No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Hittite h Initial = Indo-European bh
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Extract
The relationship of Hittite and Indo-European has been recognized chiefly on the basis of certain correspondences in inflectional terminations, suffixes, and pronouns. Indo-European etymologies have, to be sure, been suggested for a considerable number of Hittite words, but a large proportion of these etymologies are clearly unsound and even those which are most plausible have never been worked into the sort of consistent system which could bring conviction to those who understand sound etymological method.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1927 Linguistic Society of America
References
1 The precise phonetic value of such forms as hu-u-i-ya-mi, hu-u-i-er, etc. must for the present be left undetermined, and so must their relationship to forms from the stem in a (hu-u-wa-a-iš, etc.; cf. Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache 311, 914). The Hittite vowel system will probably cause more dffiiculty than the consonants; we do not know, for example, whether Hittite separated from the parent stock before or after the changes which gave rise to Ablaut. In this paper I shall avoid discussing vocalism.
2 See Hrozný, Die Sprache der Hethiter 30, Code Hittite 18.
3 In this paper Sumerian ideograms are printed in capitals, and all Assyrian words or syllables in Italic capitals.
4 See Hrozný, BoSt. 3. 17511; Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 8l.
5 KBo. 6. 31. 2. 38–41.
6 Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Neue Folge 1. 181f. (1924).
7 ZA, NF. 1. 165 (1924), Aus dem Hethitischen Schrifthum 2. 18 (= Der Alte Orient 25. 2. 18).
8 KBo. 1. 42. 3. 28. The restoration was made by Ernst Weidner, Studien zur Hethitischen Sprachwissenschaft 1. 67 (1917); and since no other ideogram beginning GÚ.ME. is known, it is virtually certain. In addition to Weidner's reference, see Meissner, Seltene Assyrische Ideogramme No. 10447.
9 See Hrozný, BoSt. 3. 1662.
10 See Forrer, Forsch. 1. 91.
11 See Friedrich, Staatsvertr. 34f.
12 See Hrozný, SH. 55, BoSt. 3. 149. 14.
13 See Götze, Hattusilis, Der Bericht über seine Thronbesteigung nebst den Paralleltexten 86.
14 Sommer, BoSt. 7. 352.
15 See Sommer and Ehelolf BoSt. 10. 21, 46; Friedrich, Staatsvertr. 158.
16 Cf. Friedrich, Staatsvertr. 1763 and references.
17 Ib. 94; cf. ib. 44f.
18 ZA, NF. 2. 53f. (1925), 3. 200f. (1926).
19 Translated by Friedrich, Heth. Schriftt. 2. 29f.
20 Friedrich, ZA NF. 1. 185 (1924), Zimmern, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 25. 298 (1922).
21 Hattusilis 2. 39, p. 18 Götze.
22 See Friedrich, OLZ. 26. 46-9 (1923).
23 See Sommer, BoSt. 7. 22.
24 See Hrozný, BoSt. 3. 863; Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 58.
25 See Sommer, BoSt. 4. 151 and especially 7. 22.
26 See Forrer, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, NF. 1. 214 (1922); Friedrich, ZA, NF. 3. 1861, 202 f. (1926).
27 See Sommer, BoSt. 7. 1ff.
28 Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 20.
29 See Götze, Hatt. 119, and especially Friedrich, Staatsvertr. 89.
30 See Götze, ZA 34. 184 (1922).
31 That the sko-suffix in Indo-European was a conglomerate (s + ko) is well known (see Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 3. 350f.). The Hittite iterative suffix šk was similarly formed, as is shown by such series of stems as au-‘see’ : auš- : ušk-; halza- ‘call’ : halzeš(š)-, halziš(
)- : halzišk-; hanna- ‘decide a law-suit, litigate’ : hanneššar ‘justice, lawsuit’ : hannešk-; ištamaš- ‘hear’ : ištamašk-; maušš- ‘fall’ : maušk-; pa-, pi- ‘give’ : peššiya ‘give, throw’, pippeššar ‘gift’ : pešk-; parh- ‘drive hard, speed’ : parheššar ‘haste’ : parhešk-; punuš(š)- ‘ask’ : punušk-; uppa-, uppi- ‘send’ : uppeššar ‘Zusendung’ : uppišk-.
32 See especially Friedrich, Staatsvertr. 85 f.
33 For other cognates and references to the literature see Walde-Pokorny, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen 2. 144 ff.
34 Hrozný, BoSt. 3. 9915, Sommer, BoSt. 7. 92, Weidner, BoSt. 8. 502, Archiv für Keilschriftforschung 1.11; Freidrich ZA, NF. 2. 276.
35 KBo. 3. 4. See Hrozný, BoSt. 3. 164ff. for a transliterated text and a (partially incorrect) translation.
36 Cf. Friedrich, Staatsvertr. 13.26.
37 See Götze, Hatt. 56.
38 See Sommer, OLZ 27.27 (1924); Friedrich, Staatsvertr. 151. DINGIR occurs in the Amarna letters with the phonetic value il, but it is not there equipped with a phonetic complement besides.
39 For references, see J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln 1511 s. v. šamšu.
40 See J. A. Knudtzon, Die Zwei Arzawa-Briefe 36. 12–13.
41 See Brugmann, Grundriss 2.2 536, 5781; Brugmann-Thumb, Griechische Grammatik 4 75; Walde-Pokorny, VWIS 2.122.
42 See Sommer, BoSt. 7. 72.
43 See Götze, Hatt. 81; and references.
44 See Walde-Pokorny, VWIS 2.134, 272.
45 See Sayce, ZA. 4. 386 (1889).
46 For the meaning and forms, see Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 3f.
47 See Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 30f.; Götze, Hatt. 53f., 60, 91ff.
48 So Friedrich, ZDMG, NF. 1. 159 (1922).
49 See Sommer, ZA 33. 931 (1921); Friedrich, OLZ 26. 45f. (1923).
50 Transliterated and incorrectly translated by Hrozný, BoSt. 3. 72f.
51 KBo. 6. 34. 4. 12; transliterated and translated by Friedrich, ZA, NF. 1, 168.
52 See Walde-Pokorny, VWIS 2. 174.
53 See Brugmann, Grundriss l2 430, 459, 778.
54 See Friedrich, ZA, NF. 2. 274.
55 See Friedrich, ZA, NF. 3. 185.
56 See Walde-Pokorny, VWIS 2. 170.
57 See Friedrich. ZA, NF. 3. 189 f.
58 See Götze, Hatt. 101 and fn. 1.
59 See Götze, Hatt. 953; Friedrich, ZA, NF. 2. 275.
60 See Walde-Pokorny, VWIS 2. 131.
61 See Friedrich, ZA., NF. 3. 191 and fn. 4.
62 See Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 243.
63 See Friedrich, ZDMG NF. 1. 159 (1922).
64 See Hrozný, SH 23.
65 See Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 34 and references; Ehelolf, Indogermanische Forschungen 43. 317.
66 See Hrozný, BoSt. 3. 725.
67 See Friedrich, ZA, NF. 1. 188, ZDMG, NF. 1. 159.
68 See Weidner, Archiv für Keilschriftforschung 1.12 (1923); Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 74; Friedrich, ZA, NF. 1. 11.
- 1
- Cited by