THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF THE LUVIAN LANGUAGE VOLUME 1 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN LANGUAGES AND CIVILIZATIONS AND DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS BY ILYA S. YAKUBOVICH CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JUNE 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME ONE LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Dissertation…………………………………. 1 1.2 Basic Assumptions………………………………………….. 7 1.3 Structure of the Dissertation………………………………... 15 2 LUVIAN DIALECTS 2.1 Introductory remarks…………………………………….….. 18 2.2 Philological Classification……………………………….…. 22 2.3 Common Gender Accusative Plural………………………... 31 2.4 Extended Genitives in -assa and –assi……………………... 45 2.5 Possessive Construction with Plural Possessor…………….. 55 2.6 Imperfective -zza- and the Verb ‘to do’……………………. 65 2.7 Other Dialectal Isoglosses……………………………….…. 75 2.8 Phylogenetic Conclusions………………………………….. 83 3 LUVIANS IN WESTERN ANATOLIA? 3.1 Introductory Remarks………………………………………. 91 3.2 History of Arzawa at a Glance……………………………… 95 3.3 Arzawa as Multiethnic Society……………………………... 106 3.4 Linguistic Contacts between Arzawa and Hatti……………. 118 3.5 Historical Evidence for Luvians in Arzawa?………………. 131 3.6 Ethnicity of the Trojans……………………………………. 145 3.7 Lycians in Western Anatolia……………………………….. 160 3.8 Linguistic Contacts between Luvian and Greek……………. 176 3.9 Summary……………………………………………………. 196 4 PREHISTORIC CONTACTS BETWEEN HITTITE AND LUVIAN: THE CASE OF REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS ii iii 4.1 Introductory Remarks………………………………………. 203 4.2 Development of Reflexives in Luvian……………………… 205 4.3 Situation in Palaic and Lydian……………………………… 217 4.4 Development of Reflexives in Hittite………………………. 229 4.5 Grammatical Borrowing: When and Why?………………… 245 VOLUME TWO 5 COEXISTENCE BETWEEN HITTITE AND LUVIAN BEFORE 1350 BC 5.1 Introductory Remarks………………………………………. 258 5.2 Luvians in Old Assyrian Sources…………………………... 264 5.3 Luvian Superstrate in Old Hittite…………………………… 280 5.4 Location of Luviya…………………………………………. 297 5.5 Luvians in the Hittite Old Kingdom………………………... 308 5.6 Status of Luvian in the Early New Kingdom………………. 323 5.7 Status of Luvian in Kizzuwatna……………………………. 339 5.8 Linguistic Background of Anatolian Hieroglyphs…………. 356 5.9 Summary……………………………………………………. 375 6 CONTACT BETWEEN HITTITE AND LUVIAN IN THE EMPIRE PERIOD 6.1 Introductory remarks…………………………………….…. 380 6.2 Phonetic Innovations in New Hittite…………………….…. 387 6.2.1 Lexical Diffusion of i>e……………………… 388 6.2.2 No Sound Change e>i………………………… 397 6.2.3 Nasal Vowel Formation………………………. 401 6.2.4 Was New Hittite a Dead Language?…………. 405 6.2.5. Phonetic Hypercorrection in New Hittite…… 412 6.3. Morphosyntactic Innovations in New Hittite……………… 422 6.3.1 Diffusion of i-mutation……………………….. 423 6.3.2 Merger of Nom. and Acc. Plural……………... 428 6.3.3 Changes in Personal Pronouns……………….. 437 6.3.4 Nom.-Acc. Plural -as and Related Matters…… 443 6.3.5 Clitic Reduplication…………………………... 452 6.4 Lexical Interference with Luvian 465 6.4.1 Function of the Glossenkeil…………………... 466 6.4.2 The Glossenkeil and Manuscript Variation….. 478 6.4.3 The Glossenkeil and Genre Distinctions…….. 490 6.4.4 Pragmatics of Code-switching………………... 502 6.5 Typological Interpretation……………………………….…. 520 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………. 529 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Discrepancies in Basic Lexicon between Hittite and Luvian…… 9 Table 2: Plural Cases in the Luvian Dialects……………………………. 33 Table 3: Development of Plural Case Endings in Hittite………………… 38 Table 4: Plural Anaphoric Clitics in Luvian and New Hittite……………. 78 Table 5: Prosopography of Arzawa……………………………………… 106 Table 6: Lydian Names of Likely Luvian Origin………………………… 118 Table 7: Arzawa Ritual Practitioners and Their Compositions…………... 123 Table 8: Iron Age Luvian Pronominal Clitics……………………………. 206 Table 9: Proto-Indo-European Clitic Pronouns…………………………... 212 Table 10: Development of Luvian Clitics (Stage 1)……………………… 213 Table 11: Development of Luvian Clitics (Stage 2)…………………….. 214 Table 12: Development of Luvian Clitics (Stage 3)……………………… 215 Table 13: Palaic Pronominal Clitics……………………………………… 218 Table 14: Development of Reflexives in Palaic………………………… 223 Table 15: Lydian Ronominal Clitics……………………………………... 224 Table 16: Development of Reflexives in Lydian………………………... 228 Table 17: Hittite Pronominal Clitics……………………………………… 235 Table 18: Development of Hittite Reflexives (Stage 1)………………….. 237 Table 19: Development of Hittite Reflexives (Stage 2)………………….. 237 Table 20: Development of Hittite Reflexives (Stage 3)………………….. 244 Table 21: Development of Hittite Reflexives (Stage 4)………………….. 244 Table 22: Development of Hittite Reflexives (Stage 5)………………….. 244 Table 23: Old Hittite Medio-passive Conjugation……………………….. 250 Table 24: Assured Luvian Names in Old Assyrian Sources……………... 268 Table 25: Likely Luvian Names in Old Assyrian Sources……………….. 271 Table 26: Colony Period Names with the Element –wani……………….. 275 Table 27: Colony Period Names with the Element –nani……………….. 275 Table 28: Colony Period Names with the Element washV……………… 276 Table 29: Luvian Names in the Kuwatalla Land-grant………………….. 326 Table 30: Multilingualism in Fourteenth Century Anatolia……………… 355 Table 31: Lexical Diffusion of i>e in New Hittite……………………….. 389 iv v Table 32: Examples Adduced for e>i in New Hittite…………………….. 397 Table 33: Nasal Vowel Formation in the Draft of CTH 381……………... 402 Table 34: Hypercorrections in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit………………... 408 Table 35: Distribution of Distal Demonstratives in the Hittite Corpus….. 416 Table 36: Thematic Nominal Endings in Old Hittite…………………… 428 Table 37: Thematic Nominal Endings in New Hittite……………………. 428 Table 38: Thematic Nominal Endings in Iron Age Luvian………………. 428 Table 39: Nom. pl. c. in New Hittite Texts………………………………. 431 Table 40: Old Hittite Personal Pronouns………………………………… 437 Table 41: New Hittite Personal Pronouns………………………………... 437 Table 42: Iron Age Luvian Personal Pronouns…………………………... 437 Table 43: Origin of Clitic Reduplication According to Rieken 2006a….. 453 Table 44: Lexical Distribution of Clitic Reduplication in New Hittite…... 460 Table 45: Variation in the Use of the Gloss Mark in CTH 81…………... 487 Table 46: Variation in the Use of the Gloss-matk across the Genres…….. 492 Table 47: Types of Transfer in Language Contact……………………….. 523 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Anatolian Linguistic Phyliation……………………………….. 8 Figure 2: Luvian Dialectal Phyliation…………………………………… 84 Figure 3: Development of Reflexives in Luvian………………………… 212 Figure 4: Asymmetrical Bilingualism in the Hittite Empire…………….. 386 Figure 5: Borrowing (left) vs. Imposition (right)………………………... 521 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In May 2003, Theo van den Hout approached me with the request to write a brief review of a recently published collective volume (The Luvians. Ed. C. Melchert. HdO 1/68. Leiden-Boston: Brill) for the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. As I was making my way through the book, I realized that reviewing it on six double-spaced pages was not going to be an easy task. I had to discuss the papers by different authors trying to address the question “Who were the Luvians?”, and the answers of the contributors sometimes contradicted each other. As a reviewer, I felt obliged to take sides in unsettled debates, but there was no way of doing it within the prescribed page limit. The solution seemed to emerge when I was invited to take part in the conference “Hittites, Greeks, and their Neighbors in Bronze Age Anatolia”, which was organized by Billie-Jean Collins, Mary Bachvarova and Ian Rutherford and took place in Atlanta in September 2004. I excised the debate of the Luvian origins from my review and presented it as a talk at this forum. My own views on the subject of Luvian ethnic history, as formulated in 2004, were summarized in the paper that I submitted to the Proceedings of the Atlanta conference (Yakubovich, forthcoming2). When this paper is finally published, the readers will be able to see that it anticipates many conclusions reached in vii viii the present dissertation, but also shows a number of differences, both in the selection and presentation of the data. Not all of my initial conclusions convinced the other conference participants, and this prompted me to reject some of them, while realizing the need for a more detailed argumentation in the case of some others. Gradually I came to the realization that the appropriate venue for expanding my work would be the University of Chicago PhD thesis. My dissertation proposal was defended in December 2005. I am grateful to my Doctorvater, Theo van den Hout, Professor of Hittitology at the Oriental Institute, for immediately agreeing to supervise my work on this topic. Throughout the two years that I spent writing my dissertation, I could steadily rely on his timely and attentive reading of the submitted chapters, to which he has contributed with many useful references, corrections, and suggestions. In the meanwhile, Professor van den Hout published or wrote a number of papers of his own, which shed new light on the status of Hittite and Luvian in Bronze Age Anatolia, thus making a direct impact on the main subject of my research. I hasten to add that I never felt pressure to blindly follow his ideas, but was rather encouraged to participate in an intellectual dialogue, which, I hope, was fruitful for both sides. The other two members of my dissertation committee were H. Craig Melchert (University of California, Los Angeles) and Victor