A. AUFSATZE The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, *ou and *au in Hittite! all the original short diphthongs appear in Hittite as monophthongs, whereas the original long diphthongs retain their diph- thongal character.” E. H. Sturtevant, Language 6 (1930) 25 O. The idea that inherited tautosyllabic short diphthongs were mon- ophthongized in Hittite while long diphthongs remained diphthongs was first articulated by Sturtevant more than sixty years ago. Most research- ' ‘This paper is based on research for a section of a book on Hittite historical phonology that I am writing. I would like to thank the American Council of Learned Societies for their support, which has enabled me to write both the book and the paper. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 8° East Coast Indo-European Conference (Harvard, June, 1989), I am grateful to the partici- Pants in that conference, especially Craig Melchert and Donald Ringe, for comments and suggestions. Abbreviations and transcription: Abbreviations for standard works are those of the Chicago Hittite Dictionary (Chicago, 1980f. = CHD) and/or Cowgill- Mayrhofer, Indogermanische Grammatik. I (Heidelberg, 1986), except: Aru- maa, Urslav. Gramm. = P. Arumaa, Urslavische Grammatik. I (Heidelberg, 1964); Benveniste, IE Language and Society = E. Benveniste, Indo-European Language and Sociely (E. Palmer, trans., Coral Gables, Forida, 1973); Falk~ Torp, Norw.-ddn, et. Wb, = H. Falk and A. Torp, Norwegisch-dénisches etymolo- gisches Worterbuch (Heidelberg, 1910, 1911); Fs Winter = U. Pieper and G. Stickel, eds., Studia Linguistica Diachronica et Synchronica Werner Winter ... oblate (Ber- lin & New York, 1985); Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb. = E, Fraenkel, Litauisches ¢tymologisches Worterbuch (Heidelberg and Géttingen, 1962, 1965); Illich-Svi- tych, Nominal Accentuation = V. M. Illich-Svitych (R. L. Leed and R. F. Feldstein, trans.), Nominal Aecentuation in Baltic and Slavic (Cambridge, Mass., 1979); Johannesson, Isl. et. Wb. = A. Johannesson, Isidindisches etymolo- gisches Worterbuch (Bern, 1956); Laryngalikeorie = A. Bammesberger, ed., Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formen- systems (Heidelberg, 1988); MED = Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1952ff.); Melchert, SHHP = H. C. Melchert, Studies in Hittite His- ‘orical Phonology (Gottingen, 1984); van Wijk, Balt. u. slac. Akz. = N. van Wijk, Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme (Amsterdam, 1923); and Zinko, Vertretung = Ch. Zinko, Die Vertretung der grundsprachlichen Diphthonge im Hethitischen, unpublished dissertation, Graz, 1981. OH = Old Hittite original, MH = Middle Hittite original or copy of an OH text, NH = Neo-Hittite original, and OH+ and MH+ designate NH copies or Die Sprache 36 (1994) 12 S.E. Kimball ers in the field now accept at least the monophthongization of short dip h— thongs as one of the major features of the historical phonology of Hit— tite’, and there seems no reason to doubt that *ei and *eu were mor2— ophthongized unconditionally*. However, over the past fifteen or twenty years we have learned a great deal more about the details of Hittite phonology than was known in the 1930’s — enough to suggest that earl57 assumptions at least need reexamination; and the idea that IE *oi, "ai, *ou and ‘au (Pre-Hittite *ai and *au) were also monophthongized uncor2— ditionally, and its implication - that all examples of synchronic ai and ze are reflexes of IE long diphthongs' or result from borrowing or secondar37 sound change® ~ could use closer scrutiny. 1, Absolute final syllables. It is generally accepted that ‘oi and “ai became OH /@/ or /&/ in abso— lute final syllables. A. IE *oi > Pre-Hitt. *ai > OH /@/, /8/. adaptations of texts from the OH and MH periods. Transcription of ambiguous signs with CE(EC) implies a reading with e-vocalism (e.g. KE-ET-? = tet > that is not directly supported by the citation in question but is supported by OPT er evidence. I'am assuming that the front vowels /e/ and /i/ merged by the NI Period and so did /&/ and /i/. The chronology of the merger and the question ° whether it was conditioned are controversial (cf. the discussions of Oettinge?~ Stammbildung 533-554, and Melchert, SHHP 78-156). It seems safe to a~ sume, however, that OH originals are the most reliable in representing front vow~ els, and texts written in the NH period (NH, OH+ and MH+ texts) the least- Examples from MH texts probably have to be compared with spelling conven” tions of OH and NH texts on a case by case basis. ? Seee.g. Sturtevant, CGr' § 89-95, CGr? § 61.b, § 62b, Language 26 (1950) 1-5; Pedersen, Hitt. §86, § 92; Kronasser, VLFH § 36, § 38, § 40, §42; Ei: chner, MSS 31 (1973) 55, 76-78; Melchert, SHHP 59-76; Eichner apu Oettinger, KZ 94 (1980) 51 n, 24; and Zinko, Vertretung 139 and passim. 3 Important recent discussions are those of Eichner, MSS 31 (1973) 76-79 (on *ei), Oettinger, Stammbildung 544 (on *ei), and Melchert, SHHP 59-76. * For reflexes of long diphthongs in absolute final syllables, cf., e.g.» hasta! “bone(s)” < collective *h,e/ost[H|-0i beside singular *h,e/ost{H]-i or dual *he! ost{H|-ih, in dankasté “twin bone” and nom.ace. sg. neuter suffix du < PA ‘du ine.g. “tanéu “fir(?) tree” LS 4 Vs 10 (OH) < *dhon-u beside Gme “danwo in Germ. Tanne (see Weitenberg, U-Stimme 268 w. refs.). 5 For diphthongs in borrowed words, ef. e.g. “Spaini “tamarisk(?)” from Hurt. paini “tamarisk”, itself from Akk. binu (Beckman, StBoT 29 (1983) 99 or aikawartana- “one turn”, ultimately from Indic. Examples of secondary ai an au include taiszi- “shed”, ‘perhaps from an original s-stem *dhoh,es-: *dhehy- “put” (Oettinger, Slammbildung 477), or garauni dat. sg. of karéwar “horn”, re- flecting *k(a)r-a-un- (Melchert, SHHP 63). Die Sprache 36 (1994 1The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, *ou and *au in Hittite 3 1. Third person singular enclitic personal pronoun dative singular OH -(s}se < *soi; ef. e.g. YAv. encl. loc.-gen.-dat. hai, Gath. hi, he, Se, Hme. of’ 2. Animate nominative plural pronominal ending -e, in the demon- strative pronouns apé, ké and the enclitic third person pronoun -e- < IE *-oi; cf. the nominative plural masculine of the demonstrative pronoun *to- in e.g. Skt, fe, Gk. toi, Goth. pai’. B. IE *ai > Pre-Hitt. *ai > OH /é/. PA *-hai = IE *h,e = *[{-h,a] + *-i in the OH hi-conjugation first per- son singular present ending -(h)ke, e.g. dahkhe “I take”, tehhe “I put’. 2, Non-final syllables. The evidence from non-final syllables is far more equivocal. Of the ex- amples Sturtevant gave in his 1980 article, only hukha- “grandfather” : Lat. avus (IE *h,auh,0-) can now be accepted without question. His deri- vation of huldliya- “wind” and huldli- “distaff, winding-sheet” from pre- verb *o- (= *h,o-, also in kasduwér “branche(s)”, Gk. 5Cog “brush”, and 6xéh0 “drive to land”)? plus tul-, zero-grade of *wel- “wind”, might ex- plain why the Hittite words have an initial laryngeal while apparent IE cognates such as Gk. eiXéw or Lat. volvd have to be derived from *wel(H)- or perhaps *h,wel(H)-, if, indeed, the word had an initial laryngeal". At least one of his etymologies, however, idalu “evil” : Gk. at@adog “smoke”, OSax. idal, OE adel (> NE idle) is clearly wrong!!, Other etymologies are ° OH -(s)se was replaced by -(s)si starting in the MH period (e.g. from the Law Code tak-ku-us-ée in OH KBo VI 2 11 89 = tak-ku-ué-si in the MH dupl. KBo VI3 II 60) probably by analogy to nominal datives in (OH) -1. See Eichner, MSS 31 (1973) 78, and Melchert, SHHP 68 n. 127. ” The /é/ of tonic a-pe-e and ke-e beside /&/ in enelitic -e- and -(s)se suggests that like other vowels, the reflex of “oi was lengthened when independently ac- cented but short when unaccented. It is not entirely clear how long rules length- ening vowels under accent remained productive, but the plene writing of the en- clitic possessive in par-na-a5-Se-e-a (e.g. KBo VI 21 2, 3, 12 etc.) = parna-ssé-a “and to his house” may indicate a synchronic shift in quantity and/or stress, ® The ending -(h)ke was replaced by -(h)hi within OH (e.g. da-a-ah-he “I ta- ke” StBoT 25, 3 IV 32 but da-a-ah-hi ib, III 20). The ~i is perhaps analogical to the ~# of the mi-conjugation present. See Melchert, SHHP 68 n. 127. ® For the initial laryngeal as *h, rather than *h, see Melchert, HS 101 (1988) 223-224. 1 See Peters, Untersuchungen 44-50. 1 Cluy, ddduwal(). “evil” points to PA *edwél (ultimately from IE *hyed- “bite, eat”; see Watkins, IESt IV 270 = Gs Kronasser 261), which seems to have been remade as a root-accented u-stem *edwélu in Pre-Hittite on the model of Die Sprache 36 (1994) 14 S.E. Kimball not certain. The demonstrative pronoun stem ed- in dat.-loc. sg. edani, abl. etez, dat.-loc. pl. edas etc., which Sturtevant reconstructed as “oit-, can be derived from *e-d- beside *o- in nom, sg. c. asi'2, Sturtevant also derived the enclitic possessive pronouns -mi-, -Iti-, and -ssi- from the IE enclitie pronominal genitives *-moi, *-soi, and *-toi, but these forms could well be original i-stems". Nor do examples cited in the later litera- ture support the idea of an unconditioned monophthongization in non- final syllables. Some of these have good root etymologies but uncertain ablaut grades. Others require accepting etymologies that are at best du- bious. More important, there are four morphologically isolated words with an ai or au that almost certainly continues an IE short diphthong (see section 6). 3. Likely examples of monophthongization. A. Monophthongization before *h,. Monophthongization is certain before the reflex of *h,. The language had no synchronic sequences **aih(h) or **auh(h), and hukha- “grand- father” < *hyeuh,0- = *[h,auh,o-] : Lat. avus and Arm. hay which is mor- Phologically isolated, provides especially clear evidence. Although Cluv: huhatti- “grandfather”, huhadalli- “grandfatherly” (as Luvicism in Hit- tite contexts; see Starke, KZ 100 (1987) 260-261 n. 66) and Lyc. 7190 Grandfather” show lenition, or voicing, of the medial laryngeal", the geminate kh of Hitt. hukha- can have been restored after the model of anna- “mother”, atta- “father”, and hanna- “grandmother”. B. Short i-diphthongs. — are two examples which may show monophthongization before meee ut neither is without problems. Catsanicos’s derivation of a(¢)- [meda(i)-] “attach” from a noun *méda- < *méita- (with Jeni- dssu “4 ”, aa tigen attempts to derive the i from Proto-Anatolian or IE tai were wo Se ugcessful el e.g, Petersen, ArOr9 (1937) 205: Gk. uidnhos “destruct £2 Ror sce peistiea 1 (1955) 59-66, 7 (1965) 108: Gk. atevhoc “criminal”. Tischler, HEGL. ren catsanicos, BSE 81 (1986) 164 n. 248; for *e-/"0- $e 1 ner HTEGA, 8-119 w. refs. and Puhvel, HED, 3-6, also Starke, Shan and teferences see Melchert, SHHP 125-126, and see " See Bichner a 79~82 and Zinko, Vertretung 54-55. (1982/83) 254. 90" St (1978) 79-83, and Morpurgo and Davies, KZ9% and *h, after diprgion FA lenition or voicing, Voicing of inherited voiceless stops and He Lav, on ee nones is seen in Luv. ti “goes” = [idi), 3 sg. imp. iu = (idul Sa S0es” with -ri < PLuv. *-di (TE *h,éi-ti, *hyéi-tu) and C.Luv. 1 s8- Pret, a-ti-i-ha “comes” with « av. note ehu “come!” the hee h (= *hyéi- + PA *-h,a), Within Hittite itself Die Sprache 36 (1994) 1The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, “ou and *au in Hittite 5 tion/voicing) < *(h,)moito- (BSL 81 (1986) 121-180) is attractive!®. The o-grade would be expected in a noun in *-to- and it is necessary to recon- struct an o-grade to explain the loss of the initial laryngeal as opposed to its retention in the related adjective sukmili- “well fixed”"®, In mita(é)- or its underlying noun" the dental stop apparently was lenited, or voiced, after the diphthong, since it is consistently written single. Hoffner and Giiterbock (CHD.3, 304-305), noting that the iterative is spelled with SIG preceding the verb without word space and functioning as determinative in the two examples that are attested (3 pl. pres. mi- ti-e5-kan-zi 91/d 1 8, supine “"mi-ti-e8-ke-u-wa-an ib. I 10), suggest that the basic meaning is “tie with red wool” and that the verb is denomina- tive from mi(t)td- (miti-) “red”. But in other passages in which non-itera- tive forms occur there is no determinative and no direct evidence that wool or wool thread is what is attached. It is possible that the resembl- ance between mitd(i)- and the word for “red” was initially coincidental, and the two words have separate sources. The earliest examples of ‘mi(t)ta- “red”, which are MH, show single and double dental stop: ace. Sg. ¢. mi-it-ta-an KUB XXXIV 84 Vs. 8, inst. mi-it-ti-it KBo XX1 47 I 4, 8 but ace. sg. mi-ta-an KUB XXXII 113 r. col. 14. Other examples from later texts cited by CHD.3, 301-304 have a single stop (note especially mi-ta-a-an VBoT 24 1 4 (MH+) and mi-da-a-an ib. 1 16 with plene writ- ing in the second syllable). The original form of the word might have been OH *mi-it-ta-a- *{mit-d-] reflecting *met6- or *mité-%, and the forms with single stop and plene writing of the initial syllable would show the influence of mita(i)-. Conversely, the iterative of mita(i)- might be Written with the determinative SIG if the verb was often, but not exclu- Sively, used of tying things down with red or colored wool. Cop, Sprache 6 (1961) 47, derives -sepa- in divine names (e.g. ?Hantasepa-) and -zipa- (e.g. in daganzipa- “(deified) earth”) from an IE “soibho-, which he sees also in OIr. sdib “illusion” (< PCelt. *soibo-). ‘8 Mita@). oceurs only in texts written down in the NH period (for examples see CHD.3, 304). The examples of monophthongization in absolute final syllables Suggest that *oi became a front vowel represented with (e) in OH originals. The interpretation of front vowels in Hittite texts is fraught with uncertainty, but ex- amples of NH spellings with unambiguous i-vocalism that correspond to OH spellings with e-vocalism are numerous enough to suggest that NH mi-(é)-t/da- (a)-i- can correspond to an OH *me-(e)-t/da-(a)-i- = *{meda(i)-]. 6 For *h,Ro > Hitt. Rasee Catsanicos, BSL 81 (1986) 166-169 with refs. 1 Although the suffix -a(i)~ seems to have been accented, denominatives in ~i(i)- analogically retain the vowel length of their base nouns; cf. e.g. a-a-ak-ta- a-ia-2i “takes care of a sick person” KBo VI 2117 (OH) = KBo VI 3126 (MH): *sakta- “sickness” < IE *s6kto-: O.Ir. sockt “stupor”, with Watkins, IESt IT 379~387 = Kratylos 19 (1978) 69-71. 18 For various etymological suggestions see Tischler, HEG.6, 218-219, = Die Sprache 96 (1994) 16 S.B. Kimball Whether this etymology works phonologically, however, depends on reading the sign ZI as ZE = /tse/ in ta-ga-a-an- Z1/ZE-pa-a8 (StBoT 25, 30 III 5)", Since unaccented /e/ from *oi remains in OH -sse < *-soi (see above), if Z/ is to be read with i-vacalism then it can only reflect /i/ from unaccented "e or perhaps unaccented *ei, implying that -sepa- should be from a PA *-seba-, or perhaps *-sciba-, not *-soiba-. C. Short u-diphthongs, The preverb u- “to” in the word for “come” (1 sg. pres. uwami, 3 sg. wézzi ete.) and other verbs, beside Cunciform Luvian au- in a-ti-i-ti = lawidi} “comes” ete. could provide an example of monophthongization. It seems unlikely that Ilittite and Luvian generalized different ablaut var- iants, but unconditioned monophthongization in Hittite is not the only possible explanation. If PA ‘au or tou" regularly became « only in some environments (e.g. before stops as in uda- “bring”) then it is at least pos- sible that u- was generalized from those verbs in which monophthongiza- tion was phonologically regular. In fact, u- instead of aw- in the word for “come” probably is analogical, since prevocalic sequences of vowel plus remain), Eichner, Lauigesch. u. Etym. 156, suggests that the initial w-uC of wun-na4- “drive”, which is from the preverb *au- “to”, and w-ul-hi, u-uh-hu-un 1 sg. pres. and pret, of au(s)- “look, see” might be read as [0] and might continue the regular reflex of *au. Hart, TPS 1983, 124-130, using data from a corpus of OH and MH texts concludes that although there is considerable evidence that U was used for the reflex of TE *u ea 1 tai-kan, tui-ga-an “yoke” < *yugém), U is not as easy to connect with TE *u and may instead have been favored by some scribes for writ- ing the reflexes of monophthongized diphthongs and *uH, a sound some- what different from and perhaps more open than /u/ < IE *u (¢-8- in Thar wuh-hi and in nom.-ace. pl. n, ad-Su-w “goods” with suffix from at ha) Tt should be noted too that Westenholz, ZA 81 (1991) 10-19 ¥. syllabic evident for reading U or U, as [o] from PSem *au and hetero from Nippur (ee yeast U = (u] in some Old Babylonian documents ond cont ec 1700 Bex.) and that this evidence is supported by °° ury B.C. Greek transcriptions of Babylonian Akkadian. 9 as 2 See naclehert, SHLHP 108 and Sprache 29 (1988) 7 i “all togethen apap gy, ath ©-8, the Vedie conjunction u “also” and Gk, Riv’? has raised soc npletely”. In view of the doubts that Strunk, Fs Risch 253~ 260, tion (Hittite Plese Tiere of Arcado-Cyprian 8, eb. = “Exi-”, my own SuBees” 1983, 464-466) thar Cho published University of Pennsylvania dissertation “unto” isprobabhnge® Anatolian and Greek preverbs can come from an IE "eu" Melchert, SHHP 21-22, on sequences of *VwV. Die Sprache 36 (199401The IE short diphthongs ‘oi, *ai, tou and *au in Hittite 7 The impression of regularity in the Hittite texts may, however, be largely the effect of examining a limited corpus or considering a small number of forms. The preverb #- “to” is, for example, spelled with U in dussiya- “draw curtains” (3 pl. pres. ¢-w8-Si-aln-zi StBoT 25, 251 31, a-us- Si-an-z|i StBoT 25, 59 I 2) which is from a- plus siya- “shoot, spurt” (cf. pessiya- “throw” with preverb pé-); if the plene writing in u-wn-na- indi- cates a full-grade *ou-, or *au-, then the plene writing in -u5-si-ya- should probably be considered its equivalent. There are also words in which a vowel that is likely to be the reflex of *u is spelled with U. In at least one, >UGisnizri-, isntra- “dough bow!”, variants with U do not seem to occur; note, e.g., nom. és-nu-u-ri-i§ 1112/e + TH 26 (MH +), ace. iS-nu- w-ra-an KBo VI 34 I 42 (MH+), < *yesnuri-: IE *yes- “ferment”, IE *u probably also occurs in kurka- “foal” < *karko-*4, but the word is rare (nom. sg. ku-u-wr-ka-aS StBoT 25, 27 Rs.! 9 beside acc. pl. kur-ku-us KUB XIII 85 III 12 (NH)). In mia- “mild” ({miyi-]} < *mih,-t-, both 0 and U were used to spell the suffix vowel (e.g. nom. sg. mi-u-us (MH), mi-isi-us (OH +), ace. sg. mi-i-tt-un (OH +), nom.-ace. pl. n. mi-i-u (MH), mi-u (MH))™, Synchronic [u] from *u also oecurs in denominatives from u-stems with the e-grade suffix *-yé- which have [uwé] < ué < *uyé with loss of intervocalic *y and secondary glide insertion®. In kappué- “count” = [kapuwé-] the spelling with U appears to be consistent (e. g. 2 8g. pres. ka~pu-u-e-si KBo III 28 If 13 (OH+), 8 sg. pres. kap-put-ez-21 KBo XX] 221 31 (MH), kap-pu-u-e-ez-7i KUB XI 719 (MH +), kap- pu-e2-2i IBoT 1 36 I 46 (MH), 3 pl. kap-pu-u-en-zi KBo VI 2 IV 20, 3 sg. Pret. kap-pu-u-e-et KUB XVII 10 IV 20, 27 (MH), kap-pu-we-er KUB XXIX II 6 (OH+ )). In sarié- “loot” = [saruwée-] < *soru-yé-: dru “booty” both U and Uare found (3 pl. pret. sa-ru-ti-e-er KUB XVII 21 + 115 (MH), sa-ru-u-e-er KUB XXXI 124 II 14 (MH)). It is more difficult to find examples of U used to spell reflexes of u-diphthongs, because it is usually impossible to exclude an analogical zero-grade. One example, however, might be nom. sg. ku-ti-u2-2a “wall” KUB XXIX 4 IV 27 (NH) if this is from *gh’dut-s or *gh’éut-s (see be- low). Although the vowel of u-uh-hi, u-wh-hu-un appears to be the reflex of *au, both U and U occur in the iterative (8 sg. pres. ti-u5-ke-ez-zi KBo VII 42 Vs' 2 (OH), w-ui-kan-zi KUB XXIII 103 Vs. 14 (NH)), which Tay have [ii] by analogy to the first person singular present and preterite ® For examples and etymology see Puhvel, HED2, 383-385. 4 Forssman, KZ 94 (1980) 70-74, 2% For examples and etymological discussion see CHD.3, 306-308, Weiten- berg, U-Stamme 121-123 w.refs,, and Tischler, HEG.6, 221-223. 2 "Melchert, SHHP 42. Forms with the o-grade suffix [awa] (e.g. 3 pl. pres. kap-pu-u-an-zi KBo VI 3 IV 16 (MH), 1 sg. pret. kop-pu-u-wa-nu-un KUB XO 35 IIL'7 (NH) have analogical [4] for (6) < *=()6-. Die Sprache 96 (1994) 18 SE. Kimball (cf. 2 sg. imp. us-ki-j StBoT 25, 123 L. 10, which may have the expected zero-grade [ti]). 4, Examples for which the root etymology is likely but the ablaut grade is uncertain, A. Short i-diphthongs. The nu-causative inu- “heat, make warm” is derived by Catsanicos, BSL 81 (1986) 161, and Puhvel, HED.1, 1), from an earlier *ai-nu-. But inu- looks archaic, and it undoubtedly had a zero-grade root (i.e *in(e)u- > inu-), The spelling with i, i-nu-, which occurs in OH (2pl. pret. i-nu-ut-te-en KBo XXII 2 Vs. 9) and in later texts (e.g. NH 8 pl. pres. i-nu-an-zi KBo XXI 21 III 9) is earlier than e-nu- (e.g. NH 3 se. pres. e-nu-z{i] KUB XLIV 61 IV 20) and also suggests a zero-grade”*. Hu- winu- “make run”, which Catsanicos, loc. cit., derives from a full-grade “hwai-nu-, could also be archaic, and again a zero-grade root would be expected’”, Since the synchronic connection to the base verb huwat- “run” is still clear, however, it is also possible that huwinu- was formed Productively within Hittite or Proto-Anatolian (ef. C.Luv. huwinwa-) to the weak stem of the verb meaning “run” (Hitt. huwai-, C.Luv. huwiyo-)- Iskund(i)- and iskunahkh- “stain, defile”, which Puhvel, HED.2, 427 ¥. refs., derives from a full-grade *ais-gh-, comparing Gk. aioybvo, are OD sistently spelled with IS, and the i-vocalism makes a zero-grade *is-eh- likely despite the full-grade of aloxiver®, Pubvel also (HED.2, 366) derives inan- (neut.) “sickness” from a full- grade, reconstructing a root “Ayey-(A)-/"Agy-eA- (= *ay-/tay-a-)® and citing Ved. énas. “sin, guilt”, Skt. ili- “plague, disease”, Av. aénah- “viol ence, damage”, iti- “injury, offense”, and maybe Gk. aivoc “terrible” a Bessible cognates. While the formation of inan- is not especially clear, it Ces seem plausible that it belongs with a least some of the words Puhvel ons But there is no convincing morphological argument for a full- Sea and the consistent spelling with I argues against one. pra. isiteene plural ending -énzan (e.g. in apenzan? oo contitiie PA an, . Pro. kd-, suménzan : 2 pl. pers. pro. sumés) mig! -6insom, if it had been formed within PA after inherited 2° For ze 4G . - chert, ari tno gra ide “neu beside full-grade *aya- in d- “be warm” see Mel ‘Ao, Nea. me also argues for eg = sev a et Lindaniads Het © elchert, SHH. paces ; See Melohert eae who derives hwinu- from *hyu(hy ene. Puhvel’s A, i $s Ay isa laryngeal that colors underlying *e but disappears. Die Sprache 36 (1998) *The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, *ou and *au in Hittite 9 ‘ns had become *ss, but *-insom or *-é-nsom with generalized pronom- inal stem *-¢- are also possible®”. Oettinger’s derivation of the third person singular preterite of méma- “speak” as [memesta] “(s)he spoke” from *me-mais-t (Stammbildung 71) is not supported by the evidence of the texts. The third person singular preterite is usually written me-(e)-mi-is-ta with unambiguous J in its sec- ond syllable from MH on®!, suggesting that it was historically *i*. B. Short u-diphthongs. Unu- “decorate, adorn” is derived by Eichner, Sprache 24 (1978) 151 n. 28, from a full-grade *au-neu- (cf. Arm. aganim “I put on” also with full-grade *au- and Lat. indud “put on” and exué “put off” with zero- grade *u-); but wnu- is archaic, and like inu- “make hot”, it probably had a zero-grade root. Melchert, SHIP 34-35 and 61, derives lukke/a- “set on fire” from an iterative-causative *louk-eye/o-. This derivation is not uncontested™, but even if the suffix of lukke/a- does continue the IE iterative-causative suffix, there is no guarantee that its root preserved the regular reflex of o-grade *louk-. It is possible, for example, that the related middle lukk(a)- “grow bright” (e.g. 3 sg. pres. lu-wk-l/a StBoT 25, 68 Rs 6 (OH), lu-uk-kat-ta e.g. StBoT 25, 3 I 30, IV 7 (OH), lu-ug-ga-al-ta e.g, StBoT 25, 4 IV 21 (OH)) had a zero-grade root, and it could have provided a Source from which a zero-grade [luk-] < *luk- could have been general- ized analogically®, In fact, it seems likely that the immediate preform of lukke/a~ did not have an o-grade. If lenition of a voiceless stop occurred after the reflex of PA *ai < IE *oi in mita(é)-, it should have occurred in *louk- > *lauk- > [lug-], **lu-ke-, **lu-ga- ete. However, forms of lukke/ a- are consistently spelled with double velar (CHD.3, 78-79), pointing to lluk-] with voiceless /k/**. * See Catsanicos, BSL 81 (1986) 163-164 w. notes 246, 247, and Mel- chert, SHHP 118-114, for *-oinsom or *-einsom. Melchert also suggests (Sprache 29 (1983) 7-8) that the gen. pl. ending may have been formed in Pre~ Hittite from the pronominal stem in *-e- plus the *-ns- seen also in the Luvian Plural plus *-an from the IE nominal gen, pl. ending *-6m, *-6m. 3 See CHD.3, 254. °%2 See also Melchert, SHHP 7A, 140. 3 Seealso Watkins, TPS 1971, 68-69. * Hoffmann, KZ 82 (1968) 214—220, and Oettinger, Stammbildung 271— 277, reconstruct thematic *leuk -e/o-. % For *luk-to, “luk-o-to see Oettinger, Stammbildung 273, 275, and Mel- chert, SHHP 110. For the possibility of analogical kk see Eichner, MSS 31 (1973) 100 n. 84. % "There is no solid evidence for lenition of *k to [g] after *eu or tou in any of the Hittite derivatives of *leuk-. To judge from the examples in the CHD, the ve- Die Sprache 36 (1994) 110 S.E. Kimball Kiazza |gits] “wall” is often derived from *gh’eu- “pour”®”. The et3y7— mology is at least possible — especially since the word seems to refer CO interior walls which were built of mud brick, often had rubble fill, ara might conceivably be described as “poured”*, The nominative singulzarr ku-t-u2z-2za (KUB XXIX 4 IV 27 (NH), spelled also ku-uz-za in MEX IBoT I 36 I 10, 16) could have a full-grade, but both *gh’eu-t-s acd *gh’ou-t-s are possible, The oblique stem ku-wt-t9, ku-ud-d' [git-] shoulda be from *gh’u-t-, and an analogical zero-grade in the nominative (Pre— Hitt. *gii-t-s) also cannot be excluded, Liihr, IBS 52, 72, derives kudur “fleshy part of a sacrificial animal” from a -wer/n-stem *goutwy beside *goutr or *geuty in Lat. gutttes “throat, crop”, and *gutr (with generalized zero-grade) in OHG koder-, goder “gullet, throat, fleshy skin under the chin” and MLG and Mandl ko— der “double chin, goiter”. The o-grade is not, however, well-establishecd for -wer/n-stems, which show either e- and zero-grade (e.g. Ved. parur» pérean- “joint”, Gk. meigag “end” < *perwr, Gk. cidag “food” <= “hyedwr, Gk. 5¢Acag and BAfio “bait” < *g"elh,wy/*g"|h,wr), suggesting: proterokinetic inflection, or lengthened-grade (e.g. Hitt. mehur “time” << lar is regularly double in OH and MH texts and in most NH texts in lu(k)k- oe bright” (CHD, 74-76): luuk-kat-ta (OH ete.), u-ug-ga-at-ta (OH ett). deuigada (MH +), lu-uk-ka-ta (NH), and the adverbs lukkatla, lukkalti '2t fawn" (CHD 76-78): lwauk-kat-ta (MH ete.),lu-uk-kat-ti (NH), lu-ug-qacti (NF) jeik-ka-at-ti (NED. Spellings with a single volar (e.g. 3 sg. pres. lu-kat-ta, adh none Mekat-ti, la-kat “at dawn”) only oceur in texts written down in the N H period (NH originals and NH copies of OH and MIT texts), and they all have the for tee KAT It is possible that KAT served here as an abbreviatory spelliNg Fe ce lsss stop usually written with a double velar, but single k oecuts ees dkéss- “grow bright” (3 sg. pres. lu-ke-ei-zi (NH) beside 3 sg. pret. lu-uk- 1 ita (NED; CHD 79), Derivatives of the reduplicated stem lalukke~ show both and kk in early texts; note lalu-uk-(KE-ma-ai in OH StBoT 25, 112: Walu(k)kema- “radiance”, la-lu-uk-KE-ET “became luminous” KUB XXXII 66 117 (MH), but la-tv-ke-eé-du KUB XV 34 II 28 (MH) beside (la-tiu-wk-ki-t8-50-00 ib, Il 27; lalu(k)késs- “become bright, glisten”. Both la-lu-wk-KE- and la-lu- oceur in texts written down in the NH period, and there are two examples of 1% lu-KE- with plene writing of the vowel of the first syllable and single k ({la au KE-ma-aé KUB XXXI 127115 (OH+) and la-a-lu-K|E-ma-an KBo XVII 95 ie 3 (NID). A PA *Idluke- (or *Wleuké-, *Iélouké-) would become (laluge-] spel la-(a)-lu-KE-. If this is the correct reconstruction, then OH ete. la-lu-uk- Ye points toa tendency to restore the voiceless velar analogically, presumably on "Ne model of lukke-, lukk- ete, ® See Kimball, Hittite Plene Writing 451~453, and Melchert, SHHP 60, % In StBoT 25, 25 IV 301, for example, the chief cook makes a libatio front of the wall” (kuttas péran) and in several other places (to the hearth. in fre"" of the kursa-, or hunting bag, to the throne, to the doorbolt and beside the W!"” dow) that are clearly inside the "tunnakissar, or inner chamber. For the const™™ tion of interior walls sce R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens 43. Die Sprache 36 (1990!The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, ou and *au in Hittite un *méh,wr) suggesting acrostatic inflection®, Kudur, then, is more likely tocontinue *géutwy or *géutwy?, 5. Unlikely examples. A. Short i-diphthongs. Other alleged examples of monophthongization are at best very un- likely, Eichner’s (MSS 31 (1973) 79) derivation of méni-, ména- “face” (also in ména-hhanda “opposite”) from *maino- < “noimo-: Skt. nema- “the one, half”, Av. naéma- “half, side” involves assuming a metathesis without good parallels, and the semantics are less satisfying than those implied by Melchert’s (SHHP 88 n.17) derivation from *men- “stick out”, “be prominent” (also e.g. in Lat. mentum “chin”, promined “stick out, be prominent”). Oettinger, Stammbildung 71, 526 n. 17, suggests that i-hi-e-ni-, a word meaning “body hair” or “beard hair”, can be from *sh,ain- and compares Lat. saeta “bristle” (< *shgait-) for the meaning. But i8-hi-e-ni- only oc- curs once (as ace. pl. i8-hi-e-ni-us KUB XIII 4 III 62) beside i§-hi-ya-ni- us in the duplicate KUB XIII 19 L. 5. The relationship between the var- jants is unclear, and since both texts, though they are adaptations of ear- lier material, were written down in the NH period, it is not certain which is older. The spellings -hi-ya- and -hi-e-, however, suggest that the stem could have been [ishyan-] and perhaps [ishyen-] rather than {ishen-". ; Puhvel, HED.2, 260, derives ékt- “hunting net” and Luvoid ‘aggatius (ace. pl. id.) froma stem *aik-t-, comparing Lat. ictus “thrust”, “stroke”. However, Hamp’s etymology (IF 83 (1978) 119), which derives these words from *yek-t- : IE *yek- (cf. OHG jagén “to hunt”), is more plausi- ble‘?, The semantics are better, and Hamp’s etymology assumes sound changes — the loss of initial *y before Proto-Anatolian *e and the change of Proto-Anatolian *e to Luvian a — that have parallels elsewhere in Hit- tite and Luvian. Puhvel, HED.1, 206, also derives asdré-/esara- “white, bright” from *esara- < *ais-ro- and compares OCS jasni “clear, bright” (< *jésnil- < *ais(k)no-), and Lith. digkus, igkits “clear, obvious”. The semantics look %® Schindler, BSL 70 (1972) 9-10. ” Poetto, KZ 99 (1986) 220-222, translating “thigh”, compares ON kigt “meat”, N.Norw. kjat “meat”, Dan. ked and Swed. kat “flesh”, ON kvelt “meat”, and Icl. kvetti “a big piece of meat”, which would point to *géudwy or *géudwy. ‘| Oettinger now notes this himself (Gramm. Kat. 301). It is possible that the seribe of KUB XIII 5, who must have been aware of a correspondence “old” -ye- = “current” -ya- in verbs, was introducing a deliberate, though misguided, archa- ism in spelling a word he pronounced |ishyanius] as i8-hi-e-ni-ué. ® See also Berman, ib. 123, and Melchert, SHHP 14 with n. 26 and 76. Die Sprache 36 (1994) 112 SB. Kimball sound, and the etymology probably cannot be excluded completely, but the morphology and phonology are not at all certain. The variant with e, esara-, occurs only in ace. sg. ¢. esaran in MH KUB XXIV 1 II 25 and its NHduplicate KUB XXIV 10 II 4, beside asard- in the same two texts (11 If 31, 10 11 10) and elsewhere. The relationship between the variants is not clear. There is no independent reason to suppose, for example, that asara- is Luvian. Since esara- occurs in MH, while NII texts have only asard, it is conceivable that asdrd- shows imilation of an original ini- tial e; but such vowel assimilation is at best very rare, and there are many counter examples". Melchert, SHHP 143 n. 118, derives ™shekur “crag” from *hjaik-, comparing Greek aly) (Mye. ace. pl. ai-ka-sa-ma = alxopavs). But the examples given by Puhvel, ITED.3, 487~489 show that the meaning is more likely to be “rock sanctuary” rather than “crag”, and that the word was treated by the scribes as an uninflected quasi-ideogram, thus mak- ing Puhvel’s suggestion that it is ullimately from Sumerian £.KUR “mountain house” via Hurrian more likely. : 7 Finally, Puhvel’s derivation of enant- “tame(d)”? from a root *ain- be agereeable” (HED.2, 271) probably does not work. It is not com pletely certain that enant- means “tame(d)”. Knant- occurs only in the Law Code (§ 65 and § 66) and perhaps in one other badly damaged pas” sage“. It modifies MAS.GAL “billy-goat” and UDU.KUR.RA “moun- inate the gloss “tame” is a guess (though plausible) based 09 rained era the other animals that occur in the Law Code passages are lomesticated in some way*5, Puhvel’s connection of enant- © About the only other reasonably plausible example of vowel assimilation is OH wa-ri-ta-an-zi “they are afraid” StBor 25,41V B4 vs. dee-rite- and w-e-r-t da- in later texts, if this verb is from loc. *weri plus *dheh,- “put in fear” (see Octtinger, Stammbildung 127, and Melchert, SHIP 10-11 n. 6). Ff Kammenhuber, HW? II 37, cites KBo XXI 14 Vs. 17-1 MAS.GAL u-un-ni-an-zi x [(18) [X ki -an me-ma-ah-hi ka-a-8a e-nal- “They lead a billy-goat in, and I say: ‘behold .., ta[me?’””. © Law Code § 65 (KBo VI 2 + KBo XIX 1 IM 44-46): tak-ku MAS.GAL e-na-an-da-an tak-ku SEG,,BAR an-na-nu-uh-ha-an tak-ku UDU.KUR.RA e-na- an-da-an (45) ku-i8-ki ta-a-i-ez-zi ma-a-ah-ha-an-da SA GUD.APIN.LAL ta-ya- tila-a8 (46) ki-in-xxx QA-TAM-MA “If someone steals a tame(?) billy-goat, (or) a trained wild sheep, (or) a tame(?) mountain sheep, (the theft) is the same as the theft of a plow-ox"; § 66 (ib. II 47-50): tak-ku [GUD.JAPIN.LAL tak-ku ANSE.KUR.RA tu-v-ri-ya-u-ai tak-ku GUD.AB tak-ku ANSE.SAL.AL.LAL- 28 (48) hla-lji-ya-as har-ap-ta [tak-ku MAS.GAL e-na-an-za tak-ku UDUSIG X SAL tak-ku UDU.NITA (49) a-Sa-u-ni har-ap-ta i§-ha-Ji-sja-ajn d-e-mi-e7-zi na-an-za Sa-ku-aSéarafan-pat dja-a-i (50) “Nf.ZU-an na-at-ta e-ep-zi “If a plow-ox, a draft horse, a cow, (or) a mare wanders off to another corral (or) if @ tame(?) billy-goat, a wool-bearing ewe (or) a ram strays off to another fold (and) its owner finds it, he takes his own rightful (animal) and does not seize (the fold or corral’s owner) asa thief”. x an-da Die Sprache 36 (1994) 1The IE short diphthongs *oi, ‘ai, *ou and *au in Hittite 18 with Greek aivog, which he glosses as “agreement, consensus, praise“, and with dvaivopai “spurn, reject” from an *aivopai(?) “be agreeable”, depends on the idea that the basic meaning of the Greek words is “ag- tee”, “comply”, “be in agreement”; but it is more likely that their basic meaning is something more general like “speak” or “say”. Alvo, for ex- ample, can also mean “tale” or “story’“6, and the related alviyya simply means “riddle”; it has nothing to do with agreeing. If enant- does mean “tame”, then Tocharian en- “instruct, enjoin” (e.g. Toch. A 3 pl. midd. pres. endskentar, abstr. endslune = B endssialie), which Puhvel also com- Pares, would be a better match semantically, but they cannot come from IE ain-, since *ai- should remain in Tocharian B‘”. 6. auand aifrom *au and *oi or *ai. There are also a few words with a non-final au or ai that continues an IE short diphthong. They have tended to be overlooked in discussions of inherited short diphthongs, and none is especially well attested; but each has a reasonably secure etymology, and each is isolated morphologically. A. au from *au. . The first word is aulis. Kiihne showed (ZA 76/1 (1986) 85-117) that the aulis was a tube-shaped organ in the front of the neck; so it could mean “windpipe”, “carotid artery”, or more genereally, “throat”. Start- ing in Middle Hittite, aulis also came to mean “ritual blood-letting’ or “sacrificial animal”, meanings that grew out of the practice of ritually slaughtering animals by slashing their throats. As Kiihne points out, the etymology is obvious; aulis belongs with Greek abAég and a number of other words referring to hollow tube-like objects (e.g. Gk. adddv “canal”, Lith. ailas “bootleg”, Lett. aiile id., Lith. auljs, avilyjs “hollow in a tree where bees settle, beehive”, Lett. aiilis “beehive made of fir bark or a rot- ten log”, O.Pruss. aulis “shinbone”, Russ. tilej “beehive”, Cz. til id., Slo- ven. 1ilj id. and N.Norw. aul(e), geitaul “angelica, angelica stalk”), Most cognates have the short diphthong *au, but a stem *éu-l- occurs in Scan- dinavian in O.Icl. hoann-jéli “stalk of the angelica plant” (N.Jcl. ngoli, N.Norw, keannjél) and jéli, y6ll (N.Norw. 61, dial. geitjél) used of the 46 Cy. its use ine. g. 11.23, 652 and Od. 21, 508. ‘7 Cf A ekdr = B atkare “empty” : Lat. aeger. Donald Ringe assures me that Toch. B en- is unlikely to be a dialect borrowing. 48 TEW 88-89. On the Baltic and Slavic words see Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb. 25-26, Arumaa, Urslav. Gramm. 91 and Illich-Svitych, Nominal Accentua- tion 29. On N.Norw. aul(e), geitaul “angelica, angelica stalk” see Falk—Torp, Norw.-diin. et. Wb. 474. Die Sprache 36 (1994) 114 S$. E, Kimball plant itself. The plant (angelica silvestris, angelica archangelica) has a hol- low tube-like stalk, so the meaning fits. The Scandinavian words could have the reflex of *éu with Osthoff’s law shortening (*éul- > *eul- > j6l; see Pokorny, [EW 88-89, and Johannesson, Isl. et. Wb. 11); but this does not mean that a long diphthong should be reconstructed for IE or that the au of Hittite aulis has to be from a long diphthong, since Scandina- vian *éul-o- could be a Germanic vrddhi formation. Plant names are also very untrustworthy, since they are, for example, notoriously subject to folk etymology, and an alternation *éu ; tau does not look IE. These words also cannot be derived from *h,dul- and *h,éul-, since the laryn- geal is not preserved in Hittite!®. B. ai from *oi (and *ai?). There are three morphologically isolated words with synchronic ai from an IE short i-diphthong. The first word is maista-, which denotes a unit of wool and is found in two treaties of Middle Hittite date in similar contexts. In KBo XVI 47 L. 8 it is clearly a minimal unit as Hoffner (CHD. 3, 119 w. refs.) sug gests; vacan-ta-an wa-aS-ta-an-2i (9) nubus -ya-mi zi-ku-u3 a-pe-ez-zi-ya za-ah-hi-ya (ma-ja-an §ma-i8-ta-an-na ma-3i PUTUS' ke-ez-za za-ah- © Puhvel, HED, 452, rej ‘ : . ol- pore jects K tihne’s analysis of the meaning and etyD™ ee preferring (loc. cil. and ib. 49—49) if compare Lat. alrus “bowels, a deatets “hollow cavity” and Gk. abiés ete. with hallulava)- “pit, hollow » ne the seb” Pubvel himself analyzes the latter word as an a-stem halluva-, take ing the noun sense as primary, and suggesting that the Latin and Hittite words may have undergone a late IE dialectal metathesis from *h,aul-. Positing the noun sense as basic and understanding Adrius halluwamus (sic) aS appositio “valleys (that are) hollows” as Puhvel does, might explain the apparent nomin: inflection (e.g, abl. sg. hal-lu-u-wa-az KUB LI 58 I 22), but the earliest exam ples point to a u-stem; note in particular ace. pl. e. hal-lu-wa-mu-ué KBo X11 86 Vs 19 (OH), KUB XVII 10 1 26 (MH), hal-tu-wla-m|u-ué KUB XXXII 24 I 24, hal-lu-u-wa-mu-us ib, 1 28 (MH+). By contrast, ace. pl. c. forms in -awus look lat er and can be analogical: hal-lu-wa-u-ué KBo XXVI 135 L. 2 (undated myth frag- ment), hal-lu-u-wa-a-ui KBo XXIV 56 L. 8 (described in the Inhaltsiibersicht a§ “Text mit auffalhgen Luwismen im Lexikon”) and ha-al-lu-1i-wa-t-us KBo Il 8 Ill 4 (a text with spellings that are notoriously unreliable; note par-ga-u-us “high’ (as nom. pl. c.) ib. III 22) and cf. Weitenberg, U-Stimme 271-272, who recon- structs *hallui-, oblique stem halluwa- < *halluwaya-. Puhvel does not himself (HED.1, 229~232) provide conclusive evidence for understanding auli- as “gpleen”, while K ithne does provide evidence (88~89) strongly suggesting that the auli- was not located in the abdominal cavity. 5 Translations are based on those given in CHD. ‘Die Sprache 36 (1994) 1‘The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, ou and *au in Hittite 15 “But if (the people of Ura and Mutamutassi) are remiss in respect to so much as a maista of wool, I, my majesty, will fight them from here, and you fight them from there”. Similarly, in the Mita treaty, KUB XXIII 72 Rs 8, maista- is also a minimal unit: a-ap-pa §!Gma-i§-t[a-a}n [m]a-Si-wa-an-ta-an U-UL ap-{pa-an-zi “They will not withhold so much as a maista of wool”. and ib. + 1684/u Vs. 42: [a-ap-pa S!Gma-i§-tja-an ma-Si-wa-an-ta-an le-e ap-te-ni “Do not withhold so much as a maista of wool”. Although Hoffner translates maista- as “fiber” or “strand” of “wool” or “yarn”, there is nothing in the contexts of the passages where it occurs to suggest that it can only mean wool in a processed form. It might be anything that could be a unit in which wool comes, for example a fleece, in which case it would have roughly the same meaning as Stes(sa)ri- “fleece” (literally “wool shape”); or it could refer to a bale of wool. Mais- ta- looks like a derivative in *-to-, *moisto- (or conceivably *maisto-) be- side a thematic noun *moiso- (or *maiso-) that occurs in Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Slavic and refers to the sheep itself, its fleece, its skin, or toa bag made out of sheepskin: Skt. mega- (m.) “ram, fleece”, mesi- (L) “ewe, fleece, sheepskin”, Av. maésa-, maési- id., OCS méchti “bag”, Russ. méch “hide, bag”, Lett, mdiss “sack”, Lith. maiéas “big sack” (m.), mdisa (£) “hay rack”, mdié, and O.Pruss. moasis “bellows”, The acute accent of Lith. mdia and mdiSé is secondary®, and there is no morphological or etymological support for a lengthened grade here. Similar-looking words maiszastis and maisti, which seem to refer to things that shine or sparkle, occur in two passages alongside derivatives of lélukke- “be luminous” and can be separated semantically and etymo- logically from maista- “unit of wool”. In KUB LVI 60 Vs II’ 1-13 = KUB LVII 63 Vs II 16-19 maiszastis refers to an attribute of the Sungod- dess of heaven: (KUB LVI 60 Vs 11’) nu tu-wa-ad-du ne-pi-Sa-a3 PUTU-u-i (12) ma'- i8-za-a8-ti-i§ ku-e-el mi-i8-ri-wa-an-za (13) ha-ap-par-nu-wa-a-hi-is ku-e- el la-lu-uk-ke-u-an-te-ei 31 JEW 747 *moiso-s or *mais-os “sheep, sheepskin, item made of sheepskin”; the Germanic words Pokorny lists probably do not belong here, however. 8 See Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb. 397 w. refs, van Wijk, Balt. u, slae, Akz. 121, 122, and Ilich-Svitych, Nominal Accentuation 30, 43. Dre Sprache 36 (1994) 1. Kimball 16 8. Archi, F's Otten? 19, translates: “Sei gniadig, Sonnengottin des Him- mels, deren Leuchten(?) glinzend (ist), deren Strahlen lichterfiillt (sind)”, suggesting (27) that maiszastis could mean “solar-disk”. Archi also suggests that the word could be an abstract in -asti, but this would Jeave the word with a peculiar-looking root maisz(a)-. Alternatively, Neu (apud Archi loc. cit.) suggests that the word has the 2 sg. possessive pro- noun -tis, This would be more satisfying morphologically, although it would leave the sentence with scrambled syntax (“whose/your m. (is) ra- diant”)**. The word appears to be an animate t-stem with nominative singular ma-is-za = [maists|, formed like ka-a-as-za “hunger” = (Kast-s] and Sa-a3-za “bed” = [sist-s|. The latter does occur in the nominative singular with possessive -tis, but it is spelled Sa-aé-za-ti-ig (KUB XXXII 8 III 19) not *Sa-a8-za-aS-ti-is. The spelling of the cluster [stst] in ma-is- 2a-a8-ti-ig = [maists-tis] would, however, be paralleled by the spelling of {Itsk] in mla~al-za-a5-ke-nu-uln KUB XIV 10 1 25 = ma-all-za-a5-ke-nucun in KUB XIV 11 18 beside ma-al-za-ke-nu-un in KBo XXII 11 L. 18 with stem [maltsk-] : mald- “recite, make a vow” or by the spelling of Intsk] in #5-pa-an-2a-a5-k{e-ez-2i StBoT 25, 66 I 3 beside i§-pa-ajn-za-kan- ieee 25, 104 II 18 with stem [spantsk-] : ispdnt- (sipdut-) “make a Moisti in KBo XXXII 14 II 44 can be the dative-locative singular of mit KBo XXXII M4 II 44-45, from a bilingual Hurrian-Hittite wie epee describes the results of decorating a copper vessel Tok ee and engraving: nu-uS-8i-e8-ta ma-i8-ti (45) anda Jae -ut.. 5 et Sarah der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen 1984, erliol sie Ghee him, Neu, Fs Otten’ 240, translate this passage as “und e (the appliqués) ihm (the vessel) in (jedem) Detail erstrahlen”, but the translation of maisti as “detail” is based on the interpretation of maista- 7 KBo XVI 47 and KUB XXIII 72 as “minimal unit” rather than “unit (specifically) of wool”. Neu (loc. cit.) notes that the corre- sponding Hurrian passage (145) has the verb tas- “give” and can be translated literally as “und Glanz(mittel) gab er daran”, If maiszastis in LVII 60 Vs II 12 = LVI 63 II 16 does mean “solar disk”, then the Hittite passage can perhaps be translated: “and he made them (us- = the ap- pliqués) gleam on it ¢se- = the vessel) in a sunburst or solar disk (pattern)”*, It is possible that maist- can be derived from an IE *meis- “blink, wink, glitter” (IEW 714) seen also in Skt. misati “opens the eyes, blinks”, 83 CE. CHD.3, 248 on KUB LVII 63 11 16-19, but change ijstajnzas=tis to mal(i)|szas=tis. 5 Je, n=us=se=sta; see Neun. 20. Die Sprache 36 (1994) 1‘The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, ou and *au in Hittite 17 nimis- (£.), nimisa- (m.) “blinking, winking”, and probably an extended toot *mei-s- beside *m(e)i-k- in Lat. micé “glitter” and *m(e)i-g- in e.g, Russ. megnuti “to wink”. Within Hittite itself, the adjective misriwant- “gleaming, shining” might be related if it can be derived from an under- lying *misri- “spark, ray, gleam”, perhaps from *meis-ri- with e-grade as in és(sa)ri- “shape, fleece” : és- “be” or édri- “food” : d- “eat”5, The final word with ai from a short diphthong is “kaina- “relative by marriage”, “in-law”. The nominative plural !™Mgaenas occurs in the Telipinus Proclamation (BoTU 23 A = KBo III 1 + 3) and is translated in the Akkadian version (KUB III 85 L. 3) by “°™®Sha-at-ni-su from ha- ‘anu, a word that also means “relative by marriage” and more specifical- ly “son-in-law”, “brother-in-law” or “bridegroom”®®, Kaina- was first identified by Hrozng in his edition of the Telipinus Proclamation (BoSt 3 (1919) 100 n. 6). He translated it as “Verwandter”, noting its resemblance to Lat. cfvis “citizen”, Ose. ceus id., OHG hiwo “husband”, OE pl. kiwan “members of a household”, Lett. sdéme “mem- bers of a household, family”, and Olr. cofm “dear”. Hrozny hesitated to Sive kaina- an etymology, however, and his observations have usually been ignored or discounted in subsequent discussions of the word. Keina- is also usually ignored in discussions of diphthongs in Hittite. Hrozny was right, however, and a look at how kaina- occurs in the texts makes it clear that its meaning, “relative by marriage”, “in-law”, although not duplicated precisely anywhere else in IE, fits in well with the meanings of its putative cognates. While the word is not well attest ed, it seems to refer to a man’s relatives by marriage. Jt occurs several times in lists, and its position in these lists is instructive. As in the Mid- dle Hittite prayer to the Sungoddess of earth (KBo VII 28 + KBo VIII 92 L. 9) it usually comes after blood relations but before friends and un- related others: tak-ku-lan at-ta-a3-[ii i ta{k-ku-an (7) an-n[a-a8-S:-i8 ku-u3-d]u-wa-a-it zi-ga-an le-e i§-ta-ma-a[3- §i] tak-ku-an (SES-SU (8) ku-uS-du-wa-a-it zi-ga-an le-e i§-ta-ma-a3-5i tak-ku-an NIN-SU ku-u3-d[u-wa-a-it (9) zi-ga-an le-e i3-ta-ma-ai-di tak- ku-an ga-i-na-ai-si-i8 “a-ra-a8-8i-i[5 (10) ku-us-du-wa-a-it zi-ga-an lee 1S-ta-ma-a3-8i % ‘The etymology of misriwont- was originally suggested by Neumann, KZ 15 (1957) 88 (see Tischler, HEG.6, 216-217). If the base word was an i-stem *misri- then misriwéss- “become radiant”, misriwakh- “make radiant”, and misri- ‘wdtar “radiance” must be derived from misriwant- with elision of ~ent-, on which see Oettinger, Stammbildung 240-243 and Fs Olten? 285, and Starke, StBoT 31, 438. On the meanings “perfect(?), complete(?), full(?)” for misriwant- see CHD.3, 298-299, © CAD 16,68. Die Sprache 36 (1994) 1 ku-uS-du-wa-a-it zi-ga-an le-[e i3-ta-ma-a8-5i]18 S.E, Kimball “If his father reviled him don’t you listen to him. If his mother reviled him, don't you listen to her, If his brother reviled him, don’t you listen to him. If his sister reviled him, don’t you listen to her. If his kaina-man (or) his friend reviled him, don’t you listen to him”. In KUB XIII 4 1 51~55 '"kaina- comes between the members of a household and strangers: nu-uS-ma-Sa-at ar-ha (52) I-NA EM'.KU-NU pe-e har-te-ni na-at Su-me-el DAM™*.KU-NU = DUMU™ (53) SAGGE- MEIR“YS.KU-NU ar-ha e-ez-za-a-i 5 (54) na-a3-ma a-a5-Su-wa-an-za ku-is-ki “© 0-BA-R| U] t-ez-2i na-at a-pe- e-ni (55) pi-i8-te-ni “...and (if) you take it (food and drink intended for the gods) back to your houses, and your wives, your children and your slaves eat it up, or if a kaina-man, or some good stranger comes, and you give it to him...”. InI 29- 31 from the same text, a passage specifying retribution to be taken against a servant who has displeased a master, the order is slightly different, and kaina- comes between immediate family members and blood relations in general: na-an-kan na-a8-Su ku-na-an-zi na-ai-ma-k{aln KA-AK-SU IGIASU (30) GESTU"4_8Y j-da-a-la-u-ah-ha-an-zi emacs AGlel DAM- SU DUMU™®.8[U (31) SES-SU NIN-SU “ka-ina-ai MAS-SU na-as- Su GEME-S|U nJa-ai-ma IR-SU-pat . “+. and they kill him, or they damage his teeth, or his eyes, or his ate (they do it) to him, his wife, his children, his brother, his sister 1S Katna-man, his family, or to his own female or male slave”. These passages suggest that in-laws were viewed as occupying an in- termediate position; they were perceived as family of a sort, but clearly they were distinguished from real blood relations, The Telipinus Proclamation and the Huqqana treaty reveal more about the place of the “©MESyqines in Hittite society. The Telipinus Pro~ clamation® begins with a description of the peaceful reigns of previous Kings. In these fortunate eras, the king and his relatives — both blood re- lations and in-laws ~ and the army were at peace with each other: __% And similarly, ib. 19-21 ~ 30-31 = 35-36, In KUB XII 20 133, a prohibi- tion against collective judgments in lawsuits, the extended form \kaenant- 1S placed between people with blood ties ~ siblings, other family, and fellow cla? members — and unrelated friends: $4 &-SU SA SES-SU NIN-SU ha-a8-3a-a™- a8-4i pa-an-ku-na-ai-8i ka-e-na-an-ti a-re-3-i “Do not bring low (i.e. render judgment against) his house, his brothers, his sisters, his family, his fellow mem bers of the clan, his kaina-men”. & Lam following the edition of Hoffmann, THeth. 11. Die Sprache 36 (1994)The IE short diphthongs “oi, *ai, tou and *au in Hittite 19 (2) ka(-rusi MLa-ba-ar-na-ai LUGAL.GAL)] e-eé-ta n[(a-pa) DU- MU™(F.$U) SESM(P.SU)] (3) [(LOMESga-e-na-addeeSia LOMEha. as-8) Ja-an-na-ai-Sa-a3 U [((ERINMESS§U)] (4) [(ta-ru-up-pa-an-te-e8 e-Se- er)] “Earlier Labarna was Great King (and) then his sons, his brothers, his kaina-men, his family and his army were united”®, In Il 40-42 Telipinus expresses the wish, ultimately futile, that future reigns will enjoy the same peace and unity: UR-RA-AM SE-RA-AM ku-i8 am-mu-uk (var, am|mel) EGIR-an-da LUGAL-u8 ki-ga-ri na-pa SES™"S_SU (41) DUMU™®S_$U 1M BSga.e-na- 8 ha-a§-Sa-an-na-ai-Sa-a’ U ERIN™ "SU (42) ta-ro-ul[p}-pa-an- te-e3 a- Sa-an-du “And in the future, whoever becomes king after me, let his sons, his brothers, his kaina-men, his family and his army be united”. Telipinus is, of course, contrasting the idyllic nature of earlier reigns and his wishes for the future with the chaos and bloodshed of the years immediately preceding his own reign. It is perhaps significant that two of the important incidents in the history Telipinus recounts involve vio- lence between brothers-in-law. Hantilis, who had married Mursilis I's sis- ter, and was thus in a position of power, plotted to kill Mursilis (I 32-34) and this situation was later reversed when Huzziya, the king, had his brother-in-law and his wife, Huzziya’s own sister, killed (I 9- i). The treaty between Suppiluliuma I and Huqaana of Hayasa® shows that the kaina-relationship could be extended to the dependents of one or both of the in-laws, Huqaana’s subjects are described (IV 41-44) as LOMESgaenes of Suppiluliuma and his subjects: hu-mu-{ma-alan INA EGIR UD.KAM u-me-e3 MOMES URI Ha-yada a8-Su-l]i (42) pa-ah-ha-a3{te|-ni am-mu-ug-ga Su-me-e LOMES vRUHa- ya-3a MMa-ri-ya-an (48) SOMESga-e-ni-e3 SA KUR UPUHa-ya-ai-Sa aS-Su- fi pa-ah-ha-ai-hi (44) KUR OU Ha-ya-ad-ya a8-Su-li pa-ah-ha-a8-hi “And if you, men of Hayasa, protect me in goodwill in the future, I will protect you, men of Hayasa, Mariyas, and the kaina-men of the country of Hayasa in goodwill. I will protect the land of Hayasa in goodwill”. At the beginning of the treaty (I 5) it is stated that Suppiluliuma gave his sister to Huqqana in marriage. The in-law relationship apparently D ®9 Similarly ib. I 18-15 (reign of Hattusilis I) and I 24-26 (reign of Mursilis ® Tam following the edition of Friedrich, SV 103-163, ‘Die Sprache 36 (1994) 120 S. E. Kimball bound Huqqana to a number of obligations, including acting as Suppilu- liuma’s ally in war (11 14-31, IV 26-40), pledging to report plots against Suppiluliuma (I 27-30, II 1-3, If 32-36, I1 39-44, If 52-57, II 60-692), pledging not to plot against Suppiluliuma (II 45-51), and promising to repatriate captives who had fled from Hatti (III 66-71). While these ob- ligations are essentially the same as those imposed by Hittite kings on other treaty partners, this treaty also obligated Huqqana to conform to Hittite standards of sexual conduct (II 25-52, Ill 59-66). The prohibi- tions against sexual misconduct reveal that the Hittites regarded the in-law relationship as comparable to a true blood tie, since Suppiluliuma was especially adamant about prohibiting incest with sisters (III 25-48) and sisters-in-law (III 59-60), who are explicitly described as being the same as sisters, Although Huqqana is the junior partner in the relation- ship, the kaina-relationship is reciprocal; just as Huqaana is required to act as Suppiluliuma’s ally, so Suppiluliuma and his designated heir are required to protect Huqqana and his sons (e.g. I 31~34, 37)". The meanings of kaina- and its cognates can be explained starting from an IE *k’ei- with the general meaning “allied”, perhaps especially by marriage but not — originally at least — by blood ties®. As Benveniste noted (IE Language and Society 273-275), the relationship expressed by these words was both political and sentimental. Divergences in meaning among the cognates can be explained as adaptations to social change in the societies in which the cognates were inherited. ee developed the political overtones. Benveniste noted that the bree ae of civis is not just “citizen” but “fellow citizen” and pon! bi Hitiind was a term of companionship, implying a community of habi- fat any political rights, The Indic and Celtic adjectives (Skt. seva-, Sia- friendly, intimate, propitious, dear” and OIr. cofm “dear”) have suffered semantic blanching, but the meaning “allied” remains in the sense “dear”. _ Germanic and Baltic kept the idea of alliance by marriage: e.g. OHG hirat (NHG Heirat), OE hiwung “marriage”, OHG hiwo “husband”, ONG, OSax. hiwa “wife”, OSax. sinkiwun “wives”, Lett. siéva “wife”. ‘These languages also have derivatives meaning “family” or “household” e.g. Lith. siema “family”, Goth. heiwa-fraujin (dat. sg. Mk. 14:14 = oixo- Seondtns), ON hgski “family, household”, OHG, OSax. hiwiski “family”, OE hiwen, -es (n.) “family, household”, hired, hird “household, family, domestic retainers, members of a religious house” (ME hird “retinue, $1 Lkaina- is also found in OH KUB XXXVI 104 Vs 15 (!%ga-i-na-as-Sa-at) = OH+ KBo IIT 34 [17 (ka-i-na-ai-sa-an) = ace. sg. /kainan-ssanj, a passage to obscure to be helpful. ® J am making no claim about whether this *k’ei- and its derivatives had any relationship to *k’ei- “lie”. See most recently Lehmann, Fs Winter 519-525, who denies a connection. Die Sprache 36 (19941The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, tou and *au in Hittite 21 court”) and hiwan (pl.) “members of a household”, “religious house”, “family”. “Family” in these words is to be understood not as a nuclear family of blood relations, but as a group of people allied around a central couple, and in particular around the head of the household, Late OE and ME hiwen and hired, for example, apply not just to members of an ex- tended family whose members are related to a central couple, but also to the members of a religious house and to the followers or retainers that Surround a king or other powerful figure®. Derivatives of IE *k’ei- also develop the meaning “domestic servant” or “slave” independently in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic (e.g. Lith. Sei- mgna “domestic servants”, Lett. sdime “extended family, domestic ser- vants”, Ukr. CS sémija “family, domestic servants”, ME hewe “servant, Person of low degree”. Again, this seems to be a reflection of social change as the earlier relationship around a central couple gave way to other sorts of social and economic ties. The development from “house- hold member”, perhaps of inferior status, to “domestic servant” can be observed happening in Middle English. The hired-man of Old English Poetry is a warrior sworn to defend his lord in battle and to lay down his life revenging his lord’s death if need be, but by the Middle English peri- od he has become a mundane hired hand — a development no doubt aid- ed by the homonomy of hired and the past participle of hiren “hire”. Hittite kaina- should be a derivative in *-no- from *k’ei-. An o-grade *k’oino- would be regular, and there is no basis for reconstructing a lengthened-grade. Although a preform *k’oy-en6- “related” would prob- ably have given [kaena-] with loss of intervocalic *y or [kaind-] with fur- ther raising of /e/ to /i/ and contraction toa diphthong, there are no com- Pelling morphological or phonological grounds for preferring that recon- J. Lindow, Comitatus, Individual and Honor: Studies in North Germanic In- stitutional Vocabulary (Berkeley, California, 1975) 42~79, traces the development of the Aired as a structured social institution. Consider the role of Byrhtnoth’s hired-menn in the battle of Maldon. Their relationship, to their lord is both senti- mental and political. Byrhtnoth is not just a comrade ~ wine — ora lord ~ dryhten ~ but lord and friend — wine-dryhten. Lines 260-264 describe the reaction of Byrhtnoth’s men to their lord's death: Pa hie forp éodan feores hie ne rohton ongunnon pa hired-menn heardlice fechton grame gr-berend, and God bédon bat hie mosten gewrecan hira wine-dryhten and on hira feondum fiell gewyrean. _ “Then they went forth, unmindful of their lives; and the hired-men began to fight fiercely, Fierce spear-bearers, they beseeched God that they might avenge their lord and friend and wreak slaughter on their enemies” (J. Pope, Seren Old English Poems, New York, 1981). See MED 739-740 (hewe), 798-799 (hired) and 799-800 (hired-man). Die Sprache 36 (1994) 122 S$. EB. Kimball struction to *k’oino-. Ina primary formation in *-eno- a zero-grade root would be likely (cf, e.g., Goth. fulgins “hidden”) and, although the reflex of Pre-Hittite *-oye- or *-dye- can be spelled °a-c° (cf, e.g., nom. pl. & pal-ha-a-e-e§ “wide” in StBoT 25, 124 III 7 with suffix *-dy- plus analogi- cal nominative plural animate ending -Zs™ or lar-mg-e-mi “I nail down, fix” in StBoT 25, 3 I 9 = 4 IIL 9 and tar-ma-a-¢|-mi in StBoT 25, 7 Rs IV? 3 with suffix -de- from *-aye-"5), °a-e° is also used to spell reflexes of diphthongs (cf. ace. sg. li-in-ga-en “oath” KUB XXXVI 108 Vs 10 (OH) with -a-en from *-6y-n for *-oy-m > *-ayan > *-an)®, Like its cognates, kaina- shows the adaption of an inherited term to new social needs. As Benveniste also pointed out (JE Language and So- ciety 198-204), IE terms for in-laws express the wife’s point of view, We can reconstruct a set of terms for the wife’s in-laws — which may imply that the wife left her family to join his — but there seems to have been no single set of terms for the husband's in-laws — the wife’s relatives. Terms for the husband's in-laws that do occur result from independent develop- ment in the individual languages. Compare, for example, Greek mrev9eQos “father-in-law” derived from *bhendh- “bind”. Certainly the notion of “alliance”, both political and sentimental seems appropriate to the rela- tionship of in-laws in Hittite society. This combination of practicality and sentiment may also explain the position of kaina- in lists of friends and relations in KBo VII 28+, and KUB XII 4, where it stands interme- diate between blood relations and friends or colleagues (ares from IE ‘ar6-, those with whom one fits in a 7. Conclusions and further implications. Monophthongization of IE toi, *ai, au and perhaps *ou did occur but only in a limited set of phonological environments: in absolute final sy!- lables, medially before *hy, and perhaps before stops. The latter two changes, at least, must have been PA, since the long vowel that resulted from monophthongization caused voicing, or lenition, of a following voiceless stop or *hy, a change that clearly was PA (cf. the single h of CLuv. huhatti- “grandfather”, hukadalli- “grandfatherly” and the g of Lye. xuga- “grandfather”), IE *au, *oi and perhaps *ou and ‘ai were re- ® See Melchert, SHHP 121~122, for the analogical spread of the nom. pl. ¢- ending -és < *-eyes, & Melchert, SHHP 39-40. & For °a-e° as a spelling for the reflex of *di, see Weitenberg, Heth u. Idg. 291, 293, and see Melchert, SHHP 74, 75 for °a-e® as a spelling for synchronic Gi. Die Sprache 36 (1994) 123 The IE short diphthongs “oi, ‘ai, *ou and au in Hittite tained as diphthongs, however, before resonants® and before *s, or at least before clusters of *s plus consonant. These conclusions have further implications for our understanding of Hittite morphology. In particular, previous conclusions about the prehis- tory of hi-conjugation verbs with stems in diphthongs, e.g. ardi- “arise”, dai- “put”, pdi- “give”, ispai- “be satiated”, nai- ,,turn”, au(s)- “look” and mauss- “fall” should be reexamined. A full account of the possible origins of this type is beyond the scope of this paper, and what follows is intend- ed neither as a critical review of previous literature nor as an account of the origins of these verbs in its own right. But perhaps a critical look at two long-standing assumptions about the phonological prehistory of these verbs: that their diphthongs must continue long diphthongs and that they can continue e- or 6-grades will serve as a prolegomenon to fur- ther work. Historically, these verbs have four different kinds of stems: stems in diphthongs (e.g. pai- “give” from preverb *pe® plus *ai as in Gk, atvupat “distribute”, Osc. aeteis “partis”, aittiam “portionum”; au(s)- “look, see” : *au- in Skt. (pra-/ud)-avati “notices”, OCS umii “understanding” or *Au- in Skt. adv. dvih “openly”), stems in final *h; or *hg plus root exten- sion *y (e.g. dai- “put” : *dheh,-y-, ispdi- “be satiated” : *spehy-y-) and stems in diphthong plus *h, or *h, (e.g. ndi- “turn” : *neiHys-, c£ Skt. nayati “leads”, pf. nindya, ptep. nitah, or mauss-, mil- “fall” : *meuh,-). ih addition, some forms are clearly denominative, e.g. ishamdi- “sing” : ishamai- “song” or dppai- “be finished” : éppa “following, after”. Some previous explanations for the origin of verbs of this type have assumed that their stems have inherited or secondary long diphthongs because some forms of their paradigms do not show monophthongiza- tion”. While there seems to be no reason to doubt that di and du in these ® Aulis with au from IE tau suggests that huldli- “distaff, winding sheet” cannot be derived directly from *h,o-(h,Jul- with Sturtevant, Language 6 (1930) 31. However, the etymology might still work if the vowel of the preverb had been lost through elision: *h,o-(h,)ul- > *hyo-ul- > *hgul-. A comparable de- velopment would explain e.g. pdi- “give” from PA *pe-ai-, *pei-: *ai- “divide, distribute” (in e.g. Gk aivopai, aloa), The reduplication in the CLuy. iterative Pipissa- and in Lye. pibiye- “give” suggests that the elision occurred early enough within PA for the verb to have been reanalyzed as having a root *pai-. ® For pé < *pé note HLuv. pasija- “reject” = Hitt. péssiya- “throw” and see Melchert, SHHP 162-163. As Melchert notes, there is no independent sup- port for reconstructing *poi with Eichner, MSS 31 (1973) 78, and Oettinger, Stammbildung 389, 341, 470. ” Oettinger, Stammbildung 68-76 and 459-483, provides a historical over- view and paradigms. % For inherited or secondary long diphthongs in these verbs, see, e.g., Stur- tevant, Language 6, Language 26, CGr! 136-138 and Kronasser, VLFH 44~45, Oettinger, Stammbildung 405, 460, 526-527, Eichner, Fl. u. Wo. 84, Die Sprache 86 (1994) 124 S.E. Kimball verbs can continue IE or Pre-Hittite *6i, *ai and *6u, *Au, the results of this study suggest that at least in forms where the diphthong occurs be- fore endings with s or s plus dental stop (c.g. 3 sg. pret. a-(a)-is, da-(a)- 48, 2 pl. pret./imp. na-(a)-i8-le-en, da-(a)-i8-ten) the diphthong can contin- ue a short diphthong. Previous explanations of the origins of these verbs may also have been guided by the notion that the -s of the third person singular preterite ending or the endings in -s- plus consonant in forms such as ndisten and daisten is identical to the *-s- of the IE sigmatic aorist; and that, there- fore, synchronic di and du may be derived from e-grade or lengthened e-grade diphthongs. Oettinger, for example, Stammbildung 405, recon- structs *néiHy9-8-t > nais and ib., 460, *néil],,.-8-t > nais. Eichner, Fl. u. Wb. 84, 91, reconstructs an active s-aorist *néilI-s-t (> PA *ndist) > nais beside midd. *né/6iH-s-to and PA 2 pl. pres. *ndisthanei (?) > naistant, 2 pl. pret, and imp. *ndistene > naisten. In Laryngalikeorie 139-140 he Posits inherited *éi and *eiH,,; > PA *éi and subsequent merger of PA *éi with PA *6i, *ai (from IE ‘di, *ai, and tautosyllabic *oiH,, and *aiHys) as Hittite ai, and, similarly, *éu, and *eull,,, > PA *éu, merging in Hit- tte with PA *Au (from *du, *au, and tantosyllabie *oull,s, and *aulys) au. The connection of the hi-conjugation s-preterite with the IE sigmatic aorist goes back to Marstrander”, Sturtevant, in an early study of the stems of the hi-conjugation (Language 3 (1927) 215-225), equated the 3 % Pret, naista “turned” with Ved. 3 sg, indie. anaisit (TS, KB, B) ine ae Language 6 (1930) 33-34 he equated nais, the form now Sturtevant ot 7 with Ved. 2 SB. inj. naig (MS, TA) < “noite chim that ens e ontiection with the sigmatic aorist to support as evidence it is otided rethones continue earlier long diphthongs’ at bi plausible that "2 a tful validity. While it is not, on the face of it, im extracted from the sigmatic aorist to serve 35 9 Sue Mmaattheorie 189-140, Jasanott, Heth u. Idg. 86-87, and Melchert, » derive the diphthongs of pai-, nai- and dai- via contraction. The tt, oe verbs had long diphthongs is not, however, universal; note nahhi, nai and derives, oe Leth. tu. dg. 153~157, reconstructs *noi(H)- 1 grade *sh,y- in active pl ee g ress, ftom *shyoy- by backformation from 2eT- ® See the Teferenc plural and mediopassive forms. 7 See also Sturtec or wed by van den Hout, Gs Kerns 306-307. other example Sturteg rn; yanguage 26 (1950) 1-5. It should be noted that ont > di, the connection of theqited (Language 3, 6 and 26) in favor of a change “2 “Gi of the type represent wut Of ai-stem nouns (e.g. Hngais “oath”) with the cepted; see instead Weiten been 7 eueue® “slaughter” is no longer generally ac 1-72. Mtenberg, Heth u. Idg. 287-303, and Melchert, SHH! Die Sprache 36 (199) 1‘The IE short diphthongs “oi, *ai, You and *au in Hittite 25 third person singular preterite ending”, it is not sound methodology to claim that any particular hi-conjugation form must represent the pho- nologically regular outcome of a reconstructed sigmatic aorist just be- cause it has an -s. No one would want, for example, to derive the third Person singular preterites tar-na-aé “let loose”, a-ar-Sa, a-ar-aS “arrived” or Sa-ak-ki-is “knew” directly from IE or early PA sigmatic aorists. Simi- larly, a direct derivation of specific attested preterites in °ai-§ from sig- matic aorists is unsupported unless it can be shown on the basis of mor- Phologically isolated forms that the diphthongs ai and au can be regular Teflexes of *éi and *éu or of *eiH,; and *euH,,”, and evidence of this sort has yet to be cited in the literature”. Evidence from morphologically isolated forms, though limited and equivocal, does not seem to support the development of inherited *éi to ai and *éu to au’?. The long diphthong *éi is likely to be continued as OH /6/ in the final syllable of udné “country(side)” from a hysterokinetic col- lective *udnéi”® beside oblique stem “udn(i)y- (e.g. in the OH dat.-loc. pl. ud-ni-i-ai(-) StBoT 25, 118 I 6 and in the extended stem udniyant-). Final *éu may occur in kara “previously” from loc. *Kr-éu”. The development ™ Oettinger, however, Stamrmbildung 71, derives the endings in -st- by reseg- mentation from stems in -s. : °° Strunk, Gramm. Kat. 490-514, provides considerable evidence to support the idea that the earliest IE paradigm of the sigmatic aorist had acrostatic, or Narten-type, inflection with é-grade strong stem and e-grade weak stem. In Ana- tolian, where the IE aspectual opposition between present and aorist broke downy and individual aorists could take primary endings (see Eichner, Fi, u. Wo. 81-85) we find mi-conjugation presents in -s from sigmatic aorists with é-grade generalized from the strong stem (e.g. ganess- “recognize” < *g’néhys-) beside ems with e-grade generalized from the weak stem (e.g. pas- “take a swallow” < Pehg-s-). ; 7® An example that Eichner does cite, naitti “you turn” : *neiH,.-, probably had o-vocalism (PA *néiH,-th,a(i)). Similarly, the other example Eichner cites, ‘mauss- “fall” : LE *meuh,- (cf. e.g. Lat. movére “to move”), is likely to have been influenced heavily by au(s)- “see” (see also Melchert, SHHP 64-65). 7 See Melchert, SHHP 61-65 and 71—73, for similar arguments. 7 Schindler, BSL 70 (1975) 9-10, Zinko, Vertretung 40, Melchert, SHHP 46-47, 72-78; see also Oettinger, Stammbildung 544, 79 For the analysis as locative see Neu, Lok. 46-48, and Zinko, Vertretung 101, The root etymology is not, however, certain. Neu and Zinko derive karit from *g’r-6u : *g’er- “(a)waken” (TEW 390). Cop, Slav. Rev. 13 (1961/62) 188- 197, 206-208 and KZ 85 (1971) 31 w.n. 31, who also starts with a locative, derives it from *ghr-€u : Gme *gréwa- (IE *gh’réwo-) in e.g. ON grijandi “to dawn, be- come light”, NHG grauen id. Eichner, Sprache 24 (1978) 160 n. 70, Heth. u. Idg. 59 n, 57, reconstructs "k’r-u, with short diphthong, comparing Lat. erds < *k'r- ehys (see also Weitenberg, U-Stamme 114-115). For references to other etymo- logical and morphological analyses see Tischler, HEG.4, 526-528, and Wei- tenberg, loc. cit. Die Sprache 36 (1994) L26 S. FE. Kimball of medial *éi and “éu is less clear, but it cannot be excluded that sius “god” continues *dyéus with lengthened-grade as in Skt. d(@)yauh and shows either *éu > /ii/ (i.e. [syiis] with *d(i)y > [sy]) or *éu > /iu/ (Le. (sius} with *d(i)y > [s])®°. The reflex of medial *éi may be preserved in wistiriya- “oppress, suffocate, stifle”, which first occurs in KUB XVII 10 (3pl. pret. midd. 2-i-su-u-ri-ya-an-ta-t{i] 1 6, w%-i-Su-w-ri-ya-an-ta-ti ib. 17), a MH copy with conservative spellings of an OH exemplar, and in KBo XV 25 (possibly a MH text) in the divine name ? Wisdriyant- (e.g. nom. ?U-i-8u-ri-ya-an-za KBo XV 25 Vs. 9, ace. PU-i-8u-ri-ya-an-da-an ib. Vs. 5, 7). The verb presupposes a base noun *wisiira- (or perhaps *we- sira- with MH i for OH /8/) from *wéistiro-, cL OCS vichdrd “whirl- wind”, Russ. vichrit id. < *wéisuro- and O.Lith. sfesulas id. < *wéisulo*, perhaps ultimately thematized replacements for IE heteroclitics *wéiswr and *wéisw] from the root *weis- “twist” of e.g. Skt. vestati “winds, twists” and Russ. vichati “to move, shake”®2, The reflex of *euH,3 should be preserved in ewa- (secondary n-stem ewan-) probably “barley” from *yéuHyjs-0- : Skt. yava- “grain, barley”, Av. yauua- “grain”, Lith. javat “grain” (pl.). The medial laryngeal is im- plied by the accute accent of Lith. jéujas “barn” < *y6uH);yos®. _ | have similar reservations about Jasanoff’s and Melchert’s deriva- tions of the diphthongs from e-grade diphthongs via contraction. Jasa- noff, Heth. u. Idg. 86-87, reconstructs an e-grade singular for stems in wie eas iki, dai (A sg, *dhéhy-i-h,ei > *tihi, 2 sg. “dhéhy -thoei > alization i eee > *déyi > dai, with subsequent analogical gener singular and tonophag oe pare Repay SHHP 73-74, ae i ngization in 1 sg. *daihhe > wehhe). Melcl a 2 tervocalic *h, and rnstructs 3 sg. pres. *dhéh,-y-ei > *de-¢ with loss 0 68, 73) 0 varadi E tas, and subsequent contraction of *e-e to ai, and (ib. Sxanolec oy ihy-ei > *ne-g > nai, I do not find most of the other ples cited for these contractions convincing, Melchert (44-45, 73) ® For [s(yt _ 47m. Uda om Rom. 88; *d(iivéus see Neu, StBoT 18, 128 w.n, 292; Lok Pedersen, Hitt. 175— i U-Stémme 115, 175— » Hitt, 175-176, Weitenberg, U-Star Gs Ginterd Woe eens at “dyéus with teu also cannot be excluded (Watkins. SHHP 60). chindler, Spracke 19 (1973) 156-157, and Melchert. *! The root etymology i; ry 4 logy is that of Fi s and mec tok ea cented vowel, trovy Hation” continues *ses-tro-, with doubling of *s before an ac- “harvest, fruit”, Ved. sand go vate” im, e.g., “sesdla- “fruit-keeper”, sésatar W. haidd “rye (ering, “ct0P, Plant, nourishment”, sasyé “crop, grain”, 204 single 8 of wistiri er words see Eichner, Gs Kronasser 26-29), then the Carruba’s derivation (Stor Dee long vowel from the diphthong and makes rom *wes- “wither” less likely. z : ‘ See Illich-Svityeh, Nominal Accentuation 26, 155 n. 17. Die Sprache 36 (1994)?‘The IE short diphthongs *oi, *ai, *ou and *au in Hittite 27 reconstructs the adjectival i-stem dative singular as *-ey-ei > *-eye > -ai, but notes (ib. 45) that there is some evidence for an inherited o-grade suffix *-oy- among i-stems (cf. Goth. i-stem gen. sg. ais), and (ib. 22) that the adjectival u-stem suffix -at- should be from o-grade *-ow- (ef, *éw > éw in néwa- “new” < *néwo-), An inherited suffix *-ow- could, then, have provided a model for the analogical replacement of an inherited *-ey- by *-oy- (> *-ay-)§4. Only *pe-(h,)Jei- > *pe-e- > pdi- “go” seems to be a form that was perhaps isolated enough to have resisted analogical influ- ence®, But given that *é and *e otherwise remain front vowels in Hittite, contraction of front vowels to a diphthong with a non-front vowel as its initial element, especially when the second vowel was a close front vowel, does not seem very plausible phonologically. Melchert himself (73 n. 136) concedes that the contraction of the like vowels *e-e to ai implied by *ndiH;/s-hgei > *ne-e > ndi is surprising. In closing, I offer a couple of observations. Although nais(-C) proba- bly cannot continue *néiH,,,s(-C) or *neiH,,s(-C), if monophthongiza- tion did not occur before consonant clusters beginning with s, nes(-C) Probably cannot continue o-grade *noiH9s(-C). This suggests that the second person plural middle imperative ne-e5-hu-ut KBo XVII 105 I 13 (MH), ni-is-hu-ut ib. If 14, which the CHD’s entry reveals may be older than néishut (OH+, MH+ and NH), should be from PA *néiHys-s- haudh(i) or *néiH ,9-s-hjudh(i) and can provide evidence for remnants of Sigmatic aorist stems in this class of verbs®. Although cognates such as Lith. déjau, déti “lay”, Latv. déju, dét “lay eggs” and OSC déjo, déti < *dheh,-y- suggests that -H-y- presents like téhht, dat could have anin- herited e-grade, there may also be evidence for an old o-grade in verbs. of this type (note, e.g., OHG spuoen, OE spowan “thrive, prosper” < “spohy-y- beside Hitt. ispdi- “be satiated” and *spehy-y- in Lith. spéu, spéti “be at leisure” and OCS spéjo, spéti “thrive, prosper”). Assembling * See also Weitenberg, U-Stémme 369, 374, who notes the possibility that the o-grade may have replaced an inherited e-grade in some paradigms. ® My own inclination is to reconstruct o-grade "po as in Lat. péné and porced, Slav. po and Lith. pa, e.g. 1 sg. pres. “po-h,éi-mi (> *paémi?) > péimi and ptep. “po-hyy-6nt- > *paydnt- > pant-, but I know of no independent evidence that An- atolian inherited the o-grade. % NH 3 sg. pret. pe-e5-ta “gave” vs, OH pa-is (K Bo HI 22 Rs 47, KBo XXM2 Vs 17), however, would have to be secondary. For a similar monophthongization of ai to e before clusters of s plus obstruent within the historical period, ef. from OH 3 sg, pres. pal-ti-ils-ke-ez-zi (2) StBoT 25, 69 IT 6 (2), 3 pl. pall-ti-e-ed-kan-zi StBoT 25, 76 L. col. 9 : palwa(i)- “recite(?)” and ha-at-re-ed-ke-ez-7i KBo XXII 1 Vs. 22 (OH): hatra(i)- “write” beside a-ru-wa-i8-kle-(ez)-ci StBoT 25, 72, 1 9: aruwa(i)- “prostrate oneself”, and see Oettinger, Stammbildung 71, 360, and Melchert, SHHP 98 w.n. 36, 149. Die Sprache 36 (1994) 128 these scattered observations into a coherent account, however, is surely a task for another time. Department of English Sara E. Kimball The University of Texas at Austin PAR 108 Austin, Texas 78712-1164 USA. Die Sprache 36 (1994) 2