Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T18:55:36.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relatives in Indo-European and Hittite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

E. H. Sturtevant
E. H. Sturtevant*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

[The Hittite relative kuiš is like the early Italic relative in that (1) the relative clause tends to stand before the main clause, (2) the relative itself is usually postpositive, (3) a demonstrative frequently stands within the relative clause, and (4) the relative is often doubled (kuiš kuiš, quis quis), This detailed correspondence proves that the relative (i.e. connective) value of the stem was Indo-European and also Indo-Hittite. Confirmation of the conclusion is furnished by the connective force of *qe, which is certainly akin. Both in IE and in IH the relative os was probably used after definite antecedents, while *qis was a general relative.]

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 6 , Issue 4-Part2: Language Monograph No. 7: Curme Volume of Linguistic Studies , December 1930, pp. 141 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © 1930 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The semantic division between the stems qui- and quo in Italic is not so sharp as it is stated by Meillet and Vendryes, Traité de Grammaire Comparée des Langues Classiques 461 : 'Aux cas où le thème *kwe/o- et le thème *kwei- se sont tous deux conservés, le premier a été en principe affecté à l'emploi nouveau <i.e. relatif>, tandis que le second exprimait l'ancien emploi.' Even in the nom. sing, quis and quid serve as the general relative in early Latin (see Neue-Wagener, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache3 2.430 f.) and in Oscan (see Buck, A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian 143 f.), and Lat. quisquis has this function at all periods. On the other hand qui and quod function regularly as interrogative and indefinite adjectives. Early Latin has an o-stem dat.-abl. quīs, but quibus as a relative is common. Quī 'whereby' is an i-stem ablative, although the o-stem form quō(d) was in use at all periods.

2 For proof, see my article in Transactions of the American Philological Association 60, 25-37.

3 Tranliterations of cuneiform signs in this article follow the usual practice of American Assyriologists, except that straight capitals are used for Sumerian ideograms and slanting capitals for Accadian words. Accents are employed according to Keiser, A System of Accentuation for Sumero-Akkadian Signs.

4 For further examples of the Hittite relative, see Hrozný, Die Sprache der Hethiter (index); Götze, Hattušiliš (index), Madduwattaš (index); Friedrich, Staatsverträg e des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache 2 (index); Delaporte, Gramm. 45.

5 Cf. Götze, Madd. 1412. On the difficult word kuirwanaš, see Forrer, Kleinasiatische Forschungen 1. 266 f. Götze's translation ‘Vasallen’ seems to me impossible in this passage; was any man of Hatti a vassal of Kupanta-DKAL?

6 In such sentences as this some scholars regard the substantive (here patronus) as part of the relative clause (e.g. Lane, A Latin Grammar §1797), while others call it an antecedent attracted into the case of the relative (e. g. Allen and Greenough, New Latin Grammar §306 a Note). The former view is favored by the fondness of Latin for such sentences as these: Plautus, Most. 505: quae hic monstra fiunt, anno vix possim loqui; Cicero, Tusc. 1.18.41: quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat. The close parallelism of such sentences to Hittite is a new argument on the same side of the question.

7 It is incredible that nom. (esuf) and acc. (eituam) could intentionally be placed next each other connected by ‘and’, and it is equally incredible that so abnormal a phrase can be a corruption of the familiar nom. + nom. The only way I can account for the acc. here is to assign eituam to the relative clause; and, if so, eituo is demanded by in. The corruption was due to haplography.

8 For IH k , see Lang. 6. 213-28.

9 See Sommer and Ehelolf, BoSt. 10. 28 f.; Götze, Madd. 164.

10 So translated by Lang, Leaf, and Myers.