No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Secondary *ns in Hittite
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Extract
The cluster *ns appears to have had a varied development in Hittite. Forms occur which indicate that *n was lost before s, while in others the outcome was almost certainly [nts] (written nz). No one has yet succeeded in satisfactorily determining the conditions of the distinction or distinctions which apparently must be made. In its entirety the problem is quite complex, for analogy is likely to have played a part in producing the attested results, and the number of otherwise reliable etymologies is so small that the forms may be divided on more than one basis depending on which of several conceivable instances of analogy one prefers to accept. However, one group of forms containing *ns about which it is apparently possible to make a specific statement at present is that in which the combination arose secondarily through derivation within Hittite.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1963 Linguistic Society of America
References
1 Edgar H. Sturtevant, A comparative grammar of the Hittite language 2 (CG) 64 (New Haven, 1951); Heinz Kronasser, Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen 53, 69, 73 (Heidelberg, 1956).
2 Johannes Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch (HW) 142, 69, 216, 89, 204 (Heidelberg, 1952) and references; Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch, 2. Ergänzungsheft 25, 23 (Heidelberg, 1961) and references.
3 HW 43.
4 HW 89.
5 Friedrich, Hethitisches Elementarbuch (HE) 1.7 (Heidelberg, 1940).
6 HW 220; CG 59.
7 HW 336; Kronasser 123.
8 HW 142–3.
9 HW 68–9; Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch, 1. Ergänzungsheft (HWE) 6 (Heidelberg, 1957).
10 HE 1.24; CG 95; Kronasser 122–3.
11 HW 48, 339; Kronasser 123.
12 E. Laroche, RHA 15.18 (1957).
13 HWE 6; Friedrich, Die hethitischen Gesetze 44, 102 (Leiden, 1959). The text provides little basis for choosing between the two interpretations. 
ilannas occurs but twice, once in conjunction with ŠA
H ‘pig’ and once with UR.ZÍR ‘dog’. Friedrich's view that UR.ZÍR 
ilannaš, which contrasts with ‘hunting dog’ and ‘shepherd dog’ of the two preceding sections, means ‘watchdog’ is plausible. Its acceptance would make ‘dog of the gate’ somewhat more likely than ‘dog of the yard’, but does not justify rejection of the latter. ‘Pig of the gate’, however, appears less probable than ‘pig of the yard’ even if one agrees with Friedrich that the term refers to a pig allowed to run relatively free rather than confined to a narrow pen like the ŠA
ŠE or ‘fattened pig’, the theft of which incurred a larger fine.
14 HW 140–1.
15 Sturtevant, Supplement to a Hittite glossary 2 19 (New Haven, 1939).
16 HW 276, 328; Kronasser 89.
- 1
- Cited by