Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.imk.msu.ru/Structure/Linguistics/yakubovich/download/refl-ucla.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Fri Apr 30 15:11:41 2010 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Mon Oct 1 20:53:19 2012 Êîäèðîâêà:

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian: The Case of Reflexive Pronouns*
Ilya Yakubovich
University of Chicago
The origin of the Hittite reflexive clitic = za represents an unsolved problem in Anatolian and Indo-European Studies. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate that this problem receives a straightforward solution once we admit the possibility of prehistoric structural contacts between Hittite and Luvian. Hittite = za owes its existence to the paradigmatic generalization of the borrowed Luvian 2/3sg. reflexive clitic *=ti/*=di while the Luvian form must be derived from the Indo-Hittite dative clitic *= toi `to thee'.

1.0 Introduction It is a well-known fact that both the Hittite and the Luvian languages belong to the Anatolian group of the Indo-Hittite (Early Indo-European) phylum.1 It is also commonly accepted that the Hittite language of the Empire period underwent partial restructuring under the influence of the Luvian vernacular, and borrowed a large
*

I am grateful to Th. van den Hout (Chicago) and A. Kassian (Moscow), who read through the first draft of this article and made valuable remarks, to C. Melchert (Chapel Hill), who supplied me with useful references, and to Th. Wier (Chicago), who helped me to improve the style of my contribution. None of the above is to be blamed for my shortcomings. 1 Ivanov (2001) attempts to demonstrate that the Anatolian group of languages should be regarded as a linguistic area rather than a genetic unit. It is true that some of the linguistic features traditionally taken as common Anatolian innovations can be reinterpreted as secondary contact-induced changes, and the present article is, in fact, dealing with one such feature. There are, however, several non-trivial common Anatolian innovations whose contact-induced nature is unlikely to be ever proven, such as the generalization of u \ in * amu\ `me' by analogy with *tu\ `thou', the fusion of the prefix pe- with the verbal root ai `to give', or the enclitization of the demonstrative pronoun *o -. This does not mean that such innovations could not spread by way of diffusion in a continuum of already differentiated dialects, but this claim cannot be tested. The comparative method requires that a given common innovation must be treated as genetically inherited unless one can demonstrate its secondary character.


78

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian

number of Luvian lexemes.2 The question about the extent of linguistic contacts between Hittite and Luvian in the interim period appears to be more controversial, and is tied up with the discussion of the Hittite and Luvian core areas. Bryce (2003) put forward a hypothesis according to which the local homeland of the Luvians was located in western Anatolia, while their presence on the Central Anatolian Plateau can be accounted for by assuming eastward migrations in the 2nd millennium BC. If we follow the communis opinio according to which the local homeland of the Hittites stretched along the upper and middle course of the Halys river (Melchert 2003a:15), Bryce's suggestion logically implies a gap in Luvo-Hittite contacts spanning the period between the collapse of Anatolian genetic unity and the migrations that brought Luvians back to Central Anatolia. The existence of such a gap does not appear to be borne out by the linguistic evidence. Melchert (2005) has been able to detect dozens of Luvian lexical borrowings attested already in Old Hittite texts. Luvian personal names appear on the Old Assyrian business tablets written in Kanes, which was clearly a part of the Hittite core area, in the 20th-18th centuries BC. Luvian incantations were occasionally embedded into Old Hittite magic rituals, and the country of Luviya is mentioned in the Old Hittite Laws as a land under Hittite jurisdiction, although we do not have any evidence that Hittite kings ever extended their dominion to Western Anatolia before the Empire period. These arguments, taken together, provide weighty cumulative evidence for geographic adjacency between Hittites and Luvians that extended back to the prehistoric period. One must, however, emphasize the statistical nature of such argumentation, whose individual elements remain vulnerable to attacks by devil's advocates. Lexical borrowings may occur between geographically distant languages, itinerant Luvian merchants could occasionally cross the Anatolian peninsula in search of lucrative trade, while the Hittite conquest of Western Anatolia in the Early Old Kingdom period may theoretically represent a short-lived episode that happened not to be reflected in the preserved part of Hittite annalistic literature. The borrowing of grammatical morphemes provides evidence of a completely different kind. The grammatical interference of different linguistic codes must be conditioned by a bilingual environment, which alone may skew the language acquisition process in a large population group. In societies that have no access to mass
2

For the latest appraisal of Luvian lexical influence on New Hittite see van den Hout (2006).


Ilya Yakubovich

79

media and do not enjoy benefits of universal public education, a situation of pervasive language contact could arise only between the geographically adjacent dialects. Therefore, it is enough to prove a single episode of grammatical borrowing in order to draw conclusions about the geographic proximity between the two ancient languages at the time it took place. The purpose of this paper is to build up a case for a prehistoric borrowing from Luvian into Hittite that transformed the system of Hittite reflexive pronouns. In Section 2, I will discuss the development of reflexive pronouns in Hieroglyphic Luvian, which can be accounted for without assuming external influence. Section 3 will be dedicated to the analysis of the situation in Hittite. I will argue that the Hittite reflexive particle = z(a) resists internal derivation from any of the attested Proto-Anatolian clitics, but can be explained as an early adaptation of the Luvian pronominal clitic *=ti/* =di . In Section 4, I intend to dwell on a sociolinguistic situation that could render such an adaptation possible, and to construct a relative chronology combining the postulated contact episode with the relevant internal developments within the history of Hittite. 2.0 Development of Reflexives in Luvian The Luvian language is known through Bronze Age ritual incantations recorded on the Hittite cuneiform tablets, as well as through later texts written in an original "hieroglyphic" syllabary, mostly in the 1st millennium BC. The Hieroglyphic Luvian textual material is more abundant and heterogeneous than its cuneiform counterpart and, therefore, provides a convenient departure point for the discussion of Anatolian reflexives. The system of Hieroglyphic Luvian pronominal clitics can be summarized in Table 1.3 The accusative and dative pronominal clitics are bound by nonlocal antecedents, and occupy syntactic positions that are otherwise reserved for the nouns in the accusative and dative cases respectively. The function of the (so-called) reflexive clitics is much less trivial and will be described in some detail below.4
3

All the forms in the cells below are actually attested in Hieroglyphic Luvian texts. See Morpurgo-Davies (1980:89, n.3) for the attestations of the rare second person pronominal, reflexive and non-reflexive, clitics. The formal peculiarities of Luvian plural clitics will not be addressed in this section. Here and below, I use z instead of the IPA [ts] for the transcription of Hittite and Luvian forms. 4 The functional distinction between the first and second person reflexives =mi and =di and their (mostly) non-reflexive counterparts =mu and =du has been cogently argued in Melchert (1988:41-42), while a similar distinction between 3sg. =di


80

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian

Contrary to what one might expect, Luvian reflexive clitics do not appear to denote locally bound direct objects. A periphrastic phrase headed by a noun atari- `person, self' is used in this function.5 This construction was not fully grammaticalized, since the noun atari- could appear in the same syntactic position without a binder. nom. acc. dat.
=mu =du > =ru6 =du > =ru =anz(a) =manz(a) =manz(a)

refl.
=mi /=mu =di > =ri =di > =ri =anz(a) =manz(a) =manz(a)

1sg. (none) =mu 2sg. (none) =du > =ru 3sg. =as (c.)/= ada (n.) =an (c.)/= ada (n.) 1pl. (none) =anz(a) 2pl. (none) =manz(a) 3pl. =ada ==ada Table 1: Hieroglyphic Luvian pronominal clitics.

(1)

MARASÃ 4, §3-15 (Hawkins 2000:257)7 |wa/i-tÀ VIR-ti-i-zi-i ("PES")pa-ti-zi |ARHA ("MANUS+CULTER")REL+ra/i-ha-´ |(INFANS)ni-wa/i+ra/ini-zi-pa-wa/i-za |("*474")u-si-na-si-zi-i |i-zi-i-ha-´ |wa/i-mi-i |À-mi-na ("COR")À-tara/i-i-na |À-pa-ara/i |BONUS-li-ia-nuwa/i-ha I cut off the men's feet and made children eunuchs to us, and thereby I exalted myself KARKAMIè A2, §5, (Hawkins 2000:109) *a-wa/i-sa mu-´ ka-tu-wa/i-ia kar<-ka>-mi-si-za(URBS) REGIO DOMINUS-ia "COR"-tara/i-na POST-ni a-tÀ BONUS-li-ia-ta But for me, Katuwa, the Karkemisian country-lord, he exalted my person.

(2)

(reflexive) and 3sg. =du non-reflexive has been commonly accepted since the dawn of Luvian studies. The semantic analysis given below is, however, my own. 5 On the meaning and etymology of atari- see Yakubovich (2002:94-97) and van den Hout (2002). 6 The rhotacism *d > r was probably a sound change in progress in Iron Age Luvian, whose implementation could depend on a sociolinguistic register. The exact picture here is difficult to assess since the conservative spelling could have skewed the phonetic distribution of original vs. rhotacized forms in Hieroglyphic writing. For the general phenomenon of rhotacism in Hieroglyphic Luvian see Morpurgo-Davies (1982). 7 All the Hieroglyphic Luvian texts quoted here and below are cited according to the names given to them in Hawkins (2000), or a later editio princeps. I have modified the transliteration and translation of several passages.


Ilya Yakubovich

81

In a few cases, reflexive pronouns are used for locally bound indirect objects. The rarity of such forms is probably conditioned solely by the nature of our corpus, since I know of no other way to convey the same meaning in Hieroglyphic Luvian. (3) MARASÃ 4, §9-10 (Hawkins 2000:256) |wa/i-ti-ia-ta |NEG2-a-ha |tÀ-ti-i-sa |NEG2-a-ha AVUS-ha-sÀ |sÀ-ta |wa/i-mi-ia-tÀ |EGO ITONITRUS.HALPA-paCERVUS2-ti-ia-sa |sÀ-a-ha Neither (my) father, nor my grandfather "allowed it to himself", but I Halparuntiyas "allowed it to myself."

In a significantly larger number of cases, a reflexive pronoun stands for the locally bound possessor of a verbal complement, usually a direct object. Thus, in example (1) above the reflexive clitic =mi duplicates the possessive pronoun ami- `my' (and not the direct object atari- `self'!), while in example (4) below the reflexive replaces the missing possessive pronoun *abassa/i- `his'. This usage must be considered together with the other cases of possessor raising in Hieroglyphic Luvian. In the case of nouns and free pronouns, the raised constituent normally appears in the dative, as in (5).8 This distribution allows one to treat reflexive pronouns in (1) and (4) as a subset of dative reflexives.9 (4) KARKAMIè A1b, §2-3 (Hawkins 2000:92) *a-wa/i-ti *a-mi-i-sa VIR-ti-i-sa REL-i-ta REL-i-ta || |À-ta5ma-za i-zi-i-sa-ta-i |mu-pa-wa/i-ta-´ || |BONUS-sa5+ra/i-ti CUM-nÌ i-zi-i-sa-ta-I Wherever my husband honors his own name, he shall also honor me with respect.

8

This dative clitic, in its turn, may undergo case attraction and acquire the case marking of the possessum in Hieroglyphic Luvian. The pertinent examples attested in our corpus appear to be limited to the cases of inalienable possession (Yakubovich 2002:193-194). The phenomenon of case attraction remains beyond the scope of the present paper and cannot be discussed here in any more detail. 9 The reservations of Boley (1993:209-219) about the rarity of dative relexives in the earliest Hittite texts lose their cogency if we consider raised reflexive possessives marked by Wackernagel clitics together with this group. Therefore, going somewhat ahead, I must state that no descriptive evidence contradicts the semantic derivation of "ethical dative" reflexives from regular dative reflexives in Luvian.


82

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian

(5)

KULULU 5, §10 (Hawkins 2000:486) wa/i-tu-u [À-ta4/5-ma-za ARHA] DELERE-nÇ-tu-u Let them destroy his name

Another large group of examples comprises the cases where Luvian reflexive clitics appear to have no correspondence in the sentence logical form. So far as one can judge, the sole purpose of their usage is stylistic, perhaps stressing the agency of the subject. Thus, in example (6), the king intones that setting up the gods' statues represents his own pious accomplishment, and therefore uses the reflexive pronoun =m(i), whereas the same pronoun is omitted in a very similar context in (7), presumably since no special emphasis is intended. This syntactic pattern can be taken as a subset of a more general phenomenon called "ethical dative." It is used with reference to dative pronouns that have no place in the clause argument structure, but indicate a party which is presumed to be emotionally involved in a situation.10 The usage of reflexive "ethical datives" brings about the identification of this party with the clause subject. The development of dative pronouns with a reflexive function into reflexive "ethical datives" is closely paralleled by certain American English dialects (mostly spoken in southern Appalachia), where oblique personal pronouns are used with ditransitive verbs denoting a self-directed transfer to an agent (e.g. I bought me a gun) but also with transitive verbs that do not require a beneficiary (e.g. I ate me a possum). It is remarkable that the reflexive/emphatic usage of personal pronouns never extends to direct objects in these dialects. (6) KARKAMIè A11b, §17 (Hawkins 2000:101) *a-wa/i-ma-tÀ |za||-ti-i |("PODIUM")hu-ma-ti |(SOLIUM)i-sÞnÇ-wa/i-ha I myself established them (i.e. the gods) on this podium

10

Compare the following Latin example: Hic mihi quisquam misericordiam nominat "Someone here is mentioning compassion." The ethical dative mihi , lit. `to me', reflects here the speaker's indignation towards mentioning compassion. In Attic Greek, 2sg. ethical dative =toi was grammaticalized as a particle used in direct speeches with the general meaning "let me tell you, mark you, look you" used in those cases where special attention of the person addressed is desired.


Ilya Yakubovich

83

(7)

KARKAMIè A23, §10 (Hawkins 2000:119) *a-wa/i-ta (DEUS)ku+AVIS-pa-na |kar-ka||-mi-si-zana(URBS) MAGNUS.DOMINA-sa5+ra/i-na |POST-ni |SOLIUM-nu-wa/i-ha I re-established Kubaba, queen of KarkamiÈ

The emphatic usage of Hieroglyphic Luvian reflexives underwent a secondary grammaticalization in two distinct groups of cases. The first group comprises nominal sentences with first/second person subjects. Since the present tense verbal copula normally does not find an overt expression in Luvian, and since the use of free subject pronouns is optional there in all contexts, the "ethical dative" reflexives emerge as the only obligatory way of expressing the subject of a nominal predicate.11 Thus we would not know the subject of the first clause in (9) if not for the reflexive pronoun =ri. This functional device would be, however, redundant in the case of third person subjects in nominal clauses, since these are always expressed either by nouns, or by subject enclitic pronouns, as in (10).12 (8) KARKAMIè A1b, §1 (Hawkins 2000:92) EGO-mi-i IBONUS-ti-sa Isu-hi-si-i REGIO-nÌ DOMINUS-iai-sa |BONUS-mi-sa || FEMINA-ti-i-sa I am BONUS-tis the Country-lord Suhis' dear wife. ASSUR f+g, §11-12 (Hawkins 2000:536) wa/i-ri+i-i |ku-ma-na |ha-tu-ra+a wa/i-za |ni-i-´ |ma-nu-ha |ARHA-´ |("*69")sa-si-i When (thou) are to write, do not abandon us by any means. KARATEPE 1, §60 (Hawkins 2000:56) nÌ-pa-wa/i-sa ICAPUT-ti-sÀ Or (if) he (is) a prince.

(9)

(10)

11

For the account of Luvian connective clitics in nominal sentences as etymological ethical datives, see Eichner (1974:68). The reservations of Melchert (1988:42) are unfounded in view of (6) and similar examples. 12 This is a corollary to a more general principle, known as the Watkins-Garrett rule, according to which the third person subject enclitic pronouns cannot be dropped in clauses with unaccusative predicates in all the Anatolian languages. For a detailed discussion of this rule, in its application to Hittite, see Garrett (1996).


84

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian

The second group is limited to certain telic verbs, which are homophonous with verbs denoting states. The only verb belonging to this group which can be discussed without resorting to comparative evidence is *asa- (normally written with a logogram SOLIUM). Its meaning with and without the reflexive particle is `to sit down' and `to sit, live' respectively.13 One can hypothesize that the telic marker in (11) and similar cases represents a further development of the "ethical dative" function of the reflexive pronouns, stressing the agency of the subjects, because telic verbs tend to be closer to prototypical transitives than their stative counterparts (Hopper and Thomson 1980:252). The English clause " He thought to himself," which can be used with reference to individual acts of thinking, but not to one's permanent convictions, provides an approximate parallel to the usage of Luvian reflexives in this function. (11) IZGIN 1, §2 (Hawkins 2000:315) wa/i-mi-ta-´ mi-i-´ |tÀ-ti THRONUS-tara/i-ti REL SOLIUMha When I sat down on my father's throne... KARATEPE 1, §24 (Hawkins 2000:51) |À-TANA-wa/i-sa-wa/i(URBS) || |REL-ti |(BONUS)wa/i+ra/iia-ma-la |SOLIUM-MI-i ... so that Adanawa might dwell (lit. sit) peacefully.

(12)

Based on the discussion above, the reconstructed development of reflexive pronouns in Luvian can be summarized in the following tree:
Raised Reflexive Possessives Indirect Object Reflexives "Ethical dative" Reflexives 1/2 Person Markers in Nominal Sentences Markers of Verbal Telicity

Thus, although the pronouns functioning as indirect object reflexives represent but a small proportion of all the clitics =mi/=di
13

Hawkins (1992:262) convincingly argued that Luv. muwa- accompanied by reflexive pronouns represents a precise functional equivalent of Hitt. =za ... tarh#- `to overcome, conquer'. Unfortunately, the meaning of Luv. muwa- without reflexive pronouns cannot be clearly determined out of context, even though the suggestion that it is close to that of Hitt. tarh#- `to be powerful, dominate' remains likely.


Ilya Yakubovich

85

attested in the Luvian corpus, they can be taken as a logical starting point for further semantic developments within this group, which vindicates their traditional designation as reflexive clitics. The next step is to compare the results of our semantic reconstruction with the system of pronominal clitics traditionally reconstructed for ProtoIndo-European (see Table 2 below).14 The reflexive stem sw- , which definitely existed in Late IndoEuropean, does not appear to have any clear counterparts in Anatolian. Whether this represents a common Anatolian innovation, or special reflexive clitics emerged at a stage of Indo-European that postdates the separation of Anatolian, one must assume that ProtoAnatolian had different means to express the co-reference between the subject and the other arguments within a clause. Proto-Luvian indirect object reflexives *=mÉ (1sg.) and *=tÉ/=dÉ (2/3sg.) represent a straightforward phonetic outcome of the Indo-European clitics *=moi `to me' and *=toi `to thee' respectively, while the subsequent contraction of long vowels in these forms probably reflects a common tendency toward eliminating long vowels in Indo-European clitics.15 Therefore, one can advance a hypothesis that the ancestor dialect of Luvian extended the usage of dative pronominal clitics to those instances when they were bound by the local antecedent. This development can be summarized in Table 3:
1sg. 2sg. 3sg. Table acc. dat. acc. refl. *=me *=moi *=me (or *=swe?) *=te *=toi *=te (or *=swe?) *=se *=soi *=swe 2: Proto-Indo-European clitics. dat. refl. *=moi (or *=swoi?) *=toi (or *=swoi?) *=swoi

14

Cf. Meier-BrÝgger (2000:209) and Fortson (2004:129-130). I cannot agree with attempts to take *=se and the reflexive *=swe (resp. *=soi and *=swoi ) as two variants of one and the same reflexive pronoun. The comparison between Hittite =se and Indo-Iranian =se `to him' assures the reconstruction of *=soi as a dative nonreflexive (anaphoric) clitic. The fact that the reflexes of *soi and *se acquired a reflexive meaning in several branches of Anatolian and Indo-European does not need to reflect anything more than the recurrent typological tendency to form new reflexive pronouns based on the original personal pronouns. 15 Thus the Indo-European accusative clitics *=me `me' and *=te `thee' are to be probably taken as "irregular" contracted variants of the stressed pronouns me \:, te\:. Compare also Greek particles d ô vs. = de and = µan/ = µ hn vs. = µen. Note that Cuneiform Luvian plene spellings militate against the assumption that all the secondary long vowels were always contracted in this language in unstressed positions (Melchert 1994:278)


86

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. Table

nom. acc. (none) =mu (none) =tu/=du =as (c.); =ada (n.) =an (c.); =ada (n.) 3: Development of Luvian clitics, Stage 1.

dat. =mi =ti/=di =si

(dat.) refl. =mi =ti/=di =si

Melchert (2003b:204, n.31) suggested the next step when he wrote: "The introduction of the enclitic forms -mu , -tu , and -tu as datives [in Luvian­ I.Y.] would have severely restricted the use of those with i -vocalism, leading to their synchronic analysis as reflexives".16 The Luvian forms =mu (1sg.) and =du (2sg.) must be taken as the reflexes of the Indo-Hittite accusative clitics *=me and *= te , whose vocalism was modified by analogy with independent pronouns amu\ `I' and tu \ `thou'. The merger of dative and accusative first/second person pronominal clitics in Luvian finds a functional parallel in the system of the plural nominal declension, where the accusative ending *-ans > -anz(a) spread to the dative in prehistoric times. This clitic merger failed, however, to be implemented in the third person because of an earlier enclitization of the demonstrative pronoun *o - in the nominative and accusative cases, resulting in the creation of a new anaphoric clitic (nom.sg.m. =as , acc.sg.m. =an etc).17 Since this pronoun was marked for case in the singular in a similar way to singular nouns and adjectives, it was immune to further case mergers within the clitic system.
1sg. 2sg. 3sg. Table nom. acc. (none) =mu (none) =tu/=du =as (c.); =ada (n.) =an (c.); =ada (n.) 4: Development of Luvian clitics, Stage 2. dat. =mu =tu/ =du =si (dat.) refl. =mi =ti/=di =si

16

Melchert cites Luvian clitics in transliteration, rather than phonetic transcription, within this quote. We know that this form underwent lenition and was pronounced as /du/ (vel sim.) in Common Luvian, both due to the fact that the consonant is never doubled in Cuneiform Luvian orthography and because it underwent rhotacism in Hieroglyphic Luvian. The phonetically distributed allomorphs =tu and = du (resp. =ti and =di ) have to be assumed for the earlier stages of the language, on which see Section 4 below. On the phenomenon of Luvian lenition, see Morpurgo-Davies (1982). 17 This new enclitic stem was restricted to the nominative and accusative in all the Anatolian languages except for Lycian and Milyan (we lack information about Carian). In the Lycian and Milyan languages, the innovative dative form =i `to him/her/it' and locative adverb =ije `therein, thereon' arose secondarily (cf. Melchert 2004:26-28, 116).


Ilya Yakubovich

87

The final change that one needs to assume in order to account for the common Luvian stage is the merger between the second and third person singular dative clitics, both reflexive and non-reflexive. To be sure, this change is difficult to justify in functional terms, and yet one has no choice but to accept it in view of its systematic character. Besides the parallelism between the functional extension of =di and = du , one has to mention the existence of the Hieroglyphic Luvian plural clitic =manz(a) `to you, to them; to yourselves, to themselves'. Apparently, all the Luvian dative clitics came to be characterized by the opposition first/non-first person. The accusative clitics were exempt from this development because the anaphoric forms =an/=ada `him/her/it' and =ada `them' had a paradigmatic support from their nominative counterparts. I will have more to say about this process when we discuss the development of Hittite clitics.
1sg. 2sg. 3sg. Table nom. acc. (none) =mu (none) =du =as (c.); =ada (n.) =an (c.); =ada (n.) 5: Development of Luvian clitics, Stage 3. dat. =mu =tu/=du =tu/=du (dat.) refl. =mi =ti/=di =ti/=di

The last change to be mentioned occurred already in the historical period. The late Hieroglyphic Luvian inscriptions bear witness to the spread of =mu , at the expense of =mi , to the first person reflexives, as the following example shows: (13) KARATEPE 1, §63-4 (Hawkins 2000:57) ARHA-wa/i-ta "*69"(-)i-ti-wa/i || (LITUUS)À-za-ti-wa/i-tÞ-sÀ À-ta5-ma-za PORTA-la-na-ri+i zi-na wa/i-mu-ta || À-ma-za Àta4-ma-za a-ta tu-pi-wa/i I will delete Azatiwatas's name from this gate, and will incise my own name.

3.0 Development of Reflexives in Hittite The set of Old Hittite pronominal clitics can be summarized in Table 6.


88

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl. Table

nom. acc. (none) =mu (none) =tu/=ta19 =as/=ad =an/=ad (none) =nas (none) =smas =e/=e =us/=e 6: Old Hittite pronominal clitics.

dat. =mu =tu/=ta =se =nas =smas =smas

refl. =z(a) =z(a) =z(a) =z(a) =z(a) =z(a)

18

A number of formal features of pronominal clitics are more archaic in Hittite than they are in Luvian. Hittite =ta `(to) thee' may be directly derived from the Proto-Anatolian accusative clitic *=te `thee'.20 Hitt. =ad `it' directly reflects Anat. *=od, while Luv. =ada `it' owes its final vowel to the analogical influence of other neuter pronominal forms ending in -a. Hitt. =smas `(to) you, them' directly reflect Anat. *=smos, while HLuv. =manz(a) `(to) you, them' betrays the influence of the Common Luvian nominal dat./acc.pl. ending *=anz(a). The discrepancy between Hitt. =nas and Luv. =anz(a) `us' admits of different explanations, but my personal preference is to posit a Proto-Luvian form *=nanz(a) , which later underwent reanalysis in a position after word-forms ending in -n. It is likely that the tonic stem anz- `we /us' played a role in this reanalysis.21 Once we account for these formal distinctions, the initial evolution of Hittite and Luvian clitics is amenable to a uniform interpretation. My reconstruction of structural changes in Hittite leading to the partial merger of dative and accusative clitic pronouns is identical to the Luvian "stages" 1 and 2. Assuming the traditional

18

There is no doubt that that the phonetic realization of the Hittite reflexive particle was [ts], as per KÝhne (1988) and Yoshida (2001). The transliteration =z(a) is retained here solely in order to make this paper more accessible to a broad range of Hittitologists. 19 The synchronic distribution between the allomorphs =ta and =tu in Hittite is morphologically conditioned. The variant =tu occurs before the clitics = z(a) and = san , while =ta occurs before = kan and in chain-final position. On the likely diachronic interpretation of this distribution, see section 4 below. 20 For the change *e>a in Hittite posttonic open syllables see Melchert (1994:137138). 21 Alternatively, one can argue that =anz(a) directly reflects *=n ...s, the zero-grade form corresponding to *=nos. This reconstruction would obviously result in a more straightforward derivation of HLuv. =anz(a) , but would leave us with a question about the relationship between the two ablaut grades at the Proto-Anatolian level. Since Proto-Anatolian plural clitic pronouns did not have a case paradigm, where different grades could alternate, one would have no choice but to assume that the Luvian 1pl. clitic =anz(a) represents a shortened form of the respective tonic pronoun anz- that has ousted the proto-Anatolian clitic *=nos.


Ilya Yakubovich

89

Indo-European proto-form *=moi and *=soi, this reconstruction can be seen in Tables 7 and 8.22 The isomorphism between Hittite and Luvian "stages" 1 and 2 allows us to view both "stages" as common Anatolian innovations. Nothing precludes a relative chronology according to which all the sound changes and analogies that are responsible for the formal distinctions between Luvian and Hittite postdate the implementation of these functional changes. Therefore, one can assume that the two tables contain the provisional reconstruction of the actual ProtoAnatolian forms. The internal reconstruction of Luvian given in section 2 should be modified accordingly.
1sg. 2sg. 3sg. Table Nom. (none) (none) =as (c.); =ad (n.) 7: Development of nom. (none) (none) =as (c.); =ad (n.) 8: Development of acc. dat. =mu =me\ =te/=de =te\ /=de\ =an (c.); =ad (n.) =se\ Anatolian clitics, Stage 1. acc. Dat. =mu =mu =te/=de =tu/ =du =an (c.); =ad (n.) =se\ Anatolian clitics, Stage 2. (dat.) refl. = me\ =te\ /= de\ =se\ (dat.) refl. =me\ =te\ /= de\ =se\

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. Table

Once we move to Luvian stage 3, we can observe that an analogous change was not consistently implemented in Hittite. Hittite, alone of all the Anatolian languages, preserves the dative anaphoric clitic =se < *=soi `to him', which indeed serves as a basis for reconstructing this element in Proto-Anatolian. We have no choice but to assume that a merger between the second and third person singular clitics in individual Anatolian languages postdates the common Anatolian stage. Luvian and Hittite both participated in this process, but the scope of their involvement in it was different in each of the three cases. Hittite generalized the reflexive =z(a), but failed to expand the dative clitic =tu `to thee' to the third person. Luvian extended the usage of both the reflexive pronoun *=ti/*= di and the personal pronoun *=tu/*=du.
22

Eichner (1974:31-32) proposed the reconstruction *=mei `to me' and *=tei `to thee' for Proto-Anatolian, trying to account for the vocalism of Hittite possessive clitics =mis `my' and =tis `thy'. Eichner's claim that Hittite possessive clitics arose out of the historical dative clitics has been meanwhile undermined by the fact that the extension of the old accusative clitics to the dative represents a common Anatolian phenomenon, whereas the cliticization of possessive pronouns is a specifically Hittite development.


90

Prehistoric Contacts between Hittite and Luvian

The extension of the second person pronominal forms to the third person is not a common typological phenomenon, and it becomes even more puzzling once we assume that it happe