¹ The abbreviations used in this paper are those listed in my Hittite Grammar and in the second edition of my Hittite Glossary.

² Symb. Gramm. 102 (1927).

³ Sturtevant, Lang. 7.121.

⁴ Goetze will treat this word in his forthcoming monograph on the ritual of Tunnawi.

⁵ Cf. HG 158 f., 231 f., 243.

⁶ For the supplement, cf. KBo. 4.2.1.39, 3.33; where it appears that karsani-wood is used for making soap.

⁷ So far the only known stem in -h- is iskaruh (nom.-acc. iš-qa-ru-uḫ, iš-ga-ru-uḫ, dat. iš-qa-ru-ḫi, iš-ga-ru-ḫi, inst. iš-qa-ru-ḫi-it, iš-ga-ru-ḫi-it), a vessel into which wine is poured. It may possibly be a vessel with a pointed bottom, to be thrust into the ground, and, if so, it may be derived from iskar- 'insert, stick in', on which see Güterbock, ZA NF 10.61. Both the intervening u and the. consistent writing with single ḫ in more than thirty intervocalic occurrences are against finding our suffix -hh- in it.

⁸ See Friedrich, ZA NF 5.43 fn. 3; Götze, NBr. 77 fn. 3; Güterbock, ZA NF 10.81 fn. 3; Cf. also Goetze, Tunnawi.

⁹ Mélanges Boisacq, vol. 2, to appear soon.

¹⁰ Goetze, Mél. Pedersen 488-95.

¹¹ With the ending -ai from -ei on account of the preceding x.

^11a Since I wrote the above it has occurred to me that maḫḫan ‘when, as, in the neantime’ is perhaps the accusative of a noun with suffix -ḫḫ- from the stem that occurs in man ‘how? (see Sommer, Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Ḫat-ušili I 75f.), how, when, as’ and in masis, masiwanza, masiyanza 'quantus?, quantus'. Hittite clearly had a second interrogative-indefinite-relative stem, . If we may identify man with the o-grade form of Gk. and maḫḫan with . μήν, we have at least a reasonable explanation of the vocalism of Dor. μᾱν. H me- with noun suffix -x- would yield an accusative máxṃ (Hitt. maḫḫan), and we may assume that before an initial vowel this would take the form máxm, whence Gk. . If this etymology is correct, the transfer from neuter to personal render belongs to Indo-Hittite. Compare now Pedersen, Hittitisch und die anderen indo-europäischen Sprachen 67-72.

¹² On the latter see HG 166 and references. Götze, AOr. 2.160 f., has called attention to an adjective of this origin. Cf. also Sturtevant, HG 153.

¹³ Sturtevant, Lang. 14.107 f.

¹⁴ Just as Hittite -ahhas corresponds with IE -ā- < IH -ax-, Hitt. -uhhas implied IE -ū- from IH -ux-, and it is noteworthy that Skt. tanūṣ ‘body’ is readily derived from IH tъnu- ‘thin’ with suffixal -x-. The gen. sg. tanuvas comes quite regularly from IH tъnu-xos. It is not necessary however, to ascribe all IE ū-stems and ī-stems to the suffix -x-; any ‘laryngeal’ would yield the recorded forms, and Hitt. iskaruh (see above p. 240, fn. 7) may indicate a suffix -γ-. I no longer interpret a single intervocalic h as', as I did in Lang. 12.186 f., 14.109 f.

¹⁵ This word occurs only in KUB 7.53.3.10. In his forthcoming Tunnawi Goetze reads: pa-ap-ra<-ta>.

¹⁶ Sanskrit Grammar p. 388 §1059 b.

¹⁷ Götze, Madd. 81-100; Sturtevant, Lang. 5.8-14, HG 226-8. W. Petersen, Lang. 9.291-7, maintained that these verbs correspond with the Indo-European ā-verbs (type Aeol. τίμαμι). A sufficient answer is contained in the first part of this paper.

¹⁸ Since there are no separate signs for ez and et it is usually necessary to write -ai- or to insert a pleonastic e (mu-ka-e-it-te-en—KBo.3.43.2.9). In the pret. 2 sg. we read ḫa-at-ra-a-eš (14.1.1.76) and ták-šu-la-a-eš (14.1.1.75) beside píd-da-iš (14.1.1.3). This 2 sg. form is used as a 3 sg. in ḫa-at-ra-a-eš (KBo. 3.4.3.79; KUB 6.41.3.50). It is impossible to decide whether we have the same transfer or a heteroclitic form of the hi-conjugation in 3 sg. ḫa-at-ra-iš (KBo. 4.4.2.34) and píd-da-a-iš (KUB 6.41.1.41, 49). In the imper. 2 sg. we find consistently ḫa-at-ra-a-i, tar-kum-ma-i, etc.; but in view of the constant writing of final -i for inherited -e in this form of all thematic verbs except those in -ya/e-, and also in the pres. 3 sg. of consonant stems of the ḫi-conjugation, it seems likely that final -e regularly became -i. Cf. Sturtevant, Lang. 14.15.

¹⁹ Examples in HG 226 f. In line 15 on p. 227 read: 'provide a witness', instead of: 'make one a witness'.

²⁰ I have recently discussed this etymology in Lang. 14.71. In HG 226 I also identified tarma(e)- with Lat. termino, but, since we have learned that the Hittite word means ‘blockade’, that seems less plausible. The proposed connection of mita(e)- ‘fix, determine’ with Lat. mētor ‘measure’ must be given up.

²¹ Sturtevant, HG 177 f., Lang. 14.75. The ‘laryngeal’ theory requires some correction of the former passage; if ; survived in Indo-Hittite, the -a in Hittite cannot come from IH ∂, but only from -a; or -ъ;.

²² For Hittite, see Sturtevant, HG 225-8. The second sentence in §309 should read: A common meaning is 'be that which the primitive noun or adjective denotes'.