¹ Abbreviated forms used in bibliographical citations are to be interpreted as follows: AU = Ferdinand Sommer, Die Aḫḫijavā-Urkunden (Munich, 1932) = Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, N. F. 6; Br. = K. Brugmann, Abrégé de grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes, translated into French by J. Bloch, A. Cuny, and A. Ernout (Paris, 1905); Chr. = Edgar H. Sturtevant and George Bechtel, A Hittite Chrestomathy (Philadelphia, 1935); Denkschr. = Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften [of Vienna], Philosophisch-historische Classe; EM = A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine (Paris, 1932); Gl. = Edgar H. Sturtevant, A Hittite Glossary² (Philadelphia, 1936); Gr. = Karl Brugmann and Berthold Delbrück, Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen² (5 vol., Strassburg, 1893–1916); HG = Edgar H. Sturtevant, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language (Philadelphia, 1933); Hat. = Albrecht Götze, Ḫattušiliš, der Bericht über seine Thronbesteigung nebst den Paralleltexten (Leipzig, 1925) = Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 29.3; Hrozný = Frédéric Hrozný, Code hittite provenant de l'Asie Mineure (Paris, 1922); IF = Indogermanische Forschungen; Jahrb. für Cl. Ph. = Jahrbücher für Classische Philologie; KZ = Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung; KlF = Kleinasiatische Forschungen; Lang. = Language; MS = Albrecht Götze and Holger Pedersen, Muršilis Sprachlähmung (Copenhagen, 1934); MV = A. Meillet and J. Vendryes, Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques (Paris, 1927); New Eng. Dict. = New English Dictionary, edited by James A. H. Murray (10 vol. and supplement, Oxford, 1888–1933); OLZ = Orientalistische Literaturzeitung; PBSB = Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur; SS = Stolz-Schmalz Lateinische Grammatik⁵, revised by Manu Leumann and Joh. Bapt. Hofmann (Munich, 1928); Sommer, Hdb. = Ferdinand Sommer, Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre² (Heidelberg, 1914); Sommer, Krit. = id., Kritische Erlaüterungen zur Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre (Heidelberg, 1914); TAPA = Transactions of the American Philological Association; WP = Alois Walde, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen, edited and revised by Julius Pokorny (3 vol., Berlin and Leipzig, 1927–1932); Walde = Alois Walde, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch³, revised by J. B. Hofmann (Heidelberg, 1930-); Walther = Arnold Walther, in J. M. Powis Smith, The Origin and History of Hebrew Law 246 ff. (Chicago, 1931); Whitney = William Dwight Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar² (Cambridge, 1923); ZA = Zeitschrift für Assyriologie; Zim.-Fried. = Hethitische Gesetze, translated by Heinrich Zimmern and Johannes Friedrich (Leipzig, 1922) = Der Alte Orient 23.2.

² Br. 655; Persson IF 2.218.

³ The other common sentence-connective, nu, which later replaced ta altogether, also seems to have temporal force; its stem, *nu, means ‘now’ (Br. 652) and it is to be associated with Skt. nu and Gr. νυ ‘then’ (HG 96), also with Gr. νυ̑ν and Lat. nunc ‘now’ (EM 652).

⁴ Cf. §§ 28, 46, 60, 61, 62, 86, 103 (bis), 107, 127, 146, 162, 163, 164, 165 (line 31), 166 (once, perhaps twice), 167 (bis), 168 (bis), 169 (bis), 171 (four times), 172, 193 (three times), 196, 198 (bis).

⁵ WP 1.742–743.

⁶ WP 1.769–771; Walde 335.

⁷ On this cf. Götze, OLZ 1925.238.

⁸ MV 570, 575.

⁹ Seen in Plautus Truc. 232 and in Catullus 62.45. The reading has been questioned in both passages; but for the first it is well defended by Fleckeisen (Jahrb. für Cl. Ph. 1870.648), and for the second it is proved by Quintilian (9.3.16).

¹⁰ Seen, e.g., in Vergil Aen. 1.631–2; 2.220–2.

¹¹ Cf. Hofmann (SS 742), even though he prefers a different explanation.

¹² See Götze, ZA NF 2.268; Hrozný, ib. 4.175.

¹³ HG 120. The derivation seems to me highly plausible, although it is open to objection, as Professor Sturtevant himself has remarked to me, on the ground that it fails to provide an explanation for the a of -aku. But the relation of -ku and -aku can be thoroughly understood only when that of -pa and -apa is (on the stem *po, *apo in IE, see WP 1.47–9; Walde 2; EM 3).

¹⁴ Thus kwiski, by assimilation for kwisku (which form actually occurs—HG 120, 210), is in origin to be compared with Lat. quisque, though in use it corresponds rather to quis (in conditions) and to quisquam (in negations), the semantic parallel for quisque being kwissa. Also ni-ik-ku, presumably to be interpreted nekku, is perhaps to be compared with Lat. neque (the emphatic, not the connective, negative—SS 640–1). The first element in nekku is in that case to be identified with the IE negative *ne-, with which Pedersen believes the na- of Hit. natta corresponds ‘gegen die gewöhnliche Regel’ (MS 71), though Sturtevant's explanation of natta as derived from an IH form nъ (HG 132) is, in my opinion, more satisfactory. Nekku is found in KUB 24.8.2.16–18 KUR-e-wa ni-ik-[k]u ku-wa-pí-ik-ki ḫar-kán ma-an-wa URU-AŠ.AŠ.ḪI.A ni-ik-ku ku-u-wa-[p]í-ik-ki dan-na-ti-eš-ša-an-zi ma-a-an-wa ^LUERÍN.MEŠ ni-ik-ku ku-wa-pí-ki ḫu-ul-la-an-te-eš, which I think means ‘ “the country is not anywhere destroyed; it may be that they are not anywhere deserting the cities, it may be that the troops are not anywhere defeated” ‘. (Man here seems used, like Gr. ἄv, to express potentiality; if I am right, the passage belongs with those cited by Friedrich in KlF 1.288–289.) I owe my knowledge of the existence and the occurrence of nekku to Professor Goetze, who, however, does not interpret the man clauses as I do. But I am pleased to learn from a letter from him that my view, independently reached, concerning the origin and meaning of nekku, is confirmed by his having arrived at the conclusion that the word is a negative derived from ne- and -aku (I would rather say ne-and -ku). None the less, the passage is so hard to understand that I make suggestions concerning it only with the utmost diffidence.

¹⁵ It is true that the meaning of -ku -aku is regularly ‘or’ not ‘and’, but the difference between ‘or’ and ‘and’ is frequently merely a matter of idiom. Note that Gr. ϵἵτϵ . . . ϵἵτϵ corresponds to Lat. sive . . . sive and Eng. either . . . or, whether . . . or; that Gr. οὔτϵ . . . οὔτϵ, Lat. neque . . . neque correspond to Eng. neither . . . nor; and that Lat. neque and neve have precisely the same connective value (on the latter word cf. the comment in EM 1036, 'la disjonction équivaut souvent à “et”'). The distinction between 'and' and ‘or’ seems especially likely to fade out in cases of gemination, such as those cited here from Gr., Lat., and Eng.; it is doubtless significant that in all the occurrences of -(a)ku in the Code (§§ 1, 2, 19, 98) it is doubled.

¹⁶ For occurrences of ta, see note 4. Nu is found passim.

¹⁷ §§ XXXIV and XXXVIII.

¹⁸ §§ 5, 40, 41, 49 (line 54), 50, 53 (bis), 71, 171, 193.

¹⁹ Though this portion of the Code is only about a fifth as long as the older part, conditional man is met twelve times here as against ten times there. There seems to be a special tendency to use it in new additions, often side by side with takku in portions retained from the older version; see §§ VII, X (bis), XI (Hrozný makes man temporal in these three sections, but I think he is wrong), XXXIV, XXXV (bis), XXXVI, XXXVII (three times), XXXIXA (note takku in VII echoing 7 and 8, in X echoing 11, in XI echoing 12, in XXXVI and XXXIXA echoing 47A, and in XXXVII echoing 47B).

²⁰ 2.36, 55,4.20 (bis).

²¹ 2.38 (where it is used as a parallel for takku in 36), 51, 59, 70, 4.13, 16. Some of these instances may be temporal; e.g. Sturtevant (Chr. 191) so interprets man in 2.59. Temporal man is commoner than conditional man in Tel.; there are ten sure examples (1.8, 18, 21, 24, 58, 63, 2.4, 16, 20, 27). Finally, there are two other instances of man (3.74 and 4.7) in passages so fragmentary that we cannot judge its force.

²² For instance in §171 we find side by side nu following takku but ta following man.

²³ §§ 10, 43, 53, 60, 61, 62, 86, 107, 124, 144, 146, 163, 164, 169, 174 (cf. note 48), 193, 195 (bis), 197. There are no cases at all in the later version.

²⁴ §§ 4, 19 (bis), 20, 21, 22, 23 (bis), 27 (bis), 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 71, 75, 77 (bis), 78, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 105, 106, 108, 149, 163, 171, 191, 198. In addition there are two instances in the later version, X and XI; but in my figures I am disregarding this version, as it almost always prefers nu to ta in every usage (cf. sup.).

²⁵ §§ 53, 171.

²⁶ Except for one case in the later version (XXXV).

²⁷ Asyndeton is overwhelmingly the rule in the Code.

²⁸ §§46, 103, 162, 164–5, 172, 196, 198; also XXXVIII.

²⁹ §§ 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28 (bis), 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 70, 71 (three times), 75 (bis), 86 (bis), 94, 95, 99, 100, 162, 175, 198, 200; also IV, VIII, XI, XXXV, XXXVIII.

³⁰ Of course only conditional man is referred to (with temporal man we find only nu—in §§ 10, 55, also IX—, never ta). After a relative clause the use of ta is proportionately more extensive, ta occurring three times (§§ 28, 48, 167) and nu six times (§§ 23 bis, 28, 30, 98, 106; in addition IV, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVII, XXXIX, XL bis); but once more the numbers are not large enough to be impressive.

³¹ § 171. Even this one instance is not certain, since possibly the apodosis does not begin until nuza in line 8.

³² §§ 5, 40, 41, 50, 71 (the last two instances are doubtful); also X (bis), XI, XXXIV, XXXV (bis), XXXVI.

³³ On the degree of archaism still existing in the language of the Code and Telepinus, cf. Sturtevant, Chr. 224 and 194 respectively.

³⁴ WP 1.99.

³⁵ Probably. For the Germanic forms see WP 1.98.

³⁶ SS 284, 771; EM 907; WP 2.458.

³⁷ Doubtless to be associated, as they are by Br. 706 and Walde 5 (though Hofmann dissents, SS 531), whether we regard -que as emphatic with Br. (706–7) or as connective with Hofmann (SS 531) and EM (3).

³⁸ New Eng. Dict. 1.208.

³⁹ The possibility that tamais is derived directly from ta would seem to be precluded by the fact that ta always has initial position.

⁴⁰ Br. 424; WP 1.85–86; Walde 30. On alius in particular see Sommer, IF 11.2–3; 24.24–5; Brugmann, IF 24.162–3.

⁴¹ Br. 424; WP 2.337; Walde 405.

⁴² Br. 424; WP 1.99.

⁴³ There is a serious obstacle to this view, if Pedersen is right in his tentative suggestion (MS 68) that tayukas is parallel to Lith. dveigỹs, which is clearly from the stem *dwō(u) (WP 1.819). But our lack of certain knowledge concerning the second element of both tayukas and dveigỹs renders the matter highly dubious. In regard to tayukas, Sturtevant says (HG 144) that ‘our ignorance of the etymology and primary meaning of the second member makes its classification impossible’. In this connection it may be pertinent to note that this member stands alone as an independent word, yukas ‘one year old’; there seems to be no parallel for this in Lith. As for dveigỹs, Pedersen in order to bring it into connection with the Hit. form in -yuk- is obliged to assume the loss of a vowel before the g in the Lith., thus departing from the usual explanation of it as a multiplicative in -gh- akin to Gr. δlχα (J. Schmidt, KZ 16.439–40; Felix Solmsen, PBSB 27.358; Gr. 2.1.513). No matter what view we adopt concerning the final element, it would appear obvious, as is pointed out by both Schmidt (440) and Solmsen (358–9), that in the type dveigỹs, treigỹs, ketvérgis, as in the Lat. sexagenarius, the idea of age is only secondary; cf. Lith. ketvergas, Rus. četvérg ‘Thursday’, i.e., the fourth day of the week (see Solmsen 358 and Gr. 2.1.513 for the Rus. parallel, and, in regard to both words, Franz Miklosich, Denkschr. 24.20). This fact would hardly accord with the independent existence in Hit. of the simple yukas already referred to.

⁴⁴ HG 65–7, 127–8.

⁴⁵ Br. 339, 340, 346–7.

⁴⁶ Br. 339, 390–1.

⁴⁷ HG 156.

⁴⁸ A form tamas (ta-ma-aš) is actually printed by Hrozný in Code § 174 ták-ku LÚ.MEŠ za-aḫ-ḫa-an-da ta-ma-aš a-ki, ‘if men fight (and) one dies’. But Professor Goetze has suggested to me by letter that the correct reading here may be ta l-as, which seems far more plausible.

⁴⁹ Sturtevant, Lang. 10.268.

⁵⁰ HG 103, 147, 180.

⁵¹ See the paradigms in HG 180.

⁵² Cf. HG 179 note 89.

⁵³ HG 179.

⁵⁴ E.g. karuwilis, tarhuwilis, hantezis, etc.

⁵⁵ See the paradigms in HG 207–11.

⁵⁶ HG 206.

⁵⁷ From the stem *ke-/ *ko-/ *ki- seen in Gr. κϵι̑νος. Lat. cedo and cis, etc. (HG 201).

⁵⁸ See Friedrich, KlF 1.286.

⁵⁹ Published by Friedrich in ZA NF 1.161 ff.

⁶⁰ Goetze apud Sturtevant, Gl. s.v. (For the form -e, See HG 198, 206.)

⁶¹ Götze, Hat. 94 note 5. Here ‘der Schuldige’ is offered as a translation. But concerning this Professor Goetze has written me as follows: ‘The explanation for my “der Schuldige” comes in part at least from KBo 5.2.3.30 (cf. OLZ 1925.237), where I read na-ak-ku-uš ŠA ḪI-TI. It is now sure that this reading was wrong and that we have to deal with a Hurritic word. So I agree today with everybody who regards nakkus in the passage from the Code as the sentence connective with pronominal elements.‘

⁶² HG 176. But Professor Sturtevant tells me he accepts my suggestion with regard to the form under consideration.

⁶³ Professor Goetze writes me that he prefers to view it as a compound of nu and -aku and -as. This has the advantage of explaining the na- without recourse to analogy; but I do not see how to make it fit the sense.

⁶⁴ SS 286.

⁶⁵ See the present writer, TAPA 64.32–40.

⁶⁶ Sommer, IF 11.5–6; 24.17–24; Brugmann, IF 24.160–3; Sommer, Hdb. 448, Krit. 69.

⁶⁷ Similarly, Lat. alius shows a dative alio, aliae, alio (SS 291, EM 32), and there are plenty of other cases of comparable borrowings by pronouns and pronominal adjectives from the noun declension, both in Lat. (SS 291) and in Skt. (Whitney 199).

⁶⁸ HG 204.

⁶⁹ HG 205.

⁷⁰ HG 208.

⁷¹ HG 208.

⁷² However, Professor Goetze suggests that the final element may be -ya = Lat. que.

⁷³ Götze spells it sannas; but v. inf., note 76.

⁷⁴ Götze, Lang. 11.190.

⁷⁵ HG 208.

⁷⁶ As a variant of this showing a different borrowing from the noun declension, I would offer sane found in the phrase sa-ni-e pí-di ‘in one place’, heretofore written SA-NI-E pí-di and not satisfactorily explained. (Cf. Sommer, AU 61 note 6, on KUB 12.50.10, which he characterizes as ‘unklar’. A second occurrence of the phrase, KBo 4.9.1.15, has been called to my attention by Professor Sturtevant.) The fact that sane resembles saniya and saneta (on which see Götze, Lang. 11.190) in being spelled with one n helps suggest that we should write sanas rather than sannas. This has been pointed out to me by Professor Sturtevant, who writes: ‘All direct evidence points to sanas with one n; sannapi and sannapilis indicate nn only for derivatives.‘

⁷⁷ Cf. the similar use of Lat. hic . . . hic (SS 475); also the repetition of the same stem in Fr. celui-ci . . . celui-là.

⁷⁸ I prefer Sturtevant's version (Chr. 221): ‘This (is) my military service, and this (is) my service to the landlord’.

⁷⁹ I am not endeavoring to render an-na-ne-ku-uš an-na-aš-ma-an-na (a phrase which occurs also in §194). Hrozný's 'celles-ci et celles-là', Zim.-Fried.'s 'dieser und jener', and Walther's 'now this one, now that one (?)' are mere guesses.

⁸⁰ I am assuming that kas, like nas and tas, may be accusative plural, though HG (208) does not so list it. If it may not, we shall have to translate ‘this man in this country, that one in that’.

⁸¹ I am gratified to find that in developing this idea I have used the same line of reasoning as that employed by Brugmann (IF 24.160–2) with reference to Greek and Latin.

⁸² I presume Walther bases this interpretation on §§191 and 196.

⁸³ Though with reservations; see his note, Chr. 224–5.

⁸⁴ Contrast §XXXVII, which states that the same policy holds good ma-a-an a-pi-e-da-ni ut-ne-e ma-a-an da-me-e-da-ni KUR-e, ‘whether in this country or in another country’.

⁸⁵ It will not do, however, according to my view, in §§191 and 196, where they also use it.

⁸⁶ Whitney 199.