LEIDEN UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

THE THEMATIC STEMS IN ANATOLIAN

AND INDO-EUROPEAN

MA Linguistics Thesis

by

Leire Sarto-Zubiaurre

Supervisor: Dr.

To my family and my friends, for their invaluable support

[a]mmell-a-mu-kan LÚ.MEŠ arus LÚ.MEŠTAPPI-YA[-ya] sarriskir1

'and my peers and partners separated from me'

1 KUB XXI 19+1303/u III 28-29, apud HED 1:116. 1

Index

1. Abbreviations ...... 3

2. Introduction ...... 4

3. Materials, methodology and a note on Luwic ...... 10

4. The thematic stems in the synchronic ...... 12 4.1. The of the common gender thematic nouns ...... 13 4.1.1. The singular cases ...... 13 4.1.2. The cases ...... 26 4.2. The inflection of the neuter thematic nouns ...... 32

5. The thematic stems in Proto-Anatolian...... 35

6. Conclusion ...... 38

7. Excursus: Hitt. išḫā- ‘lord’ and the accent of the thematic nouns ...... 39

8. Bibliography ...... 44

2

1. Abbreviations abl. ablative instr. instrumental acc. accusative Lat.

CHD Chicago Hittite loc. locative Dictionary Luw. Luwian CLL Cuneiform Luwian MH Middle Hittite Lexicon MS Middle Script CLuw. Cuneiform Luwian neut. neuter comm. common (gender) NH Neo-Hittite dat. dative nom. nominative EDG Etymological Dictionary of Greek NS Neo-script

EDHIL Etymological Dictionary OH Old Hittite of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon OS Old Script

EDL Etymological Dictionary PA Proto-Anatolian of Latin Pal. Palaic gen. genitive PD proterodynamic Gr. Greek PIE Proto-Indo-European HD hysterodynamic pl. plural HED Hittite Etymological sg. singular Dictionary Skt. Hitt. Hittite voc. vocative HLuw. Hieroglyphic Luwian

IE Indo-European

3

2. Introduction

Since the first handbooks of Indo-European linguistics,2 a twofold distinction was made in the realm of nominal classes, i.e. the distinction between thematic3 (Lat. dominus, Gr. θεός, Skt. deva-, etc.) and athematic (Lat. civis, Gr. πατήρ, Skt. ájas-, etc.) nouns. As already seen by Meillet, the thematic nouns are distinct from the athematic ones, including the stems in -i and -u,4 because they have the so-called and they do not show ablaut or accent shifts.5

The thematic vowel is a morpheme that for PIE is reconstructed as *-o-6 (on the basis of Gr. -ο-, Lat. -u-, Skt. -a-, etc.) and that it regularly appears between the root and the endings, so the nom.sg. is cited as *-o-s, acc. sg. *-o-m-, etc. (e.g. Meier-Brügger 2000:198-9). Much has been written about the origin and the function of the thematic vowel,7 because it does not have a distinct meaning in either the daughter languages or PIE itself.

Additionally, a different set of endings is traditionally reconstructed for the thematic stems, compared to the athematic ones. Let us take, for example, the singular endings of the non-neuter nouns (Meier-Brügger 2000:198):

2 Meillet 1908:224 and ff. 3 I will use the term “thematic stems” rather than the also widespread “o-stems” since in the main language of this thesis, Hittite, the “o-stems” are in fact a-stems. “Thematic” is therefore clearer and equally descriptive. 4 Which are athematic. The i- and u-stems behave like consonants stems as per the ablaut patterns they show, cf. Beekes 1985:198-9. 5 “Cette voyelle change d’ailleurs tout l’aspect de la formation, car elle entraîne fixité du vocalisme de la racine et de la place du ton dans la flexion” (Meillet 1908:224). 6 It is often claimed that the thematic stems do show ablaut, and as such they are often cited as the *-o/-e- stems (Clackson 2007:92, Fortson 2010:126). However, Beekes showed that it is not necessary to reconstruct an ablauting inflection, since all of the cases that allegedly had the e-grade (the voc. and gen.sg.) in the thematic vowel can and should be explained differently (1985:184-191). Those alternative explanations are preferable because even if one considers the thematic stems to be ablauting, it is very difficult to justify the presence of ablaut in the vocative alone. Vid. infra for the discussion on the vocative. 7 See Villar 1974:99 and ff. for references. 4

athematic endings thematic endings nom. *-s, *-ø *-o-s voc. *-ø *-e acc. *-m *-o-m gen. *-és / -ós / -s *-o-sioi abl. *-ōt < *-o-etii dat. *-ei *-ōi < *-o-ei iii instr. *-éh1 / -h1 *-o-h1 / *-e-h1 loc. *-ø / -iiv *-o-i / *-e-i

ii -es(y)o / -os(y)o (Szemerényi 1996:186) ii -es / -os / -s; -ed / -od (Szemerényi ibid.) iii -ē / -ō (Szemerényi ibid.) iv -e/-o, -bhi/-mi (Szemerényi 1996:160)

As we can see, the main differences are in the oblique cases: a genitive and an with different endings in the thematic stems, but a genitive-ablative case for the athematic ; a separate vocative ending, and a long vowel in the ablative and dative, that is often explained as the result of a contraction between the thematic vowel and the ending —but not always: Clackson directly reconstructs abl.sg. *-ōd, dat.sg. *-ōi (2007:97)—.

Indeed, the presence of the thematic vowel, the lack of ablaut/accent shifts and the different endings has lead scholars to set the thematic nouns apart from the athematic ones. The thematic inflection is different, but why?

Already Meillet (1931:196) concluded that the thematic type (nominal and verbal) was more recent that the athematic. Since then, and particularly since Specht’s Der Ursprung der indogermanischen Deklination, the communis opinio has agreed to consider that the thematic nouns are of a younger age.8 A great number of scholars have weighed in in the matter about the function of the thematic vowel. In the 1940s and the 1950s it was thought to have a pronominal origin; as for its function, Knobloch connected

8 What scholars have considered to be “recent” varies. For example, Haudry thought the thematic stems to be more recent than the athematic ones, but still of considerable old age, since according to him the athematic endings, after being added to the thematic stems, were still understood as post-positions (1982:71-2). His theory however must be rejected for several reasons: it is impossible to prove that the thematic vowel was a post-posed article, such formation has not survived in any of the daughter languages. The relative chronology that he offers is very unclear, as is the motivation for the creation of a new inflection.. 5 it with the ergative theory and considered it to be an object marker (1953:419-20). But the origin of the inflection itself remained a mystery.

Sturtevant was one of the first scholars to advance a hypothesis regarding the genesis of the thematic stems. Continuing Thurneysen’s idea that Latin reus ‘party to a lawsuit’ came from an old genitive *rēius (Skt. rāyās), connected to rēs ‘thing, legal case’, so reus would have come to being by a process of hypostasis: from *vir reus ‘man of the case’, vir would at some point be omitted by force of use and reus would have been reinterpreted as the nom.sg. of a new adjective, afterwards substantivized. Sturtevant saw that similar constructions were present in Hittite: a ‘vassal’ is literally linkii̯ aš ‘(man) of the oath’ (1940:574); kūruraš ‘enemy’, lit. ‘man of enmity’ < kūrur- ‘enmity, hostility’ (Sturtevant 1940:575; EDHIL 496-7). All of this led him to conclude that “in Indo-Hittite [...] adnominal genitives in -os might give rise to o-stem adjectives.” (1940:578) Following Sturtevant among others, Villar fully adhered to the “hypostasis theory” (1974:99-122; 1995). As a whole, it is syntactically and semantically attractive, but it falls short when it comes to analyzing the relationship between the thematic stems and the other inflectional types as well as the development of the rest of the inflection. Brosman defended the hypostasis theory as opposed to9 another hypothesis that arose with Beekes’ 1985 book (which apparently Villar did not know) and that I will call the “hysterodynamic theory”.

Beekes sought to find the formation of the PIE inflection through the systematic analysis of the accent-ablaut distribution in the languages. He reduced the main accent- ablaut paradigms of a very early stage of the proto-language to two: one static, one mobile. PIE would have been at this stage an ergative language:10 the mobile inflection had an *CéC-R and an ergative *CC-R-ós (1985:202). In a second stage, out of the mobile paradigm, the proterodynamic (that of the neuters) and hysterodynamic (that of the animates) types would arise. At this point the language slowly shifted from

9 With unconvincing arguments: he dismisses Beekes’ theory solely on the grounds that “it would require that the origin of the o-stems be relegated to an improbably early date.” (1998:66). 10 There are however many cautious voices in regard to the ergative theory (an overview of which can be found in Bavant 2008, with references), for example Clackson and Matasović. Note however how Clackson’s rejection (2007:176-180) of the ergative theory starts from his analysis of the thematic stems, which, according to Beekes, arose only after (and, in part, because) the language shifted to nominative- accusative marking. Matasović (2017:164) has rightly argued that it is difficult to determine with certainty the alignment of the earliest stages of the language. While it is clear that Classical IE was a nominative- accusative language, the arguments for an ergative stage remain attractive, particularly in the light of the pre-history of the thematic stems. 6 ergative to nominative marking: in the HD inflection, the absolutive *CéC-R became the nominative (and the nominative-accusative of the neuters, i.e. the PD inflection), whereas the genitive-ablative *CC-R-ós (a case with agentive semantics) was interpreted as an ergative (1985:173-4). At the same time, the ergative *-s also became the nominative of the static inflection (1985:176) and of the newly formed animate PD nouns. This strong association between the mark *-s and agentive semantics, and now the nominative, made possible the reanalysis of old ergatives ending in *-os as new nominatives in *-o-s, with *-s as the nominative marker. On the basis of the new nominative in *-os, an accusative in *-om was created, while the genitive-ablative ending of the HD inflection was at this first stage maintained. The thematic stems, then, according to this theory, developed from the HD genitive-ablative (< ergative).

As for the neuter nouns, it could be envisaged that in a first stage all the newly created thematic stems were non-neuter and that the neuters were created in a second stage, taking their shape (in the nom.-acc., the only case where they differ from the common gender thematic stems) from the common gender accusative.11

This hypothesis answers the question of why the thematic stems developed from the HD genitive-ablative and not from the PD one: because the is strongly associated with animate nouns (i.e. the HD inflection), whereas the PD inflection developed animate nouns, with an ergative (> nominative) in *CéC-R-s only secondarily (Beekes 1985:176). Therefore, only *-os could be the model for the new inflection. As a whole, the hysterodynamic theory offers a cogent relative chronology for the development, as well as a sound model for the genesis of the inflection itself.

However, the relative chronology could also be seen as a disadvantage: if the thematic stems developed from the HD inflection right after the ergative > nominative marking shift in the proto-language (which must have happened at a reasonably early stage), how can they be considered recent? A pivotal point that will be explored in this thesis is whether the direct and the oblique cases are of the same age or not, which will help draw a clearer scenario of the development of the thematic stems, taking the Anatolian split as a terminus ante quem. Kortlandt’s claim that “the Proto-Indo-European

11 The neuters would be modelled after the common gender accusative because they would overwhelmingly share the semantic role of patient (the common gender accusatives due to syntactic reasons, the neuters because the aforementioned connection between and grammatical gender). For this general topic see Luraghi 2011. 7 thematic paradigm was probably uninflected except for the accusative in *-om [...]” (2010:40) will be put in perspective with the conclusions drawn from the Anatolian languages and the reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian.

What is, exactly, the relevance of the Anatolian material? In one , its antiquity. I have already pointed out that the nominative-genitive homomorphy in Hittite is agreed to be an archaism rather than an innovation12. The other Indo-European languages have thematic genitive endings (Sanskrit -asya, Greek -οιο and -ου/-ω, Gothic -is) that differ not only from the nominative but also from the athematic genitive endings. This is interpreted as an innovation in all of the Indo-European languages excluding Anatolian, which is to say a common innovation.13 The analysis of the points where Anatolian differs from the rest of Indo-European (in this case, the thematic genitive) can be useful in determining the relative chronology of the grammatical change in both Anatolian and Indo-European in general. If the thematic inflection in Anatolian is more archaic than in the other IE languages, its reconstruction can shed light over the genesis and evolution of this thematic class in older stages of the proto-language.

Just a few years after the decipherment of Hittite, it was already suggested that Hittite was a sister, not a daughter, of Indo-European (Jasanoff 2017:233), a theory that is now more strongly supported by the number of innovations that are shared by the other Indo-European languages, but not by Anatolian.14 This was the kernel of the “Indo-Hittite hypothesis” (cf. Sturtevant 1962) and later renamed as the Indo-, once the other members of the Anatolian family became better known. It essentially posits that Proto-Anatolian was the first branch to separate from the parent language, and that this happened in a very early date. This event is referred to as the “Anatolian split”.15 The language common to Anatolian and the rest of Indo-European, including Tocharian, is Proto-Indo-Anatolian, although the term Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is widely used as

12 Beekes 2011:213: “the creation of an ending that is identical to another, here the nominative, is improbable.” We do not expect to find an innovation that would create an ambiguity between the nominative and the genitive; both from a logical and from a formal point of view this homomorphy must be old. 13 The principle of common innovations (for which see François 2014:164 and ff.) allows comparatists to establish the different daughter branches as well as their interrelation; if a group of languages shows the same innovation, that means they share a node, i.e. they have a common ancestor where that innovation first took place. 14 Cf. Kloekhorst&Pronk 2019:3-5 for a summary of those innovations. 15 The Indo-Anatolian hypothesis is further supported by archaeology: David Anthony has identified the speakers of pre-Anatolian with the Suvorovo culture, that migrated from the steppes towards the lower Danube and then the Balkans around 4200 BC; later, perhaps around 3000 BC, they entered Anatolia. (Anthony 2007:100, 229, 251-260). 8 well. I will use “PIE” to refer to the common ancestor of Anatolian and the other Indo- European languages (also called “Proto-Indo-Anatolian”), “Classical Indo-European” to refer to the stage of Indo-European after the Anatolian split and prior to the Tocharian split (also called “Proto-Indo-Tocharian”) and “Core Indo-European” to refer to the Indo- European languages excluding Tocharian.16

Therefore, the reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian not only helps us to better understand the evolution of the Anatolian languages, but it is also a key element in the reconstruction of the parent language. Since the thematic stems are agreed to be a somewhat recent development, the reconstruction of the class for PA through the analysis of the relevant Anatolian material becomes of great importance, as it may allow us to better locate the genesis and evolution of the thematic inflection alongside the different stages of the proto-language.

The goal of this work can then be summed up in a seemingly simple question: what did the thematic nominal stems look like in Proto-Anatolian? In order to try and solve that question, I will first analyze the material from the major Anatolian languages, with Hittite as the main working language.

16 Kloekhorst&Pronk 2019:7. See for example Lundquist&Yates 2017:2080-1 for a slightly different terminology. 9

3. Materials, methodology and a note on Luwic

The data that will be treated in this thesis will mainly come from the consultation of reference works and specialized bibliography, particularly the EDHIL (which will be the main dictionary, since it is the most up-to-date), the Chicago Hittite Dictionary and Jaan Puhvel’s Hittite Etymological Dictionary. The Hittite of reference will be Hoffner&Melchert 2008. For Luwic, the main reference works will be Starke 1990, Melchert 2003 and Payne 2010 for Luwian and Kloekhorst 2013 for Lycian. For Palaic, Carruba 1970 is still the most comprehensive reference. As for the reconstruction of PIE a number of handbooks and articles will be consulted, with emphasis on the more recent scholarship.

Regarding the Anatolian material itself, it should be kept in mind that the weight that is going to be given to each of the languages is not equal. Hittite is going to be the main working language for several reasons: the volume of attestations and secondary literature is the highest; it is also the oldest language in the family (that is, the earliest attested). In addition to this, the Luwic languages show a phenomenon called i-mutation, which consists in the presence of an -i- in the direct cases of the common gender nouns, across inflections. The consonant stems add the -i- e.g. CLuw. nom.sg. comm. ādduwališ from ādduwal- ‘bad’, while in the thematic stems we see the substitution of the thematic vowel by this -i-: CLuw. ānniš ~ Hitt. annaš < PA *Hónno- ‘mother’ (EDHIL 174). Starke interpreted this -i- as a gender motion , but the meaning of the suffix cannot be proven; according to Rieken it stems from a PIE derivational process of forming abstract i-stem nouns from thematic adjectives and vice-versa. The reason why the “i- mutated” forms show up in the common gender only would be due to differences in ablaut. However, Norbruis (fthc.) has shown that her analysis must be rejected.17 Instead, he has proposed a systematic takeover of the consonant and thematic stems by the i-stems, not due to morphological innovations but to phonetic developments: first the oblique cases of the i- and the consonant stems became identical, then the consonant stems adopted the i-stem direct case endings, and, finally, the massive number of new i-stems took over the much more reduced corpus of thematic nouns. In practice, this means that

17 As there were no thematic abstract nouns in PIE or Anatolian, the Hittite i-adjectives are clearly inherited and not innovative, and it is unclear why Luwic would have created a mixed paradigm. 10 the Luwic material will be, comparatively, of little importance, since the etymologically thematic nouns (e.g. ‘mother’) inflect like synchronic i-stems. Whenever relevant, adequate attention will be given to the minor Anatolian languages, particularly Palaic.

The discussion will be organized as follows: I will present the reader with the thematic nominal paradigm of Hittite as given in the handbooks. The endings will be discussed case per case: what is their situation in Hittite, how can they be reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian and whether they should be projected back to PIE. At the end, a reconstruction of the thematic nouns in PA will be suggested. In the Conclusion I will go back to the pivotal question of this work –what did the thematic stems look like right before and after the Anatolian split?–, with the intent to offer a satisfactory answer. Finally, there will be an excursus on the accent of a small number of irregular-looking Hittite that are traditionally reconstructed as thematic, with the objective of presenting a more comprehensive picture of the situation of the thematic nouns in PA.

11

4. The thematic stems in the synchronic Anatolian languages

Here I present an overview of the regular of the thematic nouns in Old Hittite. The examples have been taken from Hoffner’s and Melchert’s grammar (2008: 79-81) and the EDHIL (788).

lāla- ‘tongue; sg. pl. aruna- ‘sea’; atta- ‘father’, negna- ‘brother’ (c.) nom. lālaš lāleš voc. attaš, atti - acc. lālan lāluš gen. lālaš arunaš, *negnan18 dat.-loc. lāli *arunaš abl. lālaz(a) instr. lālit all. aruna -

pēda- ‘place’ / sg. pl. šuppala- (n.) ‘cattle’ nom.-acc. pēdan pēda erg. šuppalanza *šuppalanteš gen. dat.-loc. abl. the same as the common gender instr. all.

I follow Hoffner’s and Melchert’s “basic scheme” of the nominal endings in Hittite (2008:69), although, as we will see, the isolation and even more so the reconstruction of the endings is not always as clear-cut as the handbooks show.

18 Spelled with a Sumerogram plus Hittite phonetic markers: ŠEŠ.MEŠ-n (Hoffner and Melchert 2008:73). 12

4.1. The inflection of the common gender thematic nouns

4.1.1. The singular cases

Nom. sg. comm.: in Hittite the ending is -aš for the thematic nouns, e.g. alpaš from alpa- ‘cloud’, ḫimmaš from ḫimma- ‘imitation, replica’, lālaš from lāla- ‘tongue’ and so on (EDHIL 169, 343, 515).19 It can be analyzed as the thematic vowel -a- plus -s. The ending -s is the same in the common gender athematic nouns, e.g. kardimiyaz20 ‘anger’ from a stem kardimiyatt- (EDHIL 456). As for the other Anatolian languages, mainly Pal. -aš (Carruba 1970:43) and Lycian -e21 should be mentioned. Lycian shows a nom.sg. ending -e for the thematic nouns; the -e can only reflect PA *-o; all final -s were lost in Lycian (Kloekhorst 2013:142), so from Hittite, Palaic and Lycian, a PA proto-form *-os can be established. In the other Indo-European languages we have *-os: Greek -ος (λύκος), Latin -us (lupus), Sanskrit -as (vṛ́kas), Lithuanian -as (vilkas̃ ) ‘wolf’. The PA ending *-os can be clearly traced back to PIE *-os, analyzable as *-o-s.

Voc. sg. comm.: in Hittite we most commonly find the nom. sg. form (the most common procedure)22: ḫāššās, ‘O hearth!’ (EDHIL 377); the bare stem with no endings added: ṷappu ‘O riverbank!’ (ibid.), and an ending -i (and only marginally -e): LUGAL- u-i (EDHIL 176). In the case of the a-stems, we do not find the nom. sg., but we have the bare stem in examples like atta ‘O father!’ (Hoffner&Melchert 2008: 79), negna ‘O brother!’ (CHD 428), as well as a few forms in -i: atti (CHD 192), [ŠE]Š-ni(-mi) ‘O my brother!’ (CHD 429), perhaps lāli ‘O tongue!’ (Hoffner&Melchert 2008: 75, 81) and the (neuter) form pedanti ‘O place!’ (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:75)23. This i- ending spread to some athematic stems, like LUGAL-u-i (probably something like /Hasui/); the instances of e-spelling (e.g. LUGAL-u-e, dUTU-e) are specific to one scribe (EDHIL 377). In CLuw. we see “a mere handful of examples” of vocatives for which the bare stem is used (Melchert 2003:186), but generally the nominative is used. The other Anatolian languages

19 For the apparent ending -āš as shown by a small number of Hittite words, like išḫās ‘lord’, see the Excursus. 20 “The cuneiform signs conventionally transcribed as containing a z represent [...] a sequence /t+s/”, among others. (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:37). 21 Which is a very rare ending, as it only appears in the few common gender thematic stems that do not show i-mutation; see Norbruis fthc. 22 Cf. Hoffner&Melchert 2008:244-246. 23 An i-vocative formed on the stem marked with the animatizing suffix -ant-, characteristic of the ergative, cf. Hoffner&Melchert 2008:75-6. 13 do not have a separate case; as already in Hittite the nominative with vocative functions was already highly popular, it is safe to assume that the younger Anatolian languages lost the vocative as a separate case altogether.

The other Indo-European languages have an ending -e for the thematic vocative, usually unaccented: Gr. λύκε (Chantraine 1984:37), Lat. domine, Skt. déva (nom. sg. devás) (Burrow 1955: 255), Lithuanian vilkẽ , all of which are traced back to PIE *-e24. This -e is traditionally interpreted as the e-grade of the thematic vowel (e.g. Sihler 1995: 256), but this is problematic in an inflectional type that has the lack of ablaut as one of its most remarkable features. Beekes’ alternative explanation, to consider *-e as a postposed appellative particle, is more attractive in regard to its semantics, although the formal side still poses problems.

The Hitt. ending -i can be compared to the *-e shown by the other IE languages, because there is good evidence pointing to Hitt. -i# < PIE *é# (EDHIL 377). On the other hand, Anatolian differs from PIE because the thematic nouns show the bare stem (Hitt. negna). There are two possibilities: either Anatolian inherited two mechanisms for forming the thematic vocative (the bare stem and *-e) and, later, Classical IE made *-e obligatory, or in PIE *-e was obligatory and Anatolian extended the bare-stem vocatives from the athematic nouns to the thematic type as well. Considering that we only have a handful of forms in -i, it seems like the bare stem ending in -a was the most popular one, but this says nothing about whether it is archaic or innovative. There are no unequivocal arguments for either one or the other: it seems likely that PA allowed both formations.

Acc. sg. comm.: in Hitt. the ending is -an for the thematic stems (lālan from lāla-, alpan from alpa-). It can be analyzed as the thematic vowel plus -n, as is in the other vocalic stems: ḫalkin from ḫalki- ‘grain’ (EDHIL 274). The ending of the thematic stems spread to the consonant stems, where we also find -an (e.g. kardimmiyattan ‘anger’ from kardimmiyatt-), presumably to avoid the difficult cluster that would arise with the addition of -n to the stem ending in a consonant, and that would be regularly solved in -un (EDHIL 591). Lycian shows a thematic acc.sg. in -ẽ, which can only come from *-en <

24 It might be possible to think of an avoidance of a hiatus like *-o-e- or of a form ending in *-ō, as that could be confounded with a different case-ending. Perhaps the influence from the (short) e-grade of the vocative of the consonant stems (e.g. πάτερ) played a role in the consolidation of *-e as the vocative ending of the thematic stems. Cf. Beekes 1985:101. 14

PA *-om (Kloekhorst 2013:140); likewise Luwian has -an in the thematic stems,25 clearly analyzable as -a-n; cf. the ending of the i-stems, e.g. tadin ‘father’, analyzable as -i-n (Payne 2010:23). Palaic points in the same direction with its acc.sg. ending -an (Carruba 1970:42). From this we can securely reconstruct PA *-om.

This ending is evidently cognate with the acc. sg. comm. ending in the other IE languages: Lat. dominu-m (< *domino-m) ‘lord’, Skt. agni-m ‘fire’, Gr. ἰχθύ-ν ‘fish’, Goth. guma-n ‘man’ (Beekes 2011: 194). Hittite, like Greek and Gothic, regularly shows -n instead of -m, as Hittite did not allow a final -m (Melchert 1994: 112). For Proto-Indo- European, this ending is reconstructed as *-m (*-m˳ allophonically); in the thematic stems, the thematic vowel is clearly present: *-o-m.

Gen. sg.: Hittite shows a gen.sg. ending -aš consistently across inflectional types (e.g. ḫalkii̯ aš from ḫalki- ‘grain’; paḫḫuenaš from paḫḫur ‘fire’); we only have one example of a genitive in -s: the fixed expression nekuz mēḫur ‘at night, in the evening’ (EDHIL 602). Most importantly, the thematic nouns also have -aš: lālaš, arunaš, ḫuḫḫaš. This homophony of -aš (nom.sg.) and -aš (gen.sg.), as we have seen in the Introduction, indicates that the Hittite genitive preserves a very early stage within the development of the thematic inflection.

As for the other Anatolian languages, Palaic, like Hittite, has -aš (Carruba 1970:42). HLuwian shows two gen.sg. endings across inflections: -as(a) and -asi. From these, only -as(a) is relevant towards a reconstruction of the PA situation, as Palmér (2019) has recently shown that -asi is an innovation within Hieroglyphic Luwian.26 The ending -as(a) is problematic because the hieroglyphic script does not allow us to unambiguously decide whether it was pronounced as [-as], [-asa] or [-assa]. Lycian shows a similar, but slightly clearer, situation: a -ø ending that is traced back to PA *-s (in the case of the thematic nouns, *-os) (Kloekhorst 2013:142), with the difference that this ending is comparatively rare (Adiego 2010:1) and an ending -ehe (-he in the athematic stems).27 Additionally, in the Anatolian languages other than Hittite the use of derived adjectives to express adnominal or genitival relationships was very productive. In CLuwian it completely replaced the inherited genitive (Melchert 2003:171); it was

25 We also see -an in the consonant stems, which is explained as the regular reflex of *-m˳ by Starke (1990:35). 26 An ending that is, furthermore, restricted to 9th-10th century texts originating in a specific area (South of the Taurus mountain range), cf. Bauer 2014:142-148, Palmér 2019. 27 We also find an ending -h, of difficult analysis, that seems to be a Lycian innovation (Adiego 2010:5-6). 15 likewise extremely productive in Lycian, which only shows the genitive endings in personal names (Adiego 2010:1; Kloekhorst 2013:9).

Even though Hittite does not make productive use of genitival adjectives, the morpheme -assa- is attested in a handful of adjectives and deadjectival nouns, such as iugašša ‘yearling’ < iuga- ‘yearling’ and genušša- ‘knee-joint’ < genu- ‘knee’ are some examples (EDHIL 293, 423-4). The geminate in Hittite and Luwian can only be reconciled through a PA proto-form *-osso, that is most convincingly explained as deriving from PIE *-osio28. We have thus a rich scenario in PA with a maximum of three genitival : *-os, *-oso and *-osso.

In the other Indo-European languages we find a wide arrange of genitive marks: Latin shows as many as five gen.sg. morphemes: -ī and -osio in the thematic nouns, -is (< *-es), -os and -s in the athematic stems (Baldi 2002:313-4). In Greek we find, in the thematic nouns, -ου/-ω (depending on the dialect) from *-oso, -οιο, from *-osyo (like Skt. -asya);29 and –(ε)ς and -ος in the athematic stems. Mycenaean might have preserved a thematic ending in -ος, just like Hittite (Bernabé&Luján 2006:144-6).

The details of the relationship of the gen. endings in Classical IE and what should be reconstructed for PA are not crystal clear. Palmér has argued that PA had “two genitive endings *-os and *-osio, as well as an adjectival suffix *-osio-” (2019). From a formal perspective, it works: *-os would yield Hitt. and Pal. -as (and, potentially, Luw. -as), *-osio would yield Luw. -assa and Lyc. -ehe, and *-osio- would yield Hitt. -assa-, Luw. -assa/i- and Lyc. -ehe/i-. From a functional perspective, however, I find it difficult to accept that PA inherited a fully productive inflectional morpheme, the ending *-osio, and, at the same time, also made use of it as a derivational morpheme. The idea that PA inherited two gen.sg. endings, *-os and *-oso, as well as the morpheme *-osio-, that would be specialized in deriving adjectives, does not seem excessive, particularly considering it would be a situation similar to that of Greek, where we find Myc. -os, and then -ου/-ω < *-oso as well as -οιο < *-osyo (García Ramón 2015:659). Formally it is perfectly possible to derive Lyc. -ehe from PA *-oso, and [-asa] was one of the theoretical readings of the HLuw. ambiguous ending.

28 But not *-osso-, contra Yakubovich 2008; see Melchert 2012:281. 29 There are two main theories in regard to this: either -ου/-ω (contractions of *-oo) and -οιο come from *-osyo or they have different origins, in which case *-ου/-ω would come from *-eso/-oso, of pronominal origin. 16

I thus follow Melchert’s conclusion when he indicates that “the Anatolian languages as a whole preserve [...] the endings *-os [...] *-oso and *-osyo” (2012:284). PA, like Greek, inherited the very archaic gen.sg. ending *-os (which is, as stated in the Introduction, the probable origin of the thematic inflection in PIE as a whole), *-oso, of pronominal origin, and *-osio (see e.g. Lundquist&Yates 2015:2086-7). Then, *-os and *-oso were productive as genitive endings, while *-osio became an adjectival morpheme.

In principle, one could argue that the Hitt., Pal. and potentially Luw. thematic ending -as is actually innovative, an extension from the athematic to the thematic paradigm (that would have taken place either before the Anatolian split or already in PA). This is methodologically unfortunate because linguistic innovations happen to avoid ambiguity, not to create it, which is why irregular forms are as a rule older than their regular counterparts: there would be no motivation for the speakers to replace a clear marker, such as *-osio or *-oso, with an ending that would create an ambiguity with the nominative. An attempt of explaining the thematic genitives in *-os as Anatolian innovations would then be required to find a motivation for the replacement, as well as a reason why the Anatolian situation seems to have been preserved also in Greek. In my opinion it is much preferable to posit that in PIE the thematic inflection had originally a gen. sg. *-os, preserved in Anatolian and in Greek; in Late PIE new and presumably more clear markers, *-oso and *-osio, began to appear, both of which were inherited in PA. In PA, though *-os was maintained, *-oso- gained popularity as a genitive ending, whereas *-osio was exclusively used as a derivational morpheme.

Dative-locative sg.: the ending in Hitt. is usually -i: atti from atta- ‘father’, pēdi from pēda- ‘place’. However, we have attested a handful of examples of a-stems with a dat.-loc.sg. in -ai: labarnai, tabarnai from l/tabarna-, a title of the Hittite kings (originally a personal name) (EDHIL 520), pittulii̯ ai from pittulii̯ a- ‘anguish, worry’ (EDHIL 680), plus a number of forms from other stems: ašaunai from ašāu̯ ar, / ašaun- ‘sheepfold, pen’, a -r/-n-stem (EDHIL 220-1); once [ḫa-]aš-ša-a-i from ḫāššā- ‘hearth’ (EDHIL 322), taknai from tēkan ‘earth’, a n-stem (EDHIL 858), and u̯ appuu̯ ai from u̯ appu- ‘riverbank’, an u-stem (EDHIL 958).

This poses, in itself, a problem of reconstruction. The ai-datives are scarcely attested and found in Old Hittite (EDHIL 376), which would suggest that they are archaisms; however all the attestations of the -ai forms are in MS/NS, not in OS, meaning

17 that they could easily be modern interferences rather than an archaic phenomenon.30 Indeed, the ai-datives of the consonant stems seem to be secondary, product of the influence of i-stem adjectives, where the ending -ai is regular (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:74). This led Neu to consider that all the ai-datives are secondary innovations (1979: 188-9).

From a historical perspective, it is relevant that dative and locative are one single case in Hittite, Luwian and Lydian, both in the singular and in the plural. Luwian regularly shows -i as a dative-locative ending in the thematic nouns, e.g. CLuw. parni from parna- ‘house’ (CLL 170) Occasionally we find -a, interpreted by Starke as an old allative (1990:36), e.g. CLuw. līla from līla- ‘pacification, conciliation’ (CLL 127). Lycian has a dat.-loc.sg. in -i, but it also shows -je in personal names, of unclear origin (Kloekhorst 2013:140). One could perhaps think of an analogical development to the genitive, -h : -he, so -i : -je, with an automatic glide. Another possibility is to take together the -a in Luwian and the -je ending in Lycian, and postulate a Luwic ending in *-o, originally the same as the allative ending (for which see below), that acquired locatival and then dative semantics, a shift that is not typologically uncommon. Palaic has a dative in -i (-ai in the ā-stems, in principle easily analyzable as -ā-i) and a locative in -a (Carruba 1970:42); this -a has been traced back to the allative ending (Melchert 2008b:43). The Carian material is extremely meager, but see Adiego 2007:318 for the forms that have been tentatively identified.

A clear point that can be established is that PA had a dative- in *-i across inflections, and Luwic and perhaps also Palaic innovated another dat.-loc. ending (in the case of Luwic) and a locative (in the case of Palaic) from the PA allative in *-o. Since the ai-datives are secondary and the thematic dat.-loc. ends in -i, it seems clear that the dative did not show the thematic vowel.

The other IE languages paint a different picture: Greek has a thematic dative ending in -ωι (Sihler 1995:258). The few attestations of an thematic dat.sg. in -ōi (Classical -ō) and especially Oscan -úi point to a Proto-Italic reconstruction in *-ōi (Baldi 2002:314). The Sanskrit -āya is explained as a hypercharacterization of the expected -āi plus a particle -ā (still independent in Avestan) or perhaps as a result of

30 Except for [ḫa-]aš-ša-a-i which is attested in OS. However, since it is an ā-stem, this is actually the expected form, going back to *h2eh1s-éh2-i (Kloekhorst 2014:262). 18 analogical levelling from the genitive -asya (Gotō 2017:346); the Indo-Iranian ending would thus be *-āi (Burrow 1955:256). To account for the long vowel shown in the languages, these forms are explained as coming from PIE *-ōi < *-o-ei, i.e. a contraction of the thematic vowel and the athematic ending *-ei, cf. e.g. Beekes 2011: 212, Meier- Brügger 2003: 198, Clackson 2007: 98. The locative is a distinct paradigmatic case in some IE languages, notably Sanskrit, and is thus sometimes projected to PIE as a case ending in *-i (the same element as in the dative). It is more likely that in origin, the locative was restricted to neuter nouns, while the dative (which requires an animate referent) was restricted to non-neuters, cf. Kloekhorst 2018:189-192.

In the case of PA, however, it is important to consider that the i-dat.-loc. forms (pēdi, ḫāšši) go back to PIE *-i, while the forms in -ī (išḫī, kišrī outside of the thematic stems) can only go back to PIE *-éi31 (Kloekhorst 2018: 190). Therefore, -i (as in atti) cannot be the regular outcome of PIE *-ōi.

From this, two possibilities arise. One is to consider that the thematic vowel was originally present and that PA had a thematic dat.-loc.sg. in *-oi that got replaced by the athematic ending in *-i. The other is to consider that the thematic vowel was simply never there; from a chronological perspective this would imply that the Classical IE ending *-ōi developed after the Anatolian split. The first possibility is favored by Hoffner and Melchert, who state that “in the case of a-stems, the stem-vowel is usually deleted before the d.-l. ending -i” (2008:74). The problem is that this “deletion” is merely a synchronic description, not a diachronic explanation of the development of the ending. Why would the thematic vowel be deleted if it was such a clear marker of a highly productive class of nouns?

Anatolian simply does not offer any support to a PIE reconstruction of the thematic dative in *-ōi; if it had inherited it, there would be no motivation for its disappearance. The scarcity of attestations of the secondary -ai ending further shows that it was not felt as a clear dat.-loc. marker by the speakers, or else it would have become widespread.

I thus believe that the PA thematic dat.-loc. ending -i is original and it continues the PIE situation. After the Anatolian split, the thematic vowel was extended to the

31 In this phonetic context, *-éi- was raised to *-ii- and then -ī- in open syllable (-i- in closed syllable). (EDHIL 100) 19 oblique cases, including the dative: *-o-ei > *-ōi, whence Greek -ωι, Latin -ōi and Indo- Iranian *-āi.

Instr.: in Hitt., the ending is generally -it, across inflectional types: lālit in the thematic stems, but also ērḫuit in the i-stems (from ērḫui- ‘basket’) and išḫimanit in the athematic stems (from išḫiman- ‘cord, rope’) (Hoffner&Melchert 2008: 90, 112). This is already an indicator that the thematic instrumental does not show the thematic vowel, as we would expect pre-Hitt. *-o-it32 to yield Hitt. **-ait, not *-it.33 A later development of -ai- into -i- would be completely ad hoc, as the regular outcome of pre-Hittite *ai is [ai] or [āi] in certain contexts, but not [i].34

Alongside the more common ending -it, we have a good number of attestations of an instrumental ending -t: genut, ganut from genu-/ganu-35 ‘knee’ (EDHIL 467), kiššarat and kiššarta (-a is a dead vowel) from keššar ‘hand’ (EDHIL 471-2). It is also the only instrumental ending in the demonstrative pronouns: kēt and later kēdanta (where -a is a dead vowel), with no trace of -i- (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:143). Often both -it and -t are attested within the same word: uddanit, spelled ud-da-ni-it, and uddant, spelled ud-da- an-ta, are both attested as the instr. of uttar-/uddan- ‘word, speech’ (EDHIL 932). We have an attestation of a thematic noun ending in -at in šakuu̯ at (MH/MS) (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:77); being only one MS attestation, it could easily be secondary.

Neu (1979:190) explained the ending -it as having arisen by anaptyxis: e.g. ektet, from ekt- ‘hunting net’< *ekt-t. (Hoffner&Melchert 2008: 77). However, Kloekhorst has rightly argued that the vowel in the ending -it must be original; that is, it comes from a full grade, because an anaptyctic vowel in this context is unexpected; the regular solution of a cluster such as *-t-t would have been -z. (2014:103-5) Since the distribution of the -et / -it spellings matches with the expected accentual distribution, I favor this view over Neu’s, which relied on a phonetic development and a subsequent paradigmatic levelling. Therefore Hittite shows the ending in the zero grade, -t, and in the full grade, both accented (with an outcome -et) and unaccented, -it, with regular /e/ > /i/ weakening (Kloekhorst 2014:105).

32 That is the thematic vowel and the ending -it, the regular outcome of unaccented *-et in this position. 33 Cf. EDHIL 100. 34 Cf. Kloekhorst 2014: 395. 35 Where the spelling ganu- represents /knu-/, i.e. the zero-grade of the stem. Cf. EDHIL 467. 20

Another remarkable feature of the (together with the ablative) is that it is number-indifferent, which means that a single ending is used with singular and plural referents. It is also relevant to keep in mind that the instrumental was a separate case only in Old Hittite; in New Hittite it has been fossilized in isolated expressions, outside of which the instrumental “was replaced by the ablative” (Hoffner&Melchert 2008: 70). This points to a relatively low productivity of the paradigmatic case within the history of the language. Finally, also relevant is the fact that in the pronominal declension the instrumental is not always present: the personal pronouns do not have it, while the possessive pronouns have an ablative-instrumental case ending in -it (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:139). As I am going to show, it is likely that the pronouns have preserved the oldest value of -t prior to the creation of a separate ablative.

Regarding the other Anatolian languages, Luwian has a number-indifferent ablative-instrumental case ending in -adi across inflections (Melchert 2003:186), clearly cognate with Lycian -(e)di (Kloekhorst 2013:140). These are the only Anatolian languages that have an ablative-instrumental (or indeed either one of them); the comparison between Luwian and Lycian forces a Proto-Luwic reconstruction in *-odi, that will be put in relation with the Hittite ablative (for which see below).

36 In most handbooks, the ending of the instr. sg. in PIE is reconstructed as *-h1 in different ablaut grades, whence Sanskrit -ā (ápasā < ápas- ‘work’), Lithuanian -ù, e.g. vilkù from vilk̃ as, a thematic noun (Beekes 2011:212); Mycenaean -e37, and perhaps also the Latin ablative ending -e.38 Tocharian B might show traces of an old instrumental (of an n-stem) in the ending of the causal, -ñ < *-niT (Adams 2013:281), which would match ʔ nicely the Anatolian situation. The Kortlandt Effect (the dissimilation of *d [ d] > *h1 [ʔ] in certain phonetic contexts) might allow us to reconcile the two endings in a single PIE proto-form, but more research is needed.39 The material from Old Hittite clearly indicates that we should reconstruct an instrumental ending in *-t for PA. Since the thematic nouns

36 Cf. for example Beekes 2011: 187-8, Meier-Brügger 2003: 198, Clackson 2007: 93 ff, Fortson 2010:116. 37 See Bernabé&Luján 2006: 151 for the difficulty of interpretation of the forms ending in -e. 38 Although the traditional explanation interprets -e (the abl.sg. ending of the consonant and i-stems) as coming from the PIE locative in *-i, Sihler convincingly argues that a functional shift locative > ablative is unlikely (1995: 285); ablative-instrumental syncretism, on the other hand, is typologically common (Narrog 2014: 75). From that perspective, the Latin abl. in -e could also be explained as coming from *-h1. 39 The *h1 ending would derive from *-t (via an intermediate stage *-d) For the Effect, see Kortlandt 1983 and especially Lubotsky 2013 and Garnier 2014. The relative chronology of the phenomenon is very unclear; there are isolated examples of it in Anatolian (Lubotsky 2013:162-3), but in this case it seems that the effect was not pervasive enough so as to affect the PA endings, as we have no trace of instr. *-(e)h1 or abl. **-(o)h1i in Anatolian. 21 overwhelmingly show the unaccented full grade ending, -it, I reconstruct it as such for PA: *-et.

Abl.: the oldest ending we have attested is -z, in certain consonant stems: ne-e-pí- iš-za [nēpists]. In the a-stems we only find -az (arunaz from aruna- ‘sea’). Already in OH an ending -az appears in the consonant stems (including those that previously had -z), with an accented variant -āz. (EDHIL 232). From a formal point of view, Hitt. -z can stem from a sequence /t/ plus /s/ (*-ent-s > -anza [-ants]) (EDHIL 26) and the result of the assibilation of PA *-ti-, i.e. ēšzi ‘he is’ < PIE *h1ésti.

If we compare it with the other Anatolian languages, Luwian has an ablative- instrumental ending in -adi, (Melchert 2003: 186) and -ādi in the thematic stems (Starke 1990:41); likewise, Lycian -(e)di (in the thematic and consonant stems; -adi in the a- stems) (Kloekhorst 2013:141-2). Luw. -ā̆ di and Lyc. -edi can only come from PA *-óti, - d- being the regular result of the Proto-Anatolian lenition.40

From this, the conclusion is that the oldest ending, preserved in e.g. ne-e-pí-iš-za, was *-ti, at least for PA, and that it coexisted with *-oti (Hitt. -az) and *-óti (Hitt. -āz). PA thus clearly differs from the other IE languages, where we see a thematic ablative ending in *-ōt < *-o-et (Meier-Brügger 2000:198), with the same element *-et found in the Anatolian instrumental (Kloekhorst 2018:194).

The etymology of the suffix becomes clearer if one takes the instrumental *-(e)t into consideration. As it has been stated before, the functions of the instrumental and the ablative cases are close and it is not typologically problematic to have a single case for both, or ablative-instrumental syncretism. Based on this, and on the idea that the element *-t- is in both endings, I consider a reconstruction of abl. *-ti as the instrumental *-t plus *-i, following Kloekhorst (EDHIL 232) and Beekes (2011:187-8).41 The ending -az <

40 Cf. Kloekhorst 2014:356; 2016:223 and ff. Both PA *-óti and *-oti are contexts where lenition would occur: after a long accented vowel (PIE *ó > PA *ṓ) and between two unaccented vowels in the post-tonic position. The non-lenited result in Hittite (showing the reflex of PA *-t- rather than the lenited *-d-) is due to analogy to the forms with the zero-grade of the ending (-ti) (EDHIL 232). 41 The consequences of this reconstruction regarding the prehistory of the ablative and the instrumental are several. First of all, in a more general fashion, it solves the problem of having to establish different case systems for the athematic and the thematic stems in PIE, i.e. a genitive-ablative *-(o)s in the athematic nouns (Beekes 2011: 186), but a genitive in *-os and an ablative in *-et in the thematic stems, plus an instrumental in *-(e)h1. It is possible to consider a single case in *-(e)t, with original ablatival-instrumental semantics, that is maintained in Hitt. –(i)t and e.g. Old Latin donōd. By means of the Kortlandt Effect, in certain positions *-(e)t became (via *-(e)d) *-(e)h1, the instr. ending in e.g. Sanskrit ápasā and perhaps Latin opere < *h3epésh1. The distribution of the change is unfortunately very unclear; it is not (yet) possible 22

*-oti (and the accented variant) would have arisen from the o-grade of the instrumental ending plus the same *-i. Oettinger reconstructs two different ablative endings in PIE, *- d and *-ti, both of which would have survived in Anatolian (Hitt. -az and -(i)d respectively) (Oettinger 2017:259, also Melchert&Oettinger 2009:57 and ff.). I think this reconstruction is uneconomical and unmotivated both semantically and functionally, considering that the alternative explanation manages to obtain both endings from just one, without needing to assume not one but two functional shifts.

Concerning the thematic stems, the reason why I reconstruct a PA ending *-oti (so with a segmentation arun-az) rather than *-o-ti (aruna-z) is because it would be odd for the thematic vowel to appear in the ablative, but not in the other oblique cases. If one accepts that the ablative ending is an off-shoot of the instrumental, where the thematic stems show a full-grade ending (-it), like the consonant stems (and not the expected **-a-t), it makes more sense for the ablative to behave in the same way. One would have to explain why the thematic vowel appears, of all the oblique cases reviewed so far, in the ablative alone. At any rate, even though methodologically this seems to be the sounder option, the attestations of the ablative as we have them do not allow us to unequivocally tell whether the thematic vowel was present or not.

To sum up, the thematic stems in Old Hittite show an instrumental in -it and an ablative in -az, both identical to the endings of the consonant stems, and thus do not show the thematic vowel. The ablative ending in -(a)z is diachronically an off-shoot of the instrumental in -t. The other major Anatolian languages, including New Hittite, merged the two cases (the semantics of which were already close). It is then likely that we can reconstruct an original ablative-instrumental case in *-t for PIE, that in Anatolian crystalized as an instrumental in *-(e)t and an ablative in *-(o)ti.

All. Hittite knows a case that is usually called “allative”, “directive” or “terminative” (Hoffner&Melchert 2008: 76). The ending is -a (when unaccented) or -ā when accented, and its meaning is generally cited as ‘direction towards’. The case is attested only in the singular, and only in Old Hittite; in the later language, it is replaced by the dative-locative (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:70).

to explain why in Classical IE the Effect was triggered in the thematic instrumental (*-(e)h1) but not in the ablative (*-o-et). Then, already in Proto-Anatolian, a specifically ablative case in *-(o)ti was created.. 23

The thematic allative ends in -a: anna from anna- ‘mother’ (EDHIL 174); aruna from aruna- ‘sea’ (EDHIL 212), as do the athematic stems: nēpiša from nēpiš- (EDHIL 603), with an accented variant -ā: taknā from tēkan- / taknaš ‘earth’. If the thematic vowel had been there, in synchronic Hittite we would find a long vowel as a result of contraction.42

The data from the other Anatolian languages is scarce, as none of them show an ; we have seen, however, that the Palaic locative and the Luwian -a datives might continue an original allative. The endings are taken to be old allatives as well. As such, Hitt. -ānna (infinitive II) is explained an original allative of a verbal noun in -ātar/-ānn (EDHIL 226). Luwian has an infinitive in -una, which, according to Melchert, reflects “an old dative-locative (originally allative) of such [verbal] noun” (2003:198). Palaic also shows an infinitive in -una: aḫuna ‘to drink’ (Melchert 2008b:44); Melchert also indicates, however, that “the locative ending /-a/ is cognate with the allative of Hittite continuing Proto-Indo-European ∗-h2e and ∗-oh2” (Melchert 2008b:43). Unfortunately, his explanation is incomplete, as he does not offer a distribution for the different ablaut grades. Reconstructing an allative ending in *-h2 poses a problem of homonymy, since that is already the marker for the nominative-accusative plural of the neuters in Anatolian as well as in the other Indo-European languages (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:71-2; Beekes 2011:188).

Both Luwian and Palaic -una- can continue PA *-un-o-,43 and there is thus no phonological necessity for a laryngeal. It seems as if the only reason to reconstruct an ending with a laryngeal is Lycian, where end in -ne and in -na, so both erijeine and erijeina are the infinitive of ‘to make’ (Kloekhorst 2013: 148).44 I believe that -na could easily be secondary, perhaps influenced by the nominal -a (< PIE *-eh2) stems,

42 E.g. tān ‘twice’ < PIE *duoióm (EDHIL 826-7), with loss of intervocalic *-i- and vowel contraction (Melchert 1994:176-7; Kloekhorst 2014:521). 43 Lycian lacks the initial u- shown in Palaic and Luwian -una-, but this context would trigger the syncope of -u- (Melchert 1994: 318). I am only dealing with the -a- segment of the ending, where both Luwian and Palaic -a continue PA *-o (Melchert 1994:218, 264). Luwian and Palaic point to an ending *-un-a-, whereas the etymon of Hittite -ānna is reconstructed as PIE *-ótn-o (EDHIL 174-5). However, Hittite also has the so-called “infinitive I” in -u̯ anzi < *-u̯ anz (with secondary -i-), most likely the (petrified) ablative ending of a deverbal noun in -u̯ ar/-u̯ aš (EDHIL 957-8). Therefore, the infinitive in Hittite and in Luwian and Palaic (and possibly Lycian) simply continue different fossilized cases of deverbal nouns formed with the same suffix *-u̯ en-. I wonder if this is the same suffix as Skt. -van-, that forms participles e.g. cakr̥ vān ‘having done’ (Macdonell 1916:66). 44 This conclusion must be reached by elimination: the -u- cannot have been accented, or we would find plene spellings in CLuwian (cf. CLL 120, Melchert 1994:262) and Palaic (Melchert 1994:215), and -no- cannot have been accented either as the result would have likewise been long in the languages (Melchert 1994:264, 218). The accent in the infinitive in PA must have been, then, in the previous syllables. 24 while -ne could continue PA *-uno-. The interpretation of the Lycian material is at any rate tentative.45

However, if I am correct, then the infinitive II in Hittite and the infinitives in Luwian, Lycian and Palaic, that derive from PA *-uno-, are all allatives of verbal nouns. A reconstruction with a laryngeal is not necessary, and it would weaken the connection with other Indo-European formations in *-o that also have directional meaning.

The same ending -a is found in adverbs and preverbs such as anda ‘into, inwards’, appa ‘behind, afterwards, further’, katta ‘downwards, alongside’, šarā ‘upwards’ (cf. šēr ‘above, on top’), parā ‘out (to), forth, towards’ (preverb) (EDHIL 185, 192-3, 463, 630, 745). In all of these, a clear sense of ‘directed movement’ (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:76) can be distinguished, which sits well with the meaning of the allative case.46

The allative is often connected47 to Gr. πρό ‘forth, forward, before, for’ (EDG 1235), which for Beekes is an “allative formation”. To explain the adv. πρωΐ ‘early, in the morning’ he reconstructs an adverb *prō, cognate with Latin prō ‘for, before’, OHG fruo ‘early’, Avestan frā ‘forward, in front’, “perhaps an old instrumental *pro-h1 [...]” (EDG 1244). One could then think of a situation in PIE (right before the Anatolian split) along these lines: a particle *-o, that forms adverbs of direction, like *pro ‘forward’,

*h2epo ‘away’, *upo ‘under’ (EDG 117, 1535) and that became productive as a case ending in Proto-Anatolian, surviving in Old Hittite and disappearing in New Hittite and the other Anatolian languages, with significant remnants (like the Luwic dat. ending and the Pal. locative, as well as the infinitives).48 The allative fits the tendency shown so far: that the thematic nouns inflected like the athematic ones in the oblique cases, without the thematic vowel or a special set of endings.

45 The problem is that, first, a distribution of the two endings has not been found, and, second, that in principle -na and -ne cannot go back to the same PA preform, as Lyc. -a < PA *-a (< PIE *-(e/o)h2), whereas Lyc. -e < PA *-o (< PIE *-o). This forced Hajnal to conclude that “das Lyk. besitzt demnach mindestens zwei Infinitivbildungen.” (1995: 98). The two formations that he reconstructs are -e < PA *ō < PIE *-oH 45 and -a < PIE *-ah2; one then wonders why not simply reconstruct the same ending with different ablaut grades. 46 Melchert rejected the formal and semantic connection between the allative and these adverbs based on semantic grounds: “the nominal case in -a expresses a goal, mostly an attained goal. However, the adverbs in -a mark merely direction.” (2017: 529). However, his claim that the allative case expresses only ‘goal’ is disputable, cf. Luraghi 1997:12. Melchert’s claim that the adverbs/preverbs in -ā̆ cannot have the same origin as the allative because the adverbs sometimes show locatival meanings is not an obstacle, as per Luraghi (2003:21): “In the Indo-European languages, there is often a fuzzy border between Location and Direction.” 47 For which see Dunkel 1994:28 and ff., with refs. 48 For this also see Norbruis fthc. 25

4.1.2. The plural cases

Nom.pl. The thematic stems show in synchronic Hittite an ending -eš: laleš, antuḫšeš ‘men’, ÍDḪI.A-eš ‘rivers’ (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:81; EDHIL 294), etc. This ending is in principle the same as the one found in the consonant stems: ḫāššeš from ḫāšš- ‘ash’ (EDHIL 318), ḫuu̯ anteš from ḫuu̯ ant- ‘wind’ (EDHIL 368), etc. This ending is indicated in the handbooks as -ēš (e.g. Oettinger 2017:259), in view of the plene spelling of the ending shown in the other vocalic stems: the nom.pl. of ḫalki- ‘grain’ is spelled ḫal-ki-e-eš (EDHIL 274), ar-ki-i-e-eš from arki- ‘testicle’ (EDHIL 203), ḫé-e-a-u-e-eš and ḫé-e-i̯ a-u-e-š from ḫēu-, / ḫē(i̯ )au̯ - ‘rain’, an ablauting u-stem (EDHIL 340-1), and so on. However, it is important to take into account that the plene spelling of e after -i and -u did not indicate vowel length but it was an orthographical device to spell the glide (Kloekhorst 2012:248-51; Kloekhorst 2014:170). In both the consonant and the vocalic stems, the ending is in principle short.

A hypothetical PA nom.pl. ending *-es / *-és would yield Hitt. -iš for the unaccented variant, instead of -eš (Kloekhorst 2014:170-1). This necessarily forces a reconstruction with a long vowel, as only PA *-ēs / *-ḗs can consistently yield pre-Hitt. *-ēš, which is afterwards shortened to -eš.49 PA *-ēs has been traced back to the original nom.pl. ending of the -i stems, *-ei-es (cf. EDHIL 249-50 for the relative chronology of the development). In the later language, the ending -eš (i.e. the unaccented variant) is sometimes weakened to -i-iš /ɨs/ (EDHIL 249), which is unproblematic, as is a phonetic, not a phonological (or morphological) development. From MH onwards, we see both the original acc.pl. -uš (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:70) and the dat.-loc.pl. -aš being used as a nom.pl.comm. marker as well (EDHIL 214).

The other Anatolian languages point towards a different formation. Luwian has a nom.pl.comm. ending -nzi across inflections: huhanzi from huha- ‘grandfather’, a thematic noun, tadinzi from tadi- ‘father’, an i-stem (Melchert 2003: 186). Lycian shows two endings: -ẽi and -ãi in the thematic and a-stems, and a zero ending in the i-stems (including i-mutated nouns50). We do not have attestations of a consonant-stem noun in the nominative plural. Both sets of endings have the same origin: -ẽi comes from pre-

49 In closed syllables, PIE unaccented *-ē is shortened to /e/ in Old Hittite, whereas the long vowel is preserved if it was also accented (again, Kloekhorst 2014: 171, also cf. Melchert 1994: 142-3). 50 The term “i-mutation” refers to a partial merger of the common gender thematic and i-stems that takes place in the Luwic languages, for which see Starke’s already classic work (1990:59-93) but, most importantly, Norbruis fthc. 26

Lycian *-enhi, while the ending of the i-stems comes from *ĩi < *-inhi: the /n/ nasalizes the previous vowel, and the intervocalic /h < *s disappears. The Luwian and Lycian endings point to Proto-Luwic *-nsi (Melchert 1994:278; Kloekhorst 2013:141). From a PIE perspective, this ending can be analyzed as the accusative plural ending of the common gender, *-ms plus a morpheme *-i. Therefore, Luwic does not show a specific nom. pl. ending of the thematic stems.

Palaic, however, offers a much more positive outlook: it has -es for the consonant stems, that seems to continue PA *-es,51 the same ending as e.g. Gr. φύλακες, and -aš in the thematic stems. Like Hittite, Palaic merged the PA vowels /o/ and /a/; so Pal. -aš < PA *-os. According to Melchert, this ending *-os must continue PIE *-ōs (2008b:43); the shortening of unaccented long vowels in PA is regular (Melchert 1994:76). He does not elaborate any further on the origin of *-ōs, but it is reasonable to venture a contraction of *-o-es, i.e. the thematic vowel plus the nom.pl. ending of the athematic stems. If this is the case, then Palaic preserves a very old scenario: the original nominative plural endings in PA.

In the non-Anatolian Indo-European languages we see an ending *-ōs < *-o-es, preserved in Indo-Iranian and Germanic; several branches substituted it with the pronominal ending *-oi (Beekes 2011:213). The substitution had to happen in very late and in each of the individual languages, because, for example, Latin has -ī < PIE *-oi, but Oscan and Umbrian continue PIE *-ōs; likewise Old Irish maintained the old nom. ending *-ōs for the vocative plural (Sihler 1995:261).

As we have seen, the Hitt. ending must continue the PA nom.pl. ending of the i- stems, namely *-es < *-ēs (accented and unaccented) < PIE *-ei-es (Oettinger 2017:259). This ending was generalized to all the nom.pl.comm. endings regardless of their inflection, so we do not have any examples of the presumably inherited inflection prior to the generalization of *-ēs. The Luwic ending is likewise innovative. However, if we can project the archaic-looking Palaic ending to PA, then PA had a thematic nom.pl. in *-ōs < PIE *-o-es.

51 But not *-ēs, the result of which would have been Pal. **-īš or perhaps **-ēš, never -eš; cf. Melchert 1994:217. 27

Acc.pl.: in Hittite the acc.pl. ending is -uš across inflections; attuš from atta-, ḫalkiuš from ḫalki- (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:80, 88), with an accented variant, e.g. ku-u- uš from kāš ‘this one’ (EDHIL 425). Hitt. -uš continues both PIE *-oms and *-ms (Melchert 1994:182, 185-6), i.e. the acc.sg. ending pluralized with *-s.52 As Kloekhorst notes, it could not continue *-(o)ns, or we would see **-aš or perhaps **-anz (EDHIL 928-9). Since the outcome of the thematic and the athematic endings is the same, it is reasonable to think that the thematic nouns continue *-o-ms, but proving it is impossible.

However, CLuw. -nz and HLuw. -nzi (the -i presumably extended from the nominative to the accusative) (Melchert 2003:186) as well as Lycian -Vs (< *-Vns) (Kloekhorst 2013:141) point towards an ending *-ns in Proto-Luwic; since we do not have secure attestations of the acc.pl. ending in Palaic or Carian, from what material we have it is reasonable to consider that PA had *-(o)ms, inherited by Hittite, while in Proto- Luwic the nasal changed its point of articulation *-(o)ms > *-(o)ns. Therefore, the evolution of *-(o)ms would be one of the Luwic common innovations that show that it was a separate dialect from Hittite.

The same development took place in Classic Indo-European, after the Anatolian split: Cretan Doric -ονς (Miller 2014:217), Sanskrit -āns53, Gothic -ans (Beekes 2011:188, 194). It seems therefore clear that the PA ending *-oms directly continues PIE *-oms.

Gen. pl.: two genitive plural endings (both with accented and unaccented variants) are attested already in Old Hittite: -an and -aš (see below), which is the dat.-loc. pl. ending and that will replace -an completely in NH (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:73). In the case of -an, it is possible to tell from the attestations that we have that it remains the same across inflections: nepišan from nepiš- (EDHIL 603-4), u̯ ittan from u̯ itt- ‘year’ (EDHIL 1014), patān from pat- ‘foot’ (EDHIL 653-4), and likewise in the thematic nouns, where we do not have instances of the accented variant -ān: šīunan from (d)šīuna-54 ‘god’ (EDHIL 763), URU-i̯ a-an from ḫāppirii̯ a- ‘town’, NIN.MEŠ-n, which must represent /neknan/, from nekna- ‘brother’ (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:73; EDHIL 601).

52 See now Melchert 2020:269-271 for an in-depth treatment of the phonetic reality of the the acc.pl. ending. 53 With analogical -ā-, cf. Burrow 1955:236. 54 Originally the stem was /sīu-/, with a nom.sg. ši-ú-uš, but from OH times on we find a thematic stem /sīuna/. 28

Almost since the deciphering of Hittite, there has been an ongoing debate about whether forms ending in -an could be identified as genitive singular forms rather than plural.55 However, Goedegebuure has recently shown that -an is sometimes used “with singular collectives, but only when individual members of the collective need to be invoked” (2019:59); it is very common for collectives to trigger plural (2019:65).56 It is important to remark that -an had always plural semantics alone. However, I believe that Goedegebuure’s claim that “plural -aš is simply an innovation in OH” (2019:71), i.e. that OH generated a genitive plural in -aš from the genitive singular -aš, is arguable (for which see below). To my mind, positing that in NH the gen. pl. and the dat.-loc.pl. merged is a simpler and more convincing explanation (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:73; EDHIL 214).

We find cognates of Hitt. -an in Lycian -ẽ (gen.pl.) and Lydian -aν (dat.-loc.pl.) (EDHIL 172), the PA transposition of which should be *-ō̆ m (as required by the Lycian vocalism). Lydian does not have a formally distinct ; -aν is in principle a dative-locative plural ending, even though there are a couple of attestations where the word seems to function as an adnominal genitive (Melchert 2008c:60).

The problem one faces here is that, because the reflexes of PIE (unaccented) *o and *ō in closed syllables all merged in Old Hittite /a/ (Kloekhorst 2014:342-3), the Anatolian material57 cannot help to disambiguate the length of the PIE gen.pl. ending, which is reconstructed as *-ō̆ m: Greek and Sanskrit point to *-ōm, while Italic, Celtic and Balto-Slavic point to *-om (Kortlandt 1978:290-294; Beekes 2011:188). However, as long grades in PIE are typically suspect of being secondary (Clackson 2007:71-75, 81; Beekes 2011:177, 181-2), Beekes reconstructs the original PIE ending as *-om, whereas *-ōm would be the thematic ending (*-ō- would be the result of the contraction of the thematic vowel and *-om) that later spread to other paradigms (Beekes 2011:188). It is not unreasonable to assume that Hittite -an continues PIE *-om and not *-ōm, in view of the fact that the genitive singular does not show the thematic vowel and that it is not reconstructed for the dat.-loc. pl. ending either (for which see below). It would be methodologically odd to posit an unnecessary introduction of the thematic vowel in the

55 See Kloekhorst 2017:385-8 for references. 56 The attestations of singular logograms (i.e. logograms without logographic plural markers such as MEŠ or ḪI.A) with the plural ending -an is a scribal practice that allowed scribes to convey non-specificity, as Goedegebuure (2019:68-71) has shown. 57 As Lycian and Lydian also lost length distinction in this context. 29 genitive plural. I thus follow Kloekhorst in his claim that “this *-om is the direct predecessor of Hitt. -an.” (EDHIL 172).

Dat.-loc.pl.: the dative-locative plural ending in Hittite is -aš across inflectional types: gaštaš from kāšt- / kīšt- ‘hunger’ (EDHIL 461); nakkuu̯ as from nakku- ‘a remover of evils’ (EDHIL 594), but also in the thematic nouns: attaš from atta- ‘father’, gimraš from gimra- ‘the outdoors, countryside’ (EDHIL 225, 476). The long variants in pa-ta-a-aš ‘feet’ (an originally mobile paradigm) and ud-da-na-a-aš ‘words’ are proof that there was an accented variant, even if not very productive (EDHIL 214).

Throughout the history of Hittite we witness an increasing popularity of this ending: from being only a dative-locative marker in OH to marking the gen. pl., already starting in OH, to even serving as a general plural marker (nom. pl. and acc. pl. common gender) (EDHIL 461). Note that some scholars differ in their interpretation of the origin of gen. pl. -aš: “it is impossible to determine whether this ending reflects a merger with the dative-locative plural or the genitive singular” (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:73). In fact, Goedegebuure claims that plural -aš “is simply an innovation in OH” (2019:13). However, her conclusion that “had -an and -aš both been inherited as from Proto- Anatolian, we would not have seen such a limited distribution for OS -aš based on genre” is to my mind unjustified, as it mixes historical and synchronic arguments. The synchronic distribution of the endings -aš and -an in a stage of the language where both were already genitive plural markers says nothing apropos of the historical evolution of the morphemes. From a historical perspective, it makes more sense for the dat.-loc. ending -aš to merge with the genitive plural in one single oblique case than it does for a genitive singular ending -aš to acquire plural semantics. The merger of cases in the plural is a known phenomenon in Hittite itself; cf. for example the extension of the acc.pl. ending - uš to the nom.pl. in MH (Hoffner&Melchert 2008:70).

We find cognates of the dat.-loc. ending -aš in the Palaic dat.-loc. ending -aš and Lycian -e, which can only come from a PA preform *-os (to account for the Lycian vocalism). The prehistory of the suffix is somewhat difficult to establish, in part because the material from the Indo-European languages does not allow us to offer a secure reconstruction of a single dative plural.

The Indo-European languages show very considerable variety of dative, ablative, locative and instrumental endings, which makes it difficult to establish with certainty how

30 many distinct plural oblique cases the proto-language had. Sanskrit has a thematic dative- ablative plural in -ebhyas, distinct from a loc.pl. -eṣu58. Greek has both -οις and -οισι;59 the first is compared to the Indo-Iranian instrumental plural in -āis (Gotō 2017:346), while the second is explained as a cognate of Skt. -eṣu (with secondary -i instead of -u). Italic likewise continues Proto-Italic *-ōis as a dat.-abl.pl. marker (Oscan -ois, Lat. -īs) (Sihler 1995:263); the athematic ending is -bus, with a cognate in Celtic, e.g. Gaulish -bo (Lundquist&Yates 2017:2088). Germanic and Balto-Slavic have a cognate dative plural coming from PIE *-(o)mos (Beekes 2011:188; Lundquist&Yates 2017:2088-9). An element *-os has been identified in several of these endings, which, according to Lundquist and Yates, was the original dative plural in PIE (and as such it was inherited in Anatolian).

Another explanation (EDHIL 214) is that *-os was in origin a pluralized allative, presumably with more general locatival functions, that was either generated or inherited in PA as a more general circumstantial marker (that would later develop specific dative- locative semantics). Palaic would point to this direction, but it is not easy to assess whether the case ending is original or analogical, formed from the dat.-loc.sg. -a (originally an allative, see above). Regardless of the specific semantic value of *-os, it seems clear that it is a very old marker of oblique/circumstantial meaning. Since both Hittite and Lycian continue it (and probably also Palaic), it should be projected to PA: *-os. The lack of a long vowel in the thematic nouns shows that the thematic vowel, fitting the tendency shown by the other oblique cases, was not present.

58 The -e- is secondary and it comes from the pronominal declension (Burrow 1955:257), see also Beekes 2011:213. 59 For the distribution in the dialects cf. Sihler 1995:163-4. 31

4.2. The inflection of the neuter thematic nouns

In Hittite as in most Indo-European languages, the neuter nouns formally differ from the common gender nouns only in the nominative and the accusative, which receive the same ending, and in their lack of a separate ; in the oblique cases they behave in the same way. In addition to that, Hittite and Luwian both show a split ergative system, where the common gender nouns show nominative-accusative marking (like the other ancient IE languages) while the neuter nouns are marked for a case called ergative whenever they act as the subject of a transitive . More on that below. For the sake of clarity, since only two cases are to be treated, in this section the singular and plural cases will not be on separate sections.

Nom.-acc. sg. neuter: in Hittite the thematic nouns end in -an: pēdan ‘place’ from pēda-, iukan ‘yoke’60 from iuka-, ekan ‘ice’ from eka-, ḫattallan ‘club, mace’ from ḫattalla- and so on. In this respect the thematic nouns differ greatly from the athematics, where the ending of the nom.-acc.sg. neuter is zero: nēpiš ‘heaven’, kūrur ‘enmity’, etc. The ending is thus identical to the accusative singular ending of the common gender.

In the other Anatolian languages, the nom.-acc. sg. neuter endings are clearly cognate: Luwian shows an ending -n in the vocalic stems (-an, -in) and zero in the few consonants stems that we have attested, e.g. kuwalan ‘army’, a n-stem (Payne 2010:23). A noteworthy aspect of the nom.-acc.sg.neut. in Luwian (obligatorily in HLuw. and almost always in CLuw.) is that it requires a particle -sa (with an allomorph -za) to be added. This morpheme has been interpreted in various ways; the most accepted explanation nowadays is to consider it a deictic particle (Melchert 2003:186; Payne 2010:21 with refs.). Lycian presents an analogous situation, with -ẽ in the thematic nouns and zero in the athematic ones, e.g. zzatijẽ ‘offering’ (Melchert 1993:114; Kloekhorst 2013:134). Palaic has likewise -an and zero (Melchert 2008b:43; Carruba 1970:42). This material forces a PA reconstruction as either *-on or *-om.

The comparison with other IE languages (e.g. Greek ζυγόν, Skt. yugám, Lat. iugum) very clearly shows that in PIE the ending was *-om; the question of whether it was maintained as such in PA (and the /m/ > /n/ change in final position happened in Luwian, Hittite and Palaic individually) or whether it happened already in PA times is

60 Which is an inner-Hittite thematization of an original root noun, which we also have attested: iuk. This proves that the thematic word was a Classical IE thematization (EDHIL 423). 32 unproblematic, for it is a very common development. In regard to the thematic vowel, in principle a segmentation of the ending as *-o-m seems straightforward, and indeed such a reanalysis seemed to happen in Luwian. However, because the athematic neuters are not marked with *-m (where the athematic common gender nominatives are often marked with *-s) it is difficult to tell whether we should analyze *-om as a morpheme of its own or as a combination of the thematic vowel plus *-m.

This analysis would depend on how we interpret the origin of the ending; at any rate, and since we do not have instances of neuters in *-m, it is reasonable to assume that at least in PA the thematic vowel was thought to be present.

Nom.-acc. plural: Hittite regularly shows an ending -a for the thematic nouns: šākuu̯ a ‘eyes’ (EDHIL 704), u̯ arpa ‘enclosures’ (EDHIL 966); ḫūmanta, the nom.-acc.pl.neut. of the adj. ḫūmant- ‘every, each’ (EDHIL 361). This ending is shared by a part of the athematic stems (-tt, -nt, some u-stem nouns and -i and -u stem adjectives) while the rest are marked by lengthening or sometimes -i. (EDHIL 162, 378).

Cognate with Hitt. -a are clearly Luwian -a (Melchert 2003:186-7), e.g. HLuw. DOMUS-na [parna] (MARAŞ 14 3. §3) (Hawkins 2000:266); Lycian -a, e.g. ada from ade- ‘unit of money’ (CLL 8; Kloekhorst 2013:134), likewise Palaic -a, e.g. askumāwaga ‘(pure) flesh’ (neut. pl.) (Gertz 1982:196) and also Lydian -a, e.g. laqrisa ‘parts of the grave site’ (Gertz 1982:265 and ff.). This material allows to unambiguously reconstruct a PA ending *-ā (with regular shortening of final vowels in the individual languages) <

PIE *-eh2.

An explanation of Hitt. -a as coming from a hypothetical PIE *-o-h2 (so the 61 thematic vowel plus *-h2, a collective marker ) is proven impossible by Lycian, on the basis of which we would expect to find **-e. The o-grade is thus impossible, but a full grade is required because final laryngeals are regularly lost in Hittite, e.g. *méǵh2 > mēk ‘many, numerous’ (EDHIL 81). This means that from an Indo-European perspective, the nom.-acc.pl. neuter could not have been formed with the thematic vowel. Indeed, Beekes 62 concluded that the *-eh2 originated in the pronouns (where e-stems are known to exist ) and then spread to the thematic stems (Beekes 1985:195; 1994:14). This works from a formal perspective, but the relative chronology of the development of the thematic neuter

61 Cf. Clackson 2007:102-3, 107. For the collective in OH cf. Hoffner&Melchert 2008:68-9. 62 Beekes 1985:184-195. 33 nouns in PIE, including what might have been its nom.-acc.pl. ending prior to the extension of the pronominal ending, is far from clear.

Erg. sg. and pl.: Hittite, along with Luwian and possibly Lycian, shows split ergativity in its syntactic alignment: neuter nouns can only be the subject of transitive if they take a special form, called ergative: the endings are -anza for the erg.sg. and -anteš for the erg.pl., across inflections: āššuu̯ anza from āššu- ‘goodness’ (EDHIL 223), išḫananza from ēšḫar/išḫan- ‘blood, bloodshed’ (EDHIL 256); erg.pl. ḫāḫḫallantes from ḫāḫḫall- ‘greenery, vegetation’ (EDHIL 267), uddananteš from uttar/uddan- ‘word, speech, thing’ (EDHIL 931). We do not have accented variants of the endings and the thematic nouns do not have distinct endings.

Since it was determined that Hittite showed split ergativity, there has been a debate over whether the ergative forms in -anza and -anteš should be considered part of the inflectional paradigm or whether they are derived forms. A morphological analysis speaks against the former, as -anza [ants] and -anteš can be further broken down in a suffix -ant- plus the common gender nominative singular and plural endings (EDHIL 184-5). A more in-depth analysis of the Hittite material led Goedegebuure to conclude that from MH times onwards the ergative is a proper case which shows agreement in the adjectives (2012:297 and ff.). Originally, according to Goedegebuure’s analysis, -ant- was a derivational suffix that marked individuation (thus animatizing typically inanimate nouns), that later got grammaticalized as an agent marker for neuter nouns in transitive sentences (2012:299). Lopuhäa-Zwakenberg has applied a similar methodology to Lycian, where there appears to be solid albeit scarce proof for reconstructing an ergative case, and Luwian, where there was “no separate ergative case” (2017:142). His conclusion is that we should reconstruct a PA suffix *-ont-63 that had, among other functions, a personification/individuation function; that individuation feature allowed neuter nouns to function as the subject of transitive sentences.64 This construction then got further grammaticalized as an ergative case in Lycian and Middle and Neo-Hittite. In view of Goedegebuure’s and Lopuhäa-Zwakenberg’s convincing analyses, the ergative should not be reconstructed as a paradigmatic case for Proto-Anatolian.

63 Or perhaps *-ent-, cf. EDHIL 185: “this suffix -ant- must be equated with the suffix -ant- as found in the participle, which reflects *-ent-.” 64 At the moment of the Anatolian split “PIE did not allow neuter nouns in the agent position” (Lopuhää- Zwakenberg 2017:147). 34

5. The thematic stems in Proto-Anatolian.

The analysis of the inflection of the thematic nouns in the major Anatolian languages allows us to come up with the following scenario for Proto-Anatolian:

sg. pl. nom. comm. *-o-s *-o-es voc. comm. *-e / ø - acc. comm. *-o-m *-o-ms nom.-acc. neut. *-o-m *-a gen. *-os, *-oso *-om dat.-loc. *-i *-os instr. *-et abl. *-oti all. *-o

Let us compare it once again to the thematic inflection as reconstructed for PIE (Meier-Brügger 2000:198):

sg. pl. nom. comm. *-o-s *-o-es / *-oi voc. comm. *-e acc.comm. *-o-m *-o-m-s

nom.-acc. neut. *-o-m *-eh2 65 gen. sg. *-os, *-oso, *-o-sio *-o-om dat. sg. *-ōi < *-o-ei *-o-mos / *-o-bh(i)os loc. sg.66 *-o-i / *-e-i *-oi-su instr. sg. *-o-h1 / *-e-h1 *-o-mos / *-o-bh(i)os abl. sg. *-ōt < *-o-et *-o-ois

65 Lundquist&Yates 2015:2086; Clackson 2007:97-8. 66 But see Beekes 2011:187 and Kloekhorst 2018: 189-193 for the prehistory of the dative-locative in PIE. 35

It is now clear that, as stated in the Introduction, the PA thematic inflection differs from the one reconstructed for PIE in two aspects: the case endings and the prevalence of the thematic vowel.

Common gender nominative: in the singular, PA *-o-s directly continues PIE *-o-s, as does the plural *-o-es > PIE *-o-es. However, PA does not show any trace of PIE *-oi.

Vocative: in PA, the inherited voc.sg. ending *-e probably coexisted with the bare stem. Like in PIE, PA never had a specific voc.pl. ending.

Common gender accusative: in the singular and the plural the PA accusative directly continues the PIE endings.

Neuter nominative-accusative: sg. *-o-m and plural *-a < *-eh2 are clearly inherited from PIE. The individuating morpheme *-ont- was available as a derivational suffix already in PA times, but the ergative case as such crystalized only in the individual languages.

Genitive: PA retained the archaic sg. ending *-os as well as *-oso, while *-osio was reanalyzed as a derivational morpheme and it is the etymon of the adjectival suffix *-osso-. In PIE the thematic genitive plural ending was a contraction of the athematic ending with the thematic vowel, while in PA the thematic gen.pl. never had the thematic vowel and was simply *-om.

Dative-locative: while both a dative and a locative are reconstructed for PIE, it is clear that PA had a single dative-locative case. The most economical conclusion is that PA simply merged the two cases, while in Classical PIE they continued to be distinct. The thematic dat.-loc. sg. in PA continues PIE *-i, the athematic ending, whereas in Classical IE the thematic vowel was always present: *-ōi < *-o-ei. The PA dat.-loc. plural ending *-os is part of other more recent oblique case endings in Classical IE (*-o-mos, *-o-bh(i)os).

Instrumental and ablative: from a single ablative-instrumental case in *-(e)t, PA created both an instrumental in *-(e)t and, with the addition of deictic *-i, an ablative in *-(o)ti. In post-Anatolian IE (or perhaps Core IE already, in view of the Tocharian evidence) the instrumental ending is *-(e)h1 (perhaps due to the Kortlandt Effect) whereas the ablative took the shape *-ōt < *-o-et.

36

Allative: from a particle *-o that formed directional adverbs in PIE (Gr. πρό, Skt. prā́ ), PA created an allative case that survived as such in Old Hittite; it was reanalyzed as a locative in Palaic and as a dative ending in Luwian.

Concerning the thematic vowel, my conclusion is that its presence can only be assured in the direct cases. In some the oblique cases, such as the ablative, the situation is more ambiguous, but the most likely possibility is that all of the thematic oblique cases inflected like the athematic stems, without the thematic vowel. Therefore we can sum up the thematic inflection in PA as follows:

sg. pl. nom. comm. *-o-s *-o-es voc. comm. *-e / ø - acc. comm. *-o-m *-o-ms nom.-acc. neut. *-o-m *-a gen. dat.-loc. instr. like the athematic stems abl. all.

This reconstruction has several consequences vis-à-vis the development of the thematic class as a whole, namely:

• The archaic genitive singular in *-os and the direct cases were the first to develop as a separate class. This is what was inherited in Proto-Anatolian. • The thematic vowel only spread to the oblique cases after the Anatolian split. • Likewise, the creation of special endings for the thematic nouns is a Classical Indo-European innovation. • Overall, the thematic class only developed in full after the Anatolian split.

Thus, the complete thematic inflection could be considered as a post-Anatolian innovation, further supporting the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. We are now able to explain the thematic inflection in Anatolian without resorting to ad hoc developments. Second, it offers a reference point within the relative chronology of the inflection as a whole, i.e. a reference point for the more recent developments.

37

6. Conclusion

Now, the pivotal question of this thesis, “what did the thematic nominal stems look like in Proto-Anatolian?” has hopefully been answered in a satisfactory manner: in Proto- Anatolian, the thematic nominal stems, which originally developed from the PIE HD genitive, had only developed distinct forms for the direct cases. The spread of the thematic vowel and the development of special endings are both post-Anatolian innovations. The answer to that question, however, brings about a number of enquiries worthy of further research:

• Is it possible to reconstruct the relative chronology of the subsequent stages of the development of the thematic class in post-Anatolian IE? Are some of the oblique cases more recent than the others? • How does this affect the core lexicon that can be reconstructed for PA and PIE? If thematization was indeed a Classical IE development,67 what was its function? • We have seen that the case system was not identical in PA and in Classical IE. What consequences does this have for the –still not unanimous—reconstruction of the PIE case system? • What could an in-depth analysis of the accentuation of the thematic nouns in PA tell us about the position of the accent in both PIE and Classical IE?

Anatolian holds a privileged position among the Indo-European branches: that of the oldest daughter. In the same fashion, Proto-Anatolian stands in the middle between Proto- Indo-European and Classical Indo-European. There is still a lot to be discovered about the historical morphology of Indo-European in all of its stages, a task for which the analysis of the Anatolian material as well as the careful reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian can be elucidating. As such, the study of the historical grammar of Hittite, Luwic and the minor Anatolian languages is not only a fascinating and rewarding endeavor in itself: as research develops and our understanding of the proto-language grows, it becomes clearer that, in our quest to understand the mother, there is still a lot to learn from her oldest daughter.

67 As per Kloekhorst&Pronk 2019:4-5. 38

7. Excursus: Hitt. išḫā- ‘lord’ and the accent of the thematic nouns

An attempt to explain the development of the thematic class in Proto-Anatolian is bound to make at least some reference to the position of the accent, as it may have further consequences regarding the development of the class. However, the accent situation of the thematic stems is unfortunately very unclear. Fortson accounts for the accentuation of some derived thematic nominal formations (such as the τόμος – τομός distribution), but not for the underived thematic nouns (Fortson 2010:130-2). In Beekes’ reconstruction of the thematic endings (nom.sg. *-os, voc.sg. *-om, gen.sg. *-os and so on; cf. Beekes 2011: 212) they all appear unaccented, which is unexpected if the original structure of the thematic nouns were, as he reconstructed, *CC-(R)-ó- (Beekes 1985:195). Recent attempts of systematizing the behavior of the accent of the thematic nouns in PIE, such as Keydana 2013, tend to deal almost exclusively with material from Indo-Iranian and Greek.

The PIE projections of the thematic nouns in Anatolian systematically show that (UZU) the accent was not on the thematic vowel : arra- (c.) ‘arse, anus’ < PIE *h1orso-, with o-vocalism in the root, ḫāšša- (c.) ‘descendant’ < *h2éms-o-, with root accentuation;68 eka- (n.) ‘cold, frost, ice’ < PIE *iég-o-, perhaps (LÚ)kūša- (c.) ‘daughter- in-law, bride’ < *ǵéus-o- (with difficult semantics), nāta- ‘arrow, reed’ < PIE *nód-o-, šākuṷa- (n.) ‘eye’ < *sókw-o-, with o-grade and root accentuation; ṷarpa- (n.) ‘enclosure’ < PIE *ṷorbh-o-. Here I have not considered nominal suffixes that are also thematic, such as *-no-, *-ro-, *-to- etc. This small sample should at any rate be enough to make clear that already in PIE the thematic nouns could have diverse root structures and vocalism, which is explained by the idea that they are recent developments and do not show ablaut, and they continued to be a productive in deriving new nouns from pre-existent words, which accounts for the diversity in root gradation and accentuation that we have attested.

Because we have seen that the overwhelming majority of thematic nouns do not bear the accent on the thematic vowel, it is necessary to deal with the ones that (seemingly) do.69 Perhaps the most important is the word for ‘lord’, ‘master’: išḫās,

68 A secondarily thematiziced noun, derived from a s-stem. The long -ā- of the Hittite word comes from the verb ḫāš-i / ḫašš- ‘to give birth’ (EDHIL 319, 323). 69 Melchert cites a handful of “oxytone a-stems” (2020:271): alpa- ‘cloud’, irḫa- ‘boundary’, išḫā- ‘lord’ (EDHIL 169, 388, 390) and katra-, katri- ‘female religious operative’ (HED 4:1357). None of these, however, go back to an etymological thematic stem; the first three words seem to continue laryngeal stems (see below in this section for išḫā-), whereas katra- does not have a clear Indo-European etymology and is likely to be of Semitic origin. 39 iš-ḫa-a-aš, which behaves like an a-stem (with an acc.sg. išḫān, iš-ḫa-a-an) but shows consistent plene spelling of the endings; gen.sg. išḫāš, iš-ḫa-a-aš, dat.-loc.sg. išḫī, iš-ḫi- i, nom.pl. išḫēš, iš-ḫe-e-eš and so on (Kloekhorst 2014: 449; EDHIL 390). Because there is very solid evidence that shows that plene spelling was generally used to mark vowel length in Hittite,70 the long vowel of išḫās could have two origins: Proto-Anatolian *ó, that regularly yields -ā- in Hittite (Melchert 1994: 146), and Proto-Anatolian *ā < PIE

*-eh2 (Melchert 1994: 69). Naturally, either one of them would have not only phonological but also morphological consequences for the reconstruction of this word: reconstructing it with *-ó would easily explain why it inflects as a thematic noun in Hittite, but the accent would be very remarkable (as the nom.sg. of the a-stems is always -aš, not -āš, meaning that at least the PA accent was not on the thematic vowel), whereas postulating a pre-form with *-eh2 would not pose any difficulties in regard to the accentuation of the word, but the etymology would be compromised. Kloekhorst proposes a reconstruction *h1esh2-ó-, whence also Latin erus ‘master, lord’ and perhaps Gaulish Esus, Aesus ‘important god of the Gauls’ (EDL 194-5). Puhvel rejected this etymology and proposed a “substratal origin” instead (HED 1:390), but to my mind an IE or inner Anatolian formation could be further explored. The desinential accentuation is consistent throughout this paradigm: gen.sg. išḫāš, iš-ḫa-a-aš, dat.-loc.sg. išḫī, iš-ḫi-i, nom.pl. išḫēš, iš-ḫe-e-eš and so on (Kloekhorst 2014: 449). This brings about the question: is it really necessary to reconstruct it as thematic? The alternative is to consider a stem ending in a laryngeal.

We can compare the inflection with an ā-stem like ḫāššā- ‘hearth’ < *h2eh1s-eh2

(EDHIL 318). It is derived (by means of the *-eh2 suffix) from a root noun *h2eh1s- ‘ash’, and its inflection is as follows: nom.sg. ḫa-a-aš-ša-aš, acc.sg. ḫa-a-aš-ša-an, gen.sg. ḫa- 71 72 aš-ša-a-aš < nom.sg. *h2éh1s-eh2-s, acc.sg. *h2éh1s-eh2-m, gen.sg. *h2éh1s-eh2-(o)s. This static inflection is the result of analogical leveling, from an originally PD paradigm: nom.sg. *h2éh1s-h2, acc.sg. *h2éh1s-h2-m, gen.sg. *h2h1s-éh2-s.

For išḫā- an originally HD inflection has to be considered, first of all, because of its consistent desinential accentuation (without alternation), but also because, as we have

70 Although the details are more complex than that, cf. Kloekhorst 2014: 19: “[...] the most common function of plene spelling is to denote vowel length, which is usually the result of accent, but not always.” 71 There are, however, attestations with generalized short endings: nom.sg. ḫa-a-aš-ša-aš, acc.sg. ḫa-a-aš- ša-an, gen.sg. ḫa-a-aš-ša-aš (EDHIL 322-3); the long vowel is at any rate the regular outcome of PIE *-eh2. 72 Kloekhorst 2014:261-3 40 seen before, the hysterodynamic inflection tends to correlate with animate nouns, while the PD correlates with neuters.

A transposition from Hittite to PIE of the paradigm of išḫā- would look like this:

išḫās - *h1esh2-éh2-s

išḫān - *h1esh2-éh2-m

išḫās - *h1esh2-éh2-s

Compare it with the expected reconstruction of the original HD paradigm:

nom.sg. *h1ésh2-h2(-s)

acc.sg. *h1sh2-éh2-m

gen.sg. *h1sh2-h2-ós

One could posit the introduction of the (unaccented) full grade of the root from the nom. into the acc., to solve the laryngeal-heavy cluster, or to prevent ē/a ablaut on the same paradigm, and then a generalization of the acc. stem -now *h1esh2-éh2-m- to the whole paradigm took place, resulting on the paradigm as we have it in the transposition.

nom. *h1ésh2-h2(-s) *h1esh2-éh2-s

acc. *h1sh2-éh2-m *h1esh2-éh2-m

gen. *h1sh2-h2-ós *h1sh2-h2-ós

Furthermore, the root *h1esh2- is, if taken at face value, the same in ‘lord’ and in

‘blood’ (*h1ésh2-r). The differences are in the inflection and the gender. We could think of a possible etymological connection between the two, particularly if *h1es- ‘to be’ or zi 2 *h1es ‘to throw’ (cf. Hitt. šiie/a- ‘to shoot’, LIV 242 ) are involved in both ‘blood’ and ‘lord’. In that case, “lord” would have been formed on “blood” by the addition of the agentive suffix -eh2 (cf. Sasseville 2014:109), but the semantic side would be problematic. An alternative explanation is that *h1és-h2 does not continue the root for

‘blood’; instead it could be parsed as the root *h1es- plus the abstract-collective suffix

41

73 *-(e)h2, then it would have been hypercharacterized with the agentive suffix, so ‘to throw’ > ‘throwing’ > ‘thrower’. The problem with this interpretation is that one would have to admit a derivation with two suffixes that are formally identical, for which we do not have parallels.

Another possibility would be to consider a direct derivation from *h1es- with the agentive suffix. Considering an original HD inflection:74

nom. *h1és-h2

acc. *h1s-éh2-m

gen. *h1s-h2-ós

Now, the nominative would be quickly remade, because the resulting paradigm would be nom. **ēš, acc. **šām, gen. **šḫāš. The unaccented e-grade from the nominative would have been introduced most probably to the genitive first, to solve the cluster: *h1es-h2-ós > išḫāš. Perhaps the genitive displaced the very irregular-looking nominative, from which a new stem išḫā- arose, with nom.sg. išḫāš, acc.sg. išḫān, gen.sg. išḫāš.

In that case, the name of the ‘lord, master’ would come directly from the root of ‘to throw’, ‘to shoot’. In both scenarios, the inconvenient aspect is the semantics, as the meaning would have been markedly related to warfare; on the other hand, archers and especially spearmen on chariots were the backbone of the Hittite army.75 One could think of a broadening of the term, from a very technical use of the word towards a more general sense of ‘leader’, ‘lord, ‘master’, like Gr. κοίρανος ‘ruler, lord’ < IE *kor(i)o- ‘war, army’ (Beekes 2011:732). If this interpretation is correct, the etymological connection with Lat. erus should be discarded (it would remain an exclusively Italo-Celtic76 word).

Other than išḫā-, I was able to find two other examples of Hittite words whose etyma (as per the EDHIL) have the accent on the thematic vowel: damme/išḫā- ‘damaging, act of violence, punishment’ (EDHIL 825) and išnā- ‘dough’ (EDHIL 402-

3). In the case of damme/išḫā-, the etymon of which is given as *demh2-sh2ó- (a derivate zi of the verb *dméh2-s-ti > Hitt. tamāšš- ‘to oppress’), I wonder whether perhaps išḫā-

73 See Ledo-Lemos 2003:155-66 for the formation and and semantics of the suffix. 74 Beekes’ “subtype 1” of the HD inflection, i.e. the oldest (Beekes 2011:190). 75 See Burney 2018:36, 40-3, 262-3. 76 EDL 194-5. 42

‘lord, master’ could have influenced the final accentuation of the term. The reason for suspecting this is that the suffix -šḫa- is found in three other words: ḫamešḫa- ‘spring’ < (GIS̆ ) PIE *h2meh1-sh2o-, palzaḫ(ḫ)a- ‘pedestal, a flat base for statues’ < PIE *plth2-sh2ó-, h and tešḫa- ‘dream, sleep’ < PIE *d eh1-sh2o- (EDHIL 279-80, 623-4, 875). In the case of palzaḫ(ḫ)a-, the desinential plene spellings are attested only in NH could therefore be secondary; in both ḫamešḫa- and tešḫa- the suffix is unaccented. Given the semantics of damme/išḫā- and the consistent final accentuation (as opposed to (GIS̆ )palzaḫ(ḫ)a- where only some plene spellings are found), thinking of an influence from išḫā- is rather plausible.

The case of išnā- is trickier. It is usually explained as coming from PIE *i̯ es-no- (HED 1:384, EDHIL 402-3). The *-no- derivatives in Hittite do not usually show desinential accentuation: compare with the adj. kunna- ‘right, favorable’ < PIE *ḱun-no- and the nouns aruna- ‘sea’ < *h3r-éu-no-, ḫimma- ‘imitation, substitute, replica’ < PIE

*h2im-no, paršna- ‘leopard’ < PIE *prs-no, and zēna- ‘autumn’ < PIE *tiéh1-no (EDHIL 493-4, 212-3, 333-4, 644-5, 1034-5). In addition to this, we only have plene spellings of this word in the genitive singular iš-na-a-aš (OS), a case which shows considerable variation: iš-na-aš (MH/MS), iš-ša-na-aš (MH/NS) and eš-ša-na-aš. It could be that the desinential accentuation of the genitive singular is secondary, perhaps due to hypercharacterization, but this is only a speculation. It is not likely that the paradigm was mobile in origin because of the presence of the thematic suffix *-no-; if we tried to explain it as a laryngeal stem, which could potentially work vis-à-vis the semantics and the long vowel in the endings, the presence of a segment *-n- would need to be accounted for somehow. I admit that išnā- is problematic, but it is at any rate not enough evidence to seriously project that a subsection of the thematic nouns with consistent desinential accentuation. I think it can be said with a certain confidence that, in general, the thematic nouns in Hittite did not bear the accent on the thematic vowel, but further research on the apparent exceptions, as well as on the behavior of the thematic derivative morphemes like *-no- and *-ro-77, would be of immense interest, not only from the perspective of Anatolian, but also to present a more comprehensive picture of the complex and not yet well studied accent situation of the thematic nouns in PIE.

77 Cf. for example the adj. antara- ‘blue’ < PIE *mdhró-, where the chronological distribution of the plene spellings is not at all clear (EDHIL 186). 43

8. Bibliography

Adams, Douglas Q. 2013. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi.

Adiego, Ignacio J. 2010. "On Lycian Genitives in -h, -he." In Ex Anatolia Lux. Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert, by Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken and Michael Weiss, 1-9. New York: Beech Stave Press.

—. 2007. The Carian Language. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Adrados, Francisco R. 1984. "La flexion nominale du grec et de l'indo-européen III à la lumière de celle de l'anatolien." In E. Benveniste aujourd'hui. Actes du Colloque National du C.N.R.S., by Jean Taillardat, Gilbert Lazard and Guy (eds.) Serbat, 1- 16. Paris: Société pour l'Information Grammaticale.

Anthony, David. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and the Language. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Baldi, Philip. 2002. The Foundations of Latin. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Bavant, Marc. 2008. "Proto-Indo-European Ergativity...Still To Be Discussed." Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 433–447.

Beekes, Robert. 2011. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

—. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Beekes, Robert. 1994. "The Neuter Plural of Thematic Nouns." In Früh-, Mittel-, Spättindogermanisch, by George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata and Christian Seidl, 1-17. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

—. 1985. The Origins of Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

Bernabé, Alberto, and Eugenio Luján. 2006. Introducción al griego micénico. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.

Bowie, Angus Morton. 2013. Homer. Odyssey. Books XIII and XIV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44

Brosman, Paul. 1998. "On the Origin of the PIE o-stems." Folia Linguistica Historica 65- 78.

Burney, Charles. 2018. Historical Dictionary of the Hittites. New York, London: Rowman&Littlefield.

Burrow, Thomas. 1955. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber and Faber.

Carruba, Onofrio. 1970. Das Palaische. Texte, Grammatik, Lexikon. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Chantraine, Pierre. 1984. Morphologie historique du grec . Paris: Klincksieck.

Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other . Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Dunkel, George. 1994. "The IE Directive." In Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich, by George Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata and Christian Seidl, 17-37. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture. An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

François, Alexandre. 2014. "Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification." In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics,, by Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans, 161-189. London: Routledge.

Gamkrelidze, Thomas, and Vjačeslav Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo- Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

García Calvo, Agustín. 1964. "Genitivo y adjetivo. Algunos problemas en el estudio funcional de los casos y las partes de la oración en las lenguas indoeuropeas." II Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. Madrid, Barcelona: Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos. 109-120.

45

García Ramón, José Luis. 2015. "The morphology of Greek." In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph and Matthias Fritz, 654-681. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Garnier, Romain. 2014. "Nouvelles réflexions sur l’effet-Kortlandt." Glotta 140-160.

Gertz, Janet Elaine. 1982. The Nominative-Accusative Neuter Plural in Anatolian. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Goedegebuure, Petra. 2012. "Split Ergativity in Hittite." Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 270- 303.

Goedegebuure, Petra. 2019. "The Old Hittite Genitive Plural ending -an ." In QAZZU Warrai: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Kazuhiko Yoshida, by Adam Alvah Catt, Ronald I. Kim and Brent Vine, 59-73. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.

Gotō, Toshifumi. 2017. "The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan)." In Handbook of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph and Matthias Fritz, 344-377. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Güterbock, Hans, and (eds.) Harry Hoffner. 1989. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Volume L-N). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Hajnal, Ivo. 1995. Der lykische Vokalismus. Zürich: Leykam.

Hoffner, Harry, and Craig Melchert. 2008. A Grammar of the . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Jasanoff, Jay H. 2017. "The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th century and beyond." In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph and Matthias Fritz, 220- 238. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Kapović, Mate. 2017. "Proto-Indo-European Morphology." In The Indo-European Languages, by Mate Kapović, 61-111. London, New York: Routledge.

Keydana, Götz. 2013. "Accent in Thematic Nouns." Indo-European Linguistics 107-130.

46

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2013. " Ликийский язык [The Lycian language]." In Языки мира: реликтовые индоевропейские языки Передней и Центральной Азии [Languages of the World: Relict Indo-European languages, by Yuri Koryakov and Andrej Kibrik, 131-154. Moscow: Academia.

—. 2014. Accent in Hittite. A Study in Plene Spelling, Consonant Gradation, Clitics, and Metrics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

—. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2016. "The Anatolian stop system and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis." Indogermanische Forschungen 213-247.

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2017. "The Hittite genitive ending -ā̆ n." In Usque ad Radices: Indo- European Studies in Honour of Birgit Anette Olsen, by Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen, Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Guus Kroonen, Jenny Helena Larsson, Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander and Tobias Mosbæk Søborg, 385-401. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2018. "The origin of the Proto-Indo-European nominal accent-ablaut paradigms." In 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen, by Elisabeth Rieken, 179-205. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Knobloch, Jean. 1953. "La voyelle thématique -e-/-o-serait-elle un indice d'objet indo- européen?" Lingua 407-420.

Kortlandt, Frederik. 1983. "Greek numerals and PIE glottalic consonants." Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 97-104.

Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978. "On The History of the Genitive Plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic and Indo-European." Lingua 281-300.

Kortlandt, Frederik. 2012. Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: The evidence revisited. https://kortlandt.nl/publications/art282e.pdf.

—. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Ledo Lemos, Francisco. 2003. Femininum Genus: un estudio sobre los orígenes del género gramatical femenino en las lenguas indoeuropeas. Münich: Lincom Europa.

47

Lejeune, Michel. 1987. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.

Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, Milan. 2019. "The Anatolian "Ergative"." In The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European, by Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk, 131-151. Leiden: Brill.

Lubotsky, Alexander. 1989. "Against a Proto-Indo-European Phoneme *a." In The New Sound of Indo-European: Essays in Phonological Reconstruction, by Theo (ed.) Vennemann, 53-66. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Lubotsky, Alexander. 2013. "The Vedic paradigm for "water"." In Multi Nominis Grammaticus: Studies in Classical and Indo-European Linguistics in honor of Alan J- Nussbaum, by Adam I., Rau, Jeremy Cooper and Michael Weiss, 159- 165. Ann Arbor, New York: Beech Stave Press.

Lundquist, Jesse, and Anthony Yates. 2017. "The morphology of Proto-Indo-European." In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph and Matthias Fritz, 2079-2195. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Lundquist, Jesse, and Anthony Yates. 2018. "The Morphology of Proto-Indo-European." In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph and Matthias Fritz, 2079-2195. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. Hittite. München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa.

—. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The expression of semantic roles in . Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. "Plotting diachronic semantic maps: The role of metaphors." In Perspectives on Semantic Roles, by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog, 99-151. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. "The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations." Folia Linguistica 435-463.

48

Macdonell, Arthur. 1916. A Vedic Grammar for Students. 2010 impression. New Delhi: Printworld.

Matasović, Ranko. 2017. "Proto-Indo-European and Language Typology." In The Indo- European Languages, by Mate (ed.) Kapović, 153-171. London, New York: Routledge.

Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2003. Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Meillet, Antoine. 1931. "Caractère secondaire du type thématique indo-européen." Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 194-203.

—. 1908. Introduction à l'étude des langues indo-européennes. Paris: Hachette.

Melchert, Craig (ed.). 2003. The Luwians. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Melchert, Craig. 1977. Ablative and Instrumental in Hittite. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

—. 1993. Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Chapel Hill, N.C.

Melchert, Craig. 2012. "Genitive Case and Possessive Adjective in Anatolian." In Per Roberto Gusmani: studi in ricordo, by Vincenzo (ed.) Orioles, 273-286. Udine: Editrice Universitaria Udinese.

Melchert, Craig. 2020. "Hittite Historical Phonology after 100 Years (and after 20 Years)." In Hrozný and Hittite. The First Hundred Years, by Ronald Kim, Jana Mynářová and Peter Pavúk, 258-277. Leiden: Brill.

Melchert, Craig. 2008a. "Luvian." In The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor, by Roger D. Woodard, 31-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—. 1993. Lycian Lexicon. Chapel Hill.

Melchert, Craig. 2008c. "Lydian." In The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor, by Roger D. Woodard, 56-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Melchert, Craig. 2008b. "Palaic." In The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor, by Roger D. Woodard, 40-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—. 2003. The Luwians. Leiden: Brill.

49

Melchert, Craig, and Norbert Oettinger. 2009. "Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und Indogermanischen. Ein Beitrag zur relativen Chronologie." Incontri Linguistici 53-73.

Miller, Gary D. 2014. Ancient Greek Dialects and Early Authors. Boston, Berlin: De Gruyter.

Narrog, Heiko. 2014. "Extension and reanalysis of case marking vs. universals of grammaticalization." In Perspectives on Semantic Roles, by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog, 69-99. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Neu, Erich. 1979. "Einige Überlegungen zu den hethitischen Kasusendungen." In Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, by Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid, 177-197. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

Norbruis, Stefan. forthcoming. Indo-European origins of Anatolian morphology and semantics. Leiden.

Oettinger, Norbert. 2017. "The morphology of Anatolian." In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, by Jared Klein, Joseph Brian and Matthias Fritz, 256-271. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Palmér, Axel. 2019. "The genitive case in Hieroglyphic Luwian: New evidence for a distribution of the endings -as(a) and -asi." Papers presented at the Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft 2019. Ljubljana.

Payne, Annick. 2010. Hieroglyphic Luwian. An Introduction with Original Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Pooth, Roland, Leonid Kulikov, Peter Alexander Kerkhof, and Jóhanna Barðdal. 2019. "The Origin of Non-Canonical Case Marking of Subjects in ProtoIndo-European: Accusative, Ergative, or Semantic Alignment." Indogermanische Forschungen 1- 14.

Puhvel, Jaan. 1991. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Volume 3: Words Beginning with H. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

—. 1997. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Volume 4: Words Beginning with K. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

50

Rodrigues Aristar, Anthony. 1996. "The Relationship between Dative and Locative. Kuryłowicz's Argument from a Typological Perspective." Diachronica 207-224.

Sasseville, David. 2014/2015. "Luwian and Lycian Agent Nouns in *-é-leh2." Die Sprache 105-124.

Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Starke, Frank. 1990. Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1933. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.

Sturtevant, Edgar. 1940. "O-Stem Adjectives from Declined Genitives." Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Associatio 573-578.

— 1962. "The Indo-Hittite Hypothesis." Language 105-110.

Van den Hout, Theo. 2011. The Elements of Hittite. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Villar, Francisco. 1993. "Indo-European /a/ and /o/ revisited." In Comparative-Historical Linguistics: Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Papers in honor of O. Szemerényi III, by Béla Brogyányi and Reiner (eds.) Lipp, 139-160. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Villar, Francisco. 1995. "Indo-European o-stems and Feminine Stems in -i." In Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, by Frans (ed.) Plank, 243-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

—. 1974. Origen de la flexión nominal indoeuropea. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Yakubovich, Ilya. 2008. "The Origin of Luwian Possessive Adjectives." In Proceedings of the 19th Annual UCLA Indo-European Linguistics Conference. Los Angeles, November 2-3, 2006 (selected papers), by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin Huld, Angela Della Volpe and Miriam Robbins Dexter, 193-217. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

51

52