|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 20:26:00 GMT
The Indo-Anatolian hypothesis Hittite also changed the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European in another, fundamental way. Although in some respects Hittite seems to be a very archaic Indo-European language, e.g. by preserving verbal ablaut patterns better than any other ancient Indo-European language, in other respects it turned out to be radically different from the other languages. For instance, Hittite lacks a number of important linguistic categories that are present in Greek and Sanskrit, like the feminine gender, the aorist, and the perfect, all of which had always been regarded as core features of Proto-Indo-European. In order to account for these facts, already in the 1920s, only a few years after its decipherment, it was hypothesized that Hittite should not be viewed as another daughter language of Proto-Indo-European, but rather as its sister language (Forrer 1921). This would mean that Hittite and Proto-Indo-European both derive from an even earlier proto-language, which was coined ‘Indo-Hittite’ by Sturtevant (1933: 30). Since we nowadays know that these special characteristics of Hittite are found in the entire Anatolian branch, it is more appropriate to speak about the ‘Indo-Anatolian’ hypothesis, and we will therefore use this term in this book. For a long time, the prevailing view was that the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis was too radical. It was assumed that the aberrant character of Anatolian was due to a massive loss of categories and other specific innovations within this branch. As a consequence, no need was felt to assign a special status to the Anatolian branch, or to alter the ‘classical’ reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European. Over the last few decades, this point of view has started to shift and nowadays the majority of scholars appear to accept the idea that the first split in the Indo-European language family was between Anatolian and the other branches, which at that point still formed a single language community that underwent common innovations not shared by Anatolian.3 Nevertheless, no consensus has yet been reached on the exact number or nature of these common non-Anatolian innovations, nor on the amount of time that passed between the ‘Proto-Indo-Anatolian’ stage and the ‘classical Proto-Indo-European’ stage, as one may refer to these stages now. In our view, the following cases are all good candidates for cases in which Anatolian has retained an original linguistic feature, whereas the other Indo-European languages have undergone a common innovation:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2021 22:16:22 GMT
A. Semantic innovations: 1. Hitt. participle suffix -ant-, which forms both active and passive participles, vs. cl.PIE *-e/ont-, which is only active (Oettinger 2013/14: 156-7). 2. Hitt. ḫarrai ‘to grind, crush’ vs. cl.PIE *h₂erh₃- ‘to plough’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 9). 3. Hitt. lāḫu- ‘to pour’ vs. cl.PIE *leuh₃- ‘to wash’ (Oettinger 2013/14: 169). 4. Hitt. mer- ‘to disappear’ vs. cl.PIE *mer- ‘to die’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 8). 5. Hitt. nekutt- ‘twilight’ vs. cl.PIE *negwht- / *nogwht- ‘night’ (Melchert fthc.). 6. Hitt. šāḫ- ‘to fill up, to stuff’ vs. cl.PIE *seh₂- ‘to be satiated’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 9). 7. Hitt. šaii ‘to impress, to prick’ < *sh₁-oi- vs. cl.PIE *seh₁- ‘to sow’ (Oettinger 2013/14: 168). 8. Hitt. ēšzi ‘to sit’ < *h₁es- next to eša(ri) ‘to sit down’ < *h₁e-h₁s- vs. cl.PIE *h₁e-h₁sto ‘to sit’ next to innovated *sed- ‘to sit down’ (Norbruis fthc.a). B. Morphological innovations: 9. Anat. common/neuter vs. cl.PIE m./f./n.: innovation of the feminine gender (e.g. Melchert fthc.). 10. Anat. *ti(H), *tu- vs. cl.PIE *tuH, *tu- ‘you (sg.)’: spread of obl. stem *tu- to the nominative (Koekhorst 2008: 8-9). 11. Anat. *h₁eḱu- vs. cl.PIE *h₁eḱu-o- ‘horse’: thematization (Kloekhorst 2008: 10). 12. Anat. *iéug- (later replaced by *iéug-o-) vs. cl.PIE *iug-ó- ‘yoke’: thematization (Kloekhorst 2014: 5031962). 13. Hitt. ḫuu̯ant- < *h₂uh₁-ent- vs. cl.PIE *h₂ueh₁nt-o- ‘wind’: thematization (Eichner 2015: 17-8). 14. Gen. *-om (number-indifferent) vs. cl.PIE gen.pl. *-om: formalization of number distinction (Kloekhorst 2017a). 15. Anat. has no verbal suffix *-e/o- vs. cl.PIE has *-e/o- as subjunctive and present marker: development of subjunctive *-e/o- to a present marker in cl.PIE (and loss of the subjunctive in Anatolian) (Kloekhorst 2017b.). 16. OHitt. conjunctions šu and ta vs. cl.PIE demonstrative pronoun *so/to- (Watkins 1963). 17. The element *sm / *si in pronouns (De Vaan, this volume, XXX-XXX). 18. Hitt. allative case -a < *-o vs. cl.PIE petrified *-o in the prepositions *pr-o ‘before’, *up-o ‘down to’ and *h₂d-o ‘to’. C. Sound changes: 19. Anat. *h₂ = *[qː] and *h₃ = *[qːw ] vs. cl.PIE *h₂ = *[ħ] or *[ʕ] and *h₃ = *[ħw] or *[ʕw]: fricativization of uvular stops (Kloekhorst 2018b). 20. Hitt. nekutt- < *negw(h)t- vs. cl.PIE *nokw t- ‘night’ and Hitt. šakuttai- <*sogw(h)tH- vs. cl.PIE *sokw tH- ‘thigh’: voice assimilation (Eichner 2015: 15). 21. Hitt. amm- < *h₁mm- (< pre-PIA *h₁mn-) vs. cl.PIE *h₁m- ‘me’: degemination of *mm to *m (Kloekhorst 2008: 111234)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 15, 2021 3:45:50 GMT
D. Syntactic innovations: 22. The marking of neuter agents (Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, this volume, XXX-XXX); 23. The syntax of bare interrogatives (Haug & Sideltsev, this volume, XXX-XXX). There are several other arguments that are promising, though perhaps less forceful than the ones mentioned above or requiring additional investigation before it can be decided whether we are genuinely dealing with an innovation of the ‘classical’ Indo-European languages: 24. Hitt. unreduplicated ḫi-conjugation vs. cl.PIE reduplicated perfect: generalization of reduplication in the perfect (Kloekhorst 2018a) [but the presence of (traces of) unreduplicated perfects in ‘classical’ Indo-European, esp. in Germanic and Balto-Slavic, may indicate that the generalization of reduplication was either not absolute, or not shared by all branches]. 25. Hitt. 1pl. -u̯en(i) vs. cl.PIE dual *-u̯e(-): development of a clusivitiy system to a plural/dual system (Kloekhorst 2017b) [but it cannot be ruled out that Hittite developed the plural ending from an original dual ending]. 26. Hitt. lāḫu- ‘to pour’ < *leh₃u- vs. cl.PIE *leuh₃- ‘to wash’: laryngeal metathesis (Oettinger 2013/14: 169) [but the details of possible laryngeal metathesis in Anatolian are unclear]. 27. Anat. *[tː], *[ʔt], *[t] vs. cl.PIE *t, d, *dh(*t, *ʔd, *d): consonant shift (Kloekhorst 2016) [but cf. Kümmel, this volume, XXX-XXX, for criticism of Kloekhorst’s scenario]. 28. Hitt. -(e)t < *-(e)t vs. cl.PIE *-(e)h₁ (instr. ending): development of PIH *-t > cl.PIE *-ʔd > *-ʔ (Kortlandt 2010: 41) [but the exact conditions for the proposed sound change remain unclear] 29. Anat. *mK vs. cl.PIE *nK in *h₂emǵh- > *h₂enǵh- ‘to tie, to restrict’ and *temk- > *tenk- ‘to solidify, to coagulate’: assimilation (Eichner 2015: 1616) [but it cannot be ruled out that the assimilation took place independently in different branches; see Pronk 2010 for potential evidence for the *m of *h₂emǵh- in Greek]. 30. Anat. *-ms vs. cl.PIE *-ns (acc.pl. ending): assimiliation [but it cannot be ruled out that the assimilation took place independently in different branches]. 31. Hitt. e-eš-ši < *h₁essi vs. cl.PIE *h₁esi ‘you are’: degemination of *ss to *s (Kloekhorst 2016: 238-40) [but the ending *-si may have been restored in Hittite]. 32. Hitt. šiun < *diéum/*diḗum vs. cl.PIE *diḗm ‘god (acc.sg.)’: ‘Stang’s Law’ [but the Hitt. acc.sg. šiun may have been formed in analogy to the nom.sg. šiuš]. 33. Hitt. dāi ‘to take’ vs. cl.PIE *deh₃- ‘to give’: semantic innovation (Norbruis fthc.b) [but the innovation may not be shared by all nonAnatolian IE branches]. 34. Hitt. causatives of the shape *CóC-e(i) (e.g. lāki ‘he knocks down < he makes lie down’ < *lógh-e(i)) vs. cl.PIE causatives of the shape *CoCeie/o- (e.g. *logh -éie/o- ‘to make lie down’): innovation of the *CoCeie/o-causative (Kloekhorst 2018a: 10028) [but this depends on the status of the dūpiti-type in the Luwic languages].
Although it is quite possible that not each and every one of the arguments listed above will eventually become generally accepted, it is to our mind very unlikely that items 1-23 will all be refuted and we therefore regard the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis as proven. Moreover, some of the arguments listed here concern significant structural innovations, of which especially the rise of the feminine gender (including the creation of the morphology that goes with it) is something that cannot have happened overnight. Finally, it is important to stress that the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis could be disproven by showing that Anatolian shared its earliest innovations with some but not all other branches of Indo-European. Thus far, no such counterevidence has surfaced.
An attempt to identify innovations that Anatolian shared with the western branches of Indo-European, either at an earlier stage or after initial divergence (Puhvel 1994, Melchert 2016), has produced no evidence that would contradict the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis.
In his treatment of the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis, Oettinger (2013/2014) hypothesized that the time gap between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European may have been some 800 years. To our minds, this is a conservative estimate, and we think that the gap may well have been in the range of 1000-1200 years (depending, however, on the status of Tocharian, cf. the next section). With the recent revolution in the genetic research on ancient DNA, through which prehistoric migrations can be reconstructed in space and time and therefore can be linked to the spread of archaeological cultures and possibly of languages (cf. Haak et al. 2015, Allentoft et al. 2015, Damgaard et al. 2018, Kroonen et al. 2018), it is important to have a good idea about the time depth of a reconstructed language. This is crucial for formulating hypotheses about where that language may have been spoken, which in turn is important when searching for a possible genetic relationship with other language families.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 15, 2021 20:36:16 GMT
Another important consequence of regarding the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis as proven is that our view on the shape of the Indo-European proto-language has to change, sometimes drastically. We already mentioned the topic of gender: although for years it had been taken for granted that the Indo-European mother language had three genders, it seems now inevitable that Proto-Indo-Anatolian in fact had only two: common and neuter gender. This two-way oposition is likely to reflect an original distinction between animate and inanimate gender. This is of course relevant knowledge when investigating possible genetic ties with other languages or language families. Another example concerns the phonetic nature of the laryngeals. The phoneme *h₂, which at the stage of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European may have been a pharyngeal fricative, at the level of Proto-Indo-Anatolian may rather have been a uvular fricative (Weiss 2016) or a uvular stop (Kloekhorst 2018b). Again, this is relevant information when proposals for possible outer-IndoEuropean cognate sets need to be assessed. All this means that not only the time gap between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European may have been significant, but also that the linguistic shapes of these two stages in some aspects differ dramatically. In a way, we may therefore regard Proto-Indo-Anatolian as the first precursor of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European. It is for this reason that the first part of the subtitle of this book refers to the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis.
Indo-Tocharian and the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis ‘Classical’ Proto-Indo-European, which above was taken as comprising all non-Anatolian Indo-European languages, can be further divided into several branches that split off in a certain sequence. It seems likely that the Tocharian branch was the second branch to split off after Anatolian, as argued by Peyrot (this volume XXX-XXX) and others before him. Peyrot proposes to use the term Proto-Indo-Tocharian for the stage just preceding this split (with ‘core’ Indo-European for the remaining languages). He rightly points out that arguments in favour of the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis should always be weighed against this Indo-Tocharian stage: if a certain hypothesized post-Anatolian innovation cannot be shown to have affected Tocharian, it cannot in principle be used as an argument for the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis, because the innovation could also have taken place in post-Tocharian ‘core’ Indo-European. In theory, this concept should be rigorously applied: for each linguistic innovation it should be determined when it can be dated in relation to all nodes in the family tree. In practice, however, the exact order of the splits in the Indo-European family tree is uncertain, especially after the split of Tocharian, and precise dating of innovations is often n impossible. Therefore, it remains useful to operate with larger, less specific entities with relatively vague names like ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European (all or most Indo-European languages except Anatolian) or ‘core’ Indo-European (all or most IE languages except Anatolian and Tocharian).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2021 1:19:28 GMT
It is not fully clear to what extent Tocharian participated in all the postAnatolian innovations that were listed above: cf. Peyrot, this volume XXX, who points out the fact that e.g. *mer- (innovation no. 4 in the list above) is unattested in Tocharian, as a result of which it cannot be determined whether the semantic development of ‘to disappear’ to ‘to die’ was a post-Anatolian or a post-Tocharian innovation. Similar reservations apply to other post-Anatolian innovations, e.g. in the word for ‘yoke’ (no. 12), the genitive plural ending *-om (no. 14), the element *sm / *si in pronouns (no. 17), voice assimilation (no. 20) etc. Therefore, the time gap between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Tocharian may have been less than the 1000-1200 years proposed above. There are, however, still many cases for which it is clear that Tocharian did participate in the post-Anatolian innovations (e.g. ‘you (sg.)’ (no. 10), ‘horse’ (no. 11), ‘wind’ (no. 13)), and since these include some major ones (e.g. the development of the feminine gender (no. 9)), it remains attractive to assume that the Anatolian-Tocharian time gap is substantial, and we would assign some 800-1000 years to it. The relatively large number of shared Indo-Tocharian innovations contrasts with the number of plausible post-Tocharian, ‘core’ Indo-European innovations, which, according to our current knowledge, is “not overwhelming” (Peyrot, this volume XXX). It therefore seems unlikely that Proto-Indo-Tocharian and ‘core’ Proto-Indo-European were separated by more than a few centuries.
Internal reconstruction Another way of reconstructing one or more precursor stages of Proto-Indo-European, without taking into account language material from outside the Indo-European family, is internal reconstruction. Like any other language, also Proto-Indo-European (or Proto-Indo-Anatolian) contained in its grammar irregularities and other features that may be explained as the result of a relatively recent development. For instance, the word for ‘hundred’ can be reconstructed as *h₁ḱmtóm on the basis of e.g. Skt. śatám, Gr. ἑκατόν, Lat. centum, OE hund, Lith. šim̃tas. Nevertheless, on the basis of the assumption that ‘hundred’ is derived from the numeral ‘ten’ (*déḱm, cf. Skt. dáśa, Gr. δέκα, Lat. decem, Goth. taihun, etc.), it is usually assumed that *h₁ḱmtóm goes back to an earlier *dḱmtóm (with *d > *h₁, cf. Garnier 2014). This latter form, which is the result of internal reconstruction, must thus be assigned to a precursor stage of Proto-Indo-European. In some cases, we can even distinguish several subsequent precursor stages. Take, for instance, the phenomenon of ablaut: already Brugmann assumed different layers in the prehistory of Proto-Indo-European to account for the PIE ablaut alternations (see also Kortlandt, this volume XXX-XXX). Of course, on the basis of internal reconstruction alone it is impossible to reconstruct all details of these different precursors. Nevertheless, we view internal reconstruction as a vital way to penetrate as deeply into the prehistory of Proto-Indo-European as possible, which is a prerequisite before one can start with external comparison.
|
|