjectives in Luvian and Lycian—and to a lesser extent in Lydian—are marked by an i- suffix just in the common gender nominative and accusative: e.g. CLuvian NSgC ādduwališ , ASgC ādduwalin , NPlC ādduwalinzi , APlC ādduwalinza* vs. N-APlNeut ādduwala and Abl-Inst ādduwalati. Starke himself (1990: 85-9) suggested that this pattern might reflect the PIE appurtenance suffix *-ihx of the type of Sanskrit
k ṛṣṇ ī́ - ‘night’ or v ṛ kī - ‘female wolf’.^10
(^8) Goetze (1960: 45-46 and 50) adduced in addition the formation of feminine
personal names in -ašwe beside masculine names in -ašu in texts from the Assyrian colony period. A close examination shows, however, that Goetze could not actually show any such directly contrasting pairs. See the fully justified skepticism of Kronasser (1966: 115-7). (^9) Starke’s own designation as a “Motionssuffix” is infelicitous for the synchronic
feature, since the addition of the -i- does not alter the gender of the underlying stem. (^10) It is important to stress that Starke characterized the suffix as a
“Zugehörigkeitssuffix”, not as a feminine “Motionssuffix”.
Oettinger (1987) argued that the Anatolian “ i- mutation” was rather a reflex of the PIE ablauting feminine motion-suffix *-ih 2 / -yeh 2 , and I followed him in Melchert (1994b) with some revisions. Furthermore, in Melchert (1992) I showed the existence of common-gender nouns in Lycian with a- vocalism and concluded that these must reflect specifically feminine nouns in *-eh2 , since collectives formed with this suffix appear as neuter pluralia tantum. I made a parallel
argument regarding Hittite ḫ āšša- ‘hearth’ (= Latin āra ): see for similar but
slightly different reasoning regarding the latter also Harðarson (1994: 35-9). However, Hajnal (1994) has decisively refuted the claims that the presence of common gender nouns in Anatolian with a suffix *-eh 2 demonstrates its prehistoric use there as a feminine motion-suffix. Many such nouns have masculine referents, and more importantly there is no evidence for feminine agreement in adjectives. Rieken (2005) has also now presented a convincing account of Anatolian “ i- mutation” as originating in secondary derivatives in *-i-.^11 This feature thus provides no compelling basis for the existence of either ablauting *-ih 2 / -yeh2 or *-ihx in Anatolian as a feminine motion-suffix.^12
(^11) On the Hittite type of parkui- ‘pure’ see Rieken (2005: 56-7 with note 7). The
one suspiciously complicated step in her scenario (2005: 57-8) may be simplified if one assumes that a secondary i- stem like *só/élh2 -i- was an endocentric
