Hittite tit(ta)nu-, titti-, and Lycian stta-
Abstract
25
Full text
Hittite tit(ta)nu-, titti-, and Lycian sttaH. Craig Melchert Carrboro, north Carolina ABSTRACT: Against the standard view, there are two synchronically distinct Hittite verbs tittiand tittanu-, one meaning ‘to erect, cause to stand, install (in an office)’ related to tiya- ‘to stand, step’ and another meaning ‘to place (in ahorizontal position); impose’, related to dai- ‘to place, put’. The verb *tittaunderlying the first tittanuis with Jasanoff 2010 areshaped reflex of aPIE i-reduplicated stem *s(t)í-sth2-, while the stem *titta- ‘to place’ and both stems tittiare pre-Hittite innovations. Contra Jasanoff, Lycian stta- ‘to stand, be erected’ is either aloanword from Greek or the cognate of HLuvian ta- ‘to stand’. KEYWORDS: i-reduplication, Hitt. tittiand tittanu-, Lyc. stta-, HLuv. ta-. Jasanoff (2010) has argued that Hittite tit(ta)nu- ‘to set up’ (sic) and Lycian stta- ‘to stand, be set up’ reflect (in different ways) aPIE i-reduplicated *h2e-present *s(t) í-sth2-e, *s(t)í-sth2-nti. This analysis is in part correct for the Hittite verb, but the derivation of the Lycian is formally impossible. Since the latter does not materially affect Jasanoff’s conclusions regarding the PIE reconstruction, its status alone would not justify further discussion, but the true picture of the Hittite verb presents unappreciated complications that deserve athorough review. The facts of Hittite tit(ta)nuhave to my knowledge been universally misapprehended: all attestations have been assigned either abasic sense ‘to place’ or ‘to erect’ and derived exclusively from either *dheh1or *(s)teh2-. Most recently, Kloekhorst (2008: 884) chooses the former; Jasanoff (2010: 148) the latter. For older literature see Tischler (1994: 388–389). Tischler (2001: 177) gives the meaning of the base verb as: ‘hinstellen, hinsetzen, Platz nehmen lassen, einsetzen’, but he glosses the combination šarā tittanuas ‘aufrichten; zum Aufstehen veranlassen; (Speise) auftragen’ (plus further contextual meanings). It is unclear whether the CHD Š.220 and 227–228 recognizes two verbs or not. Attestations of the verb unequivocally require two separate synchronic verbs tit(ta)nu-, one clearly with the basic meaning ‘to place’ (used of objects of horizontal orientation where ‘cause to stand’ is excluded), the other with the sense ‘to cause to stand, erect’. The former thus is associated synchronically with dai- ‘to place, put’, and the latter with tiya- ‘to step, assume astanding position’. We may begin by reviewing the evidence for tit(ta)nu- ‘to place’: OPEN ACCESS
26 CHATREŠŠAR 1/2018 (1) KUB 2.2 ii 37–38 (Ritual for Consecration of aTemple) mān INA É.GAL-LIM GIBIL GIŠḫattalwaš GIŠ-ru tittanuwanzi ‘When they install the wood of the door bolt in anew palace…’ (Schuster [1974: 65]: “Wenn man in einem neuen Palast das Riegelholz einsetzt…”) The reference here is to the horizontal wooden beam that blocks the two parts of adouble door or gate. See Naumann 1971: 169–170 and Weitenberg 1984: 77. One should note also KBo 4.2 i22–23, where apuppy made of tallow is placed on the door bolt and KUB 17.10 iv 14 (Myth of Telipinu): ḫāšta LÚNI.DUḪ 7 GIŠIG āppa ḫuittiyat 7 GIŠḫattalu ‘The gatekeeper opened the seven doors and threw back the seven bars.’ (Hoffner 1998: 17). Neither passage makes sense if the “door bolt” referred to an object that stood vertically. (2) HKM 52:34–37 (Maşat Letter) namma ammuk apiya šaḫḫan luzzi=ya ŪL kuit ēšta kinun=a=mu LÚ.MEŠ URULIM šaḫḫan luzzi=ya tittanuwer ‘Furthermore there was no obligatory service and payment for me then, but now the men of the city have imposed obligatory service and payment onme.’ That this usage is based on ‘place’ is confirmed by comparison with KBo 6.4 iv 16–17 (Laws, New Version), where the basic stem dai- ‘place’ is used instead: nu=šši=ššan kuit šaḫḫan LUGAL-uš dāi ‘Whatever obligatory service the king imposes on him…’. (3) KUB 1.1 i34–36 (Horse-training Text) nu=šmaš 1 ŠÂTU memal [and]aimmiyanda pi[a]nzi ŠA ḪA.LA.=ŠU=ya ḫ[al]kin šarā tittanuanzi ‘They give them 1 SŪTU-measure of meal mixed in, and they pile up their grain ration.’ The object ‘grain’ forces the interpretation ‘pile up’, per Kammenhuber (1961: 109) contra CHD Š.227 ‘finish making their grain ration’ (wrongly listed under šarā tittanuplus infinitive and misinterpreted, since there is no infinitive present). This concrete use is also the source of the following frequent extended sense: (4) KBo 27.67 Vo 1–2 (Birth Ritual) mān MUNUS-za=ma ḫarnāwi ēšzi nu=za[…]ITU.ḪI.A=ya karū šarā tittanuz[i] ‘If awoman is sitting on the birth stool and […], and she also has already piled up (i.e. completed) the months…’ As seen by Beckman (1983:219–220), the use of šarā tittanuto mean ‘complete’ astretch of time or distance (for which see CHD Š.228) is surely from ‘pile up’ seen in OPEN ACCESS
H. CRAIg MElCHERT 27 the previous example (compare English ‘pile up hours/ miles’), whence also the use to mean ‘complete’ with infinitive (CHD Š.227).1 Neither the horizontal door-bolt nor grain can possibly be construed as being ‘made to stand’, and we have seen that ‘to impose’ is derived from ‘to place’ (dai-) in Hittite. The derived meaning ‘to complete’ of the combination šarā tit(ta)nuis also based on ‘pile up’. The verb tit(ta)nuillustrated above must mean fundamentally ‘to place, set’. On the other hand, there are also undeniable examples for astem tit(ta)nuthat must be interpreted as the transitive counterpart of tiya- ‘to assume astanding position’: (5) KUB 14.3 i8–10 (Tawagalawa Letter) nu=šši LÚTARTENU uiyanun īt=war=an=za=an=k[a]n ANA GIŠGIGIR GAM-an tittanut nu=war=an uwati ‘Isent the tartennu to him (saying): “Go and station him beside you on the chariot and fetch him.”’ The entire point of this passage is that the reluctant Piyamaradu is to be persuaded to come visit the Hittite king. The instructions to the tartennu clearly do not mean that Piyamaradu is to be laid across the chariot, but rather that he is to stand in aplace of honor beside the tartennu. (6) KUB 1.1 iv 71–73 (Apology of Hattusili; contra Otten 1981): nu URU.DIDLI.HI.A kuiēš kuiēš [Š]Am.dSIN.dU n=an=kan ḫūmanti=ya=pat EGIR-an NA4ZI.KIN [t]ittanuškanzi ‘Whatever cities of Arma-Tarhunta (there are), they will set her (Ishtar) up as acult stone behind each one of them.’ The logogram NA4ZI.KIN is standing for Hittite ḫuwaši-, which refers to an upright pillar that serves as acult object or boundary marker (see for discussion Puhvel 1991: 438–40 with references). Here asense ‘to erect’ for an object of unquestionably vertical orientation is unavoidable. (7) KUB 1.1 iv 65–66 (“Apology” of Hattusili) nu=mu šallai pedi ANA KUR URUḪatti LUGAL-eznani [(ti)]ttanut ‘You (Ishtar) installed me in the “great place”, in the kingship of Hatti.’ The Hittites clearly regarded entering an office as ‘stepping’ into it (tiya-) and holding an office as ‘standing’ in it (ar). Compare with the CHD P.338 the passage in KBo 1.28 Ro 12–14: našma kuiš ŠA mPiyaššili NUMUN-aš INA KUR Kargamiš šalli pēdan tiyazi ‘Or whatever descendant of Piyassili attains the “great place” in Carchemish.’ See also 1 Likewise with Kammenhuber (1961: 348) contra CHD Š.227, the hapax in the horse-training texts šarā tiyēzzi (KBo 3.5 iv 4) is an error for šarā tittanu(w)anzi (the horses are always the subject of the latter expression!). OPEN ACCESS
28 CHATREŠŠAR 1/2018 example (14) below. It is thus certain that ‘installing’ someone in an office is likewise ‘to cause to stand (in)’. (8) KUB 25.1 vi 18–21 (AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR Festival) nu LÚ.MEŠ GIŠGIDRU LÚ.MEŠUBARUTIM ašeššar ḫūman šarā tittanuanzi n=e artari ‘The heralds cause the foreigners (and) the entire assembly to stand up, and they stand.’ This example confirms ‘to cause to stand up’ in the physical sense. The existence of two distinct synchronic stems tit(ta)nu-, one ‘to place’ and the other ‘to erect, cause to stand’, is confirmed by the parallel coexistence of two reduplicated stems tittiwith the same respective meanings: (9) KBo 19.162 iv 10–11 (Ritual for Consecration of aTemple) mān x[… ḫattalwaš] GIŠ-ru tittai ‘When one installs the wood of the doorbolt…’ The direct parallel with example (1) in amatching context assures the restoration and the reference to the horizontal door-bolt, thus ‘place’, per Kloekhorst (2008: 881–882). Jasanoff (2010: 148) posits aseparate ḫi-verb titta-, which undoubtedly once existed (see below), but synchronically this is hardly credible in view of other evidence for areduplicated verb tittiwith the sense ‘place’: (10) KBo 3.1 i19–20 (Edict of Telipinu; OH/NS) kuišša kuwatta utnē paizzi apēll=a ŠU-i URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A GAL.GAL-TIM tittiyanteš ešer ‘To whatever country each (son) went, also in his hand the great cities were placed.’ The specification ‘in his hand’ argues decisively for ‘to place’, not ‘to cause to stand’.2 (11) KBo 14.98 i16–17 (Ritual) [ -ḫ]un GÙB-lan tēta(n)=šet […]x DUMU.MUNUS tittiškezzi ‘[She …-s] her left breast […] and places her daughter [on it].’ See for this interpretation Kloekhorst (2008: 876) contra Oettinger (1979: 347) and Jasanoff 2003 (100–101) with cogent arguments why CLuvian tidaimma/iand Lycian tideime/i- ‘suckling, child’ cannot be the participle to astem *tidi-. Both are rather participles to adenominative verb from tīta-/*tide- ‘teat’ (= Hitt. tēta-) or more likely directly denominative to the noun with possessive semantics. There simply is no compelling evidence for areduplicated stem *dhi-dhh1-i- ‘to suckle’ in Anatolian! The participle of titti- ‘place’ also acquires aderived sense ‘present’ (i.e., ‘at hand’): 2 The duplicate KUB 11.1+ i18 has as the object KUR.KUR.MEŠ GAL-TIM ‘great lands’. The same expression occurs in KBo 3.1 i12, but without the specification ‘in (their) hands’. OPEN ACCESS
H. CRAIg MElCHERT 29 (12) KBo 16.97 Vo 45 (Oracular Inquiry; MS) (likewise ibid. Ro 42) urnirniš ZAG-az GÙB-laz tittian[za] ‘A“finger” is present to the right and the left.’ (13) KUB 42.100 iii 34–35 (Cult Inventory) [k]uit=ma=wa ammuk LÚSANGA iēr nu=wa=mu UNUTEMEŠ [k]ue EGIR-pa maniyaḫḫer nu=war=at tittiyan ‘The implements which they remanded to me when they made me apriest are present.’ That is, the speaker is affirming that he (rightfully) has them in his possession as priest and has not illicitly disposed of them. On the other hand, it has been overlooked that there is at least one incontrovertible example and one likely one for ahomonymous titti- ‘cause to stand, install’: (14) KUB 36.114 RCol 21–23 […ti]ttian=pat ēšdu nu maḫḫan DUM[U…]x.LUGAL LUGAL-uezni tittianz[i…n]=an DUMU.LUGAL=pat [ ] ‘[…]be installed. As the son […] king they install in the kingship […] him (as?) prince [ ]’ Despite the broken context the reference to aprince and the combination with LUGAL -uezni ‘in the kingship’ make it clear that tittianzi must mean ‘they cause to step into’, hence ‘they install’ in an office. As already indicated above, the Hittite expressions for attaining, holding, and leaving an office are all based on ‘stand’. Compare further Bo 68/299 (Bronze tablet; Treaty with Kuruntiya) iii 11–12: mānn=a DUMU=ŠU DUMU.DUMU=ŠU ŠA m.dLAMMA kuiš INA KUR URU.dU-tašša LUGAL-eznani artari ‘Also if some son or grandson of Kuruntiya occupies (lit. stands in) the kingship of Tarhuntassa’ and iii 29 n=aš ŠA KUR URUḪatti LUGAL-eznani awan arḫa tiyazi ‘and he steps away from (abdicates) the kingship of Hatti’ (alongside multiple instances of LUGAL-eznani tittanu- ‘to install in the kingship’). (15) KBo 6.3 ii 37 (Hittite Laws, §40; OH/NS) takku LÚ GIŠ[TUKUL ḫa]rakzi LÚ ILKI tittianza ‘If aman who has aTUKUL-obligation disappears/perishes, and aman owing ILKU-services is installed (in his place)…’ Hoffner (1997: 48) reasonably renders ‘assigned’, but the preceding example (13) and the overall evidence for ‘stand’ as the basis for expressing holding aposition or office argue that this example also belongs to titti- ‘to cause to stand, install’. The transitive valency of reduplicated tittivs. tiyais not problematic: see on this point Jasanoff 2010: 149. The evidence presented above shows that synchronically in Hittite there are two homophonous verbs tittiand likewise two distinct verbs tit(ta)nu-. In each case one means ‘to cause to stand’ or ‘to erect’, referring to people or objects with adecidedly OPEN ACCESS
30 CHATREŠŠAR 1/2018 vertical orientation such as cult stones. The other verb means ‘to place, set’, used of objects such as adoor-bolt or grain that cannot possibly be construed as ‘standing’. In the absence of any evidence for confusion of tiya- ‘to step, assume astanding position’ or ar- ‘to stand’ with dai- ‘to put, place’ in Hittite, we should assume that the respective stems tittiand tit(ta)nulikewise have different sources. Hittite titti- ‘place, install (einlegen)’ represents areduplicated form of dai- ‘place, put’ < (virtual) *dhí-dhh1-i, while titti- ‘install (eintreten lassen)’ is areduplicated form of *tai- ‘stand’ < (virtual) *tí-th2-i-, both stems parallel to CLuvian ḫišḫi- ‘bind’ < *h2í-sh2-ito the stem*sh2iseen in Hittite išḫi- (i.e., the reduplication copies the stem vowel).3 For Hittite tiya- ‘to assume astanding position, station oneself’ (mi-verb) as an indirect reflex of aḫi-conjugation present in -i- (*tāi, tiyanzi < *stéh2yei, *sth2y-énti) see Jasanoff 2010: 145–146 and already 2003: 115. Per Oettinger (1979: 350) tit(ta)nu- ‘to place’ is derived from titti- ‘to place’ with “Ausstoßung” of -ye-. But what is “deleted” in this case is -i-, not -ye-. In any case, this analysis is valid only as asynchronic description. Given the productivity of i-reduplicated ḫi-verbs with zero-grade of the root (Melchert 1984: 100 and now in detail Dempsey 2015: 293–312), the existence of a*titta- ‘place’ parallel to mimma- ‘refuse’, pippa- ‘overturn’, etc. is unsurprising, as is its renewal with the productive transitivizing suffix -nu- (cf. paḫšnubeside paḫš- ‘to protect’ and similar cases). However, amore direct model for *titta- ‘place’ is available in *titta- ‘stand’, the Hittite reflex of aPIE h2e-present *s(t)í-sth2- (~ Vedic tíṣṭhati, Lat. sistō, etc.), with renewal of the reduplication as asynchronic process: see for detailed arguments Jasanoff 2010: 148–149. The reality of the stem titnu- (probably to both forms of tittanu-) does not justify reconstruction of a*dhi-dhh1-nu- (pace Kloekhorst 2008: 884). Syncope of the medial vowel in tittanuis perfectly in order. See in detail Dempsey 2015: 306–312. Hittite tittanu- (just in the meaning ‘to cause to stand’) is thus built on a*titta- ‘to stand’, cognate with Vedic tíṣṭhati, Lat. sistō, etc., per Jasanoff (2010: 148–149). However, his further claim (ibid. 149–150) that Lycian stta- (P3Sg sttati) ‘stands, is erected’ (of stelae and acult stone; also once ‘remains’) reflects the same present stem *s(t) í-sth2cannot be upheld. Jasanoff’s derivation of sttafrom reduplicated *s(t)í-sth2is phonologically impossible, since it requires syncope of an accented vowel. Blevins (2008) has refuted claims of Blust (2001 et alibi) for the syncope of stressed vowels in Mussau, thus removing any cross-linguistic support for such aprocess. In any case, Lycian pibijeti, pibiti ‘give’ < *pí-bi- (Hajnal 1995: 120 contra ibid. 32) directly refutes such asyncope in Lycian. The latter case is not explainable by aputative constraint against initial geminates, since syncope of unaccented reduplicated vowels does lead to such geminates: ppuwe- ‘write’ (see Heubeck 1985 and similarly Hajnal 1995: 121), ttarahe/i- ‘of the city’ < tetere/i- ‘city’, etc. The derivation from areduplicated *s(t)í-sth2can also not be rescued by the egregiously ad hoc assumption of ashift in the accent away 3 The geminate -ttin titti- ‘to place (einlegen)’ < *dhi-dhh1-imay reflect either that the reduplicated stem was formed after the devoicing of initial voiced stops in pre-Hittite (thus Melchert 1994: 19 after Hart) or assimilation to the following *h1 (see Jasanoff 2003: 77). OPEN ACCESS
H. CRAIg MElCHERT 31 from the reduplicated syllable. There is simply no evidence anywhere in Anatolian for such an accentual shift.4 There are two viable alternative explanations for Lycian sttati. First, one should not with Jasanoff (2010: 145) summarily reject the idea that Lycian sttais aborrowing from Greek (thus Morpurgo Davies 1987: 220–221, tentatively followed by Hajnal 1995: 87&112 and Melchert 2004: 599). One may object that borrowing of such abasic verb is unlikely, but in all of its clear occurrences, sttais used to express the erection of stelae or other vertical structures. It is thus by no means assured that sttais the ordinary Lycian verb for ‘to stand’.5 If Lycian sttati is in fact native, it may be the expected direct cognate of the Luvian hi-verb ta- ‘stand’, reshaped from astem in -i- (seen indirectly in Hittite tiyaabove) based on the ambiguous third singular /ta:i/ < *stéh2y-ei (see Jasanoff 2003: 115, contra Melchert 1994: 69 and 268). Per Jasanoff (2010: 149), the hi-verb was regularly renewed in Lycian as ami-verb with an “unlenited” ending, whence stta-ti. The claim of Jasanoff (2010: 143) that the development of intervocalic *sT to Lycian sprecludes preservation in word-initial position (similarly Morpurgo Davies 1987: 221) is arbitrary and unsupported. Nothing requires that the treatment of heterosyllabic intervocalic*sT as s< *ss (esi ‘is’ < *h1és.ti, esu ‘let be’ < *h1és.tu, wasaza- ‘priest’ < *wos. h2o-tyeh2- ~ HLuvian wa-s(a)-ha-za-) match that of tautosyllabic *sTin an onset. In at least one Italian dialect (le Marche, zone of the Esino) intervocalic *-stiassimilates to -Vši-, while word-initial *stiis preserved (see Rohlfs 1966: 380 vs. 258). Voicing assimilation of obstruents to following sonorants in Catalan takes place only in heterosyllabic, not tautosyllabic (onset), sequences: onsets [p/t/kr-] vs. [b/d/gr-] and [p/kl-] vs. [b/gl-], but voicing assimilation in VT.RV: atleta ‘athlete’ [dl], qui-sap-lo ‘alot’ [bl]. See Wheeler (2005: 145–148).6 4 The OH example Pres2Pl i-iš-te-e-ni with along vowel in the ending shows merely analogical spread of an ending from paradigms where it was regular. The accent on the reduplicated stem īšš(a)- ‘(iterative) do, make’ < *yí-ih1-s- (thus with Jasanoff 2003: 137) remained on the first syllable, as shown not only by the i-išin the form cited, but also by the continued plene spelling e-eš-šain New Hittite after the change in the vocalism (likewise including examples where endings are borrowed from other stem types, thus Pres3Sg e-eš-ša-a-i, with ending borrowed from monosyllabic forms such as dāi ‘puts’). Jasanoff (2018: 140) has now retracted his claim (2003: 36–37, note 22) that Hittite wewakk- ‘ask for (repeatedly)’ and mēmi- ‘speak’ reflect stative-resultative perfects with root accent, arguing that they are “iterative-intensive” h2e-conjugation presents matching the type of Greek perfect mémēke ‘bleats’, shown to be distinct by its pluperfect inflection. As such, they had original accent on the reduplicant and provide no evidence for an accent shift. 5 The context of the occurrence in TL 93,2 is not entirely clear. If the relative clause sttati=ti really refers to the preceding tideime ‘children’, then it would mean in context ‘who remain, abide’ (that is, survive the tomb builder). This secondary sense would argue that the verb is the general Lycian verb for ‘stand’, but we cannot at present regard this as demonstrated. 6 Per Jasanoff (2010: 145, note 8), the attractive equation by Neumann of Lycian -tm� mata in the personal name esi-tm� mata ‘there shall be renown (to him)’ with Luvian tummant- ‘ear’ (~ Hittite ištaman- < *(s)temh1-) does not affect the equation of Lycian sttaand Luvian ta-, OPEN ACCESS
32 CHATREŠŠAR 1/2018 In sum, Lycian stta- ‘to stand’ is either aloanword from Greek or is cognate with Luvian ta- ‘to stand’ and indirectly Hittite tiya- ‘to assume astanding position’, all ultimately reflecting ah2e-present in -i-: *stéh2y-ei, *sth2y-énti (for which see Jasanoff 2003: 115 and 2010: 145–146). Hittite tit(ta)nuin the sense ‘to cause to stand’ has replaced a*tittawith the same meaning, itself representing arenewed reduplicated h2e-present *s(t)í-sth2-e, *s(t)í-sth2-n ti (thus with Jasanoff 2010: 148–149). However, one must also recognize ahomophonous Hittite verb tit(ta)nu- ‘to place, set’ derived within the prehistory of Hittite in similar fashion to the root *dheh1of Hittite dai- ‘to put, place’. REFERENCES since both roots behave as “s-mobile” roots in Anatolian, and both shapes can occur in the same language: compare Hittite tiya- ‘enter astanding position’ etc. vs. ištantāi- ‘tarry’. Beckman, G. (1983) Hittite Birth Rituals [StBot 29], Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Blevins, J. (2008) Phonetic explanation without compromise: the evolution of Mussau syncope, in: Diachronica 25, 1–19. Blust, R. (2001) Some remarks on stress, syncope, and gemination in Mussa, in: Oceanic Linguistics 40/1, 143–150. CHD = Güterbock, H.G.†— Hoffner, H.A., Jr.— van den Hout, T.P.J. 1980– . The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Dempsey, T.R. (2015) Verbal Reduplication in Anatolian, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Hajnal, I. (1995) Der lykische Vokalismus, Graz: Leykam. Heubeck, A. (1985) Konsonantische Geminaten im lykischen Wortanlaut, in: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 98, 36–46. Hoffner, H.A., Jr. (1997) The Laws of the Hittites, Leiden: Brill. —. (1998) Hittite Myths, Atlanta: Scholars Press (second edition). Jasanoff, J. (2003) Hittite and the Indo-European Verb, Oxford — New York: Oxford University Press. —. (2010) Lycian sttati ‘stands’, in: J.Klinger— E.Rieken— C.Rüster (eds.), Investigationes Anatolicae: Gedenkschrift für Erich Neu [StBoT 52]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 143–151. —. (2018) What happened to the perfect in Hittite? Acontribution to the theory of the h2e-conjugation, in: E.Rieken et al. (eds.), 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen— Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung: Arbeitstagung der lndogermanischen Gesellschaft, PhilippsUniversitat Marburg, 21. bis 23. September 2015. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 137–156. Kammenhuber, A. (1961) Hippologia Hethitica, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kloekhorst, A. (2008) Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden: Brill. Melchert, H.C. (1984) Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. —. (1994) Anatolian Historical Phonology, Amsterdam — Atlanta: Rodopi. —. (2004) Lycian, in: R.Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Cambridge— New York: Cambridge University Press, 591–600. Morpurgo Davies, A. (1987) ‘To put’ and ‘to stand’ in the Luwian languages, in: C.Watkins (ed.), Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill. Papers of the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference, Cornell University, 1985, Berlin: de Gruyter, 205–228. OPEN ACCESS
H. CRAIg MElCHERT 33 Naumann, R. (1971) Architektur Kleinasiens vonihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit, Tübingen: Wasmuth (second edition). Oettinger, N. (1979) Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums, Nürnberg: Carl. Otten, H. (1981) Die Apologie Hattusilis III. Das Bild der Überlieferung [StBoT 24], Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Puhvel, J. (1991) Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol.3: Words Beginning with H, Berlin — New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rohlfs, G. (1966) Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Torino: Einaudi. Schuster, H.-S. (1974) Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen, I: Einleitung. Texte, und Kommentar, Leiden: Brill. Tischler, J. (1994) Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar, Teil III. Lieferung 10: T, D/3, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. —. (2001) Hethitisches Handwörterbuch, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Weitenberg, J. (1984) Die hethitischen u-Stämme, Amsterdam: Rodopi. Wheeler, M.W. (2005) The Phonology of Catalan, Oxford— New York: Oxford University Press. OPEN ACCESS