Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 34:2 (2017) ► pp.253–277

Areal features of Hittite conditionals

Consequences for the reconstruction of Indo-European

| University of Ljubljana
Hittite conditionals exhibit some morphosyntactic peculiarities which are not yet fully understood, such as the conditional conjunction takku derived from a demonstrative plus “and”, some unexpected alternations from past to present and the irrealis particle (-)man used in hypothetical, potential and contrary-to-fact conditionals. Cross-linguistically these features are not frequent, and inheritance from Proto-Indo-European cannot be claimed. A close look into the syntax and semantics of (Peripheral) Akkadian and Sumerian reveals that they may be innovations due to language contact between Hittite and Semitic languages. This fact deserves appropriate consideration in the reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European.
Keywords: Hittite, Indo-European mood, Semitic, language contact, linguistic areas, subordination, conditional sentences
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hittite conditionals
  • 3. takku conditionals in Laws and omen texts
  • 4.Tense alternations in counterfactuals
  • 5.The modal particle (-)man
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 20 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.34.2.04zor
References (59)
References
Aistleitner, Joseph & Otto Eißfeldt. 1963. Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Beckman, Gary M. 1983. Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian learning at Hattuša. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 351. 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Under the spell of Babylon: Mesopotamian influence on the religion of the Hittites. In Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff & Yelena Rakic (eds.), Cultures in contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C., 284–297. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art / New Haven, CN: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, Carl. 1961. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen I, II. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cohen Eran. 2000. Akkadian -ma in diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 901. 207–226.Google Scholar
Cohen, Eran. 2012. Conditional structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Cotticelli Kurras, Paola. 2001. Textlinguistische Annäherungen in den hethitischen Erzähltexten. In Onfrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.–25. September 1998, 43–46. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunkel, George. 2014. Lexikon der idg: Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, vol. 2: Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Edzard, Dietz Otto. 2003. Sumerian grammar. Leiden [etc.]: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eichner, Heiner. 1971. Urindogermanisch *kʷe „wenn“ im Hethitischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 291. 27–46.Google Scholar
Fincke, Jeanette C. 2009. Zu den akkadischen Hemerologien aus Ḫattuša (CTH 546). Teil I: Eine Hemerologie für das „Rufen von Klagen“ (šigû šasû) und das „Reinigen seines Gewandes“ (ṣubāt-su ubbubu): KUB 4, 46 (+) KUB 43, 1. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 611. 111–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finet, André. 1956. L’accadien des lettres de Mari. Bruxelles: Palais des académies.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Johannes. 1927. Zum hethitischen Irrealis und Potentialis. Kleinasiatische Forschungen 11. 286–296.Google Scholar
. 1991. Kurzgefasstes hethitisches Wörterbuch. Unveränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe 1952–1966. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Gordin, Shai. 2014. The sociohistorical setting of Hittite schools of writing as reflected in scribal habits. In Shai Gordin (ed.), Visualizing knowledge and creating meaning in ancient writing systems, 57–80. Gladbeck: PeWe-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hahn, Adelaide E. 1944. The shift of a Hittite conjunction from the temporal to the conditional sphere. Language 20(3). 91–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 1982. Hittite man and nūman . In Erich Neu (ed.), Investigationes philologicae et comparativae: Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser, 38‒45. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1997. The laws of the Hittites. Leiden [etc.]: Brill.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. & Craig H. Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Part 1: Reference grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Hout, Theo van den. 1994. Träume einer hethitischen Königin: KUB LX 97+XXXI 71. Altorientalische Forschungen 211. 305–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huehnergard, John. 1979. The Akkadian dialects of Carchemish and Ugarit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2000. A grammar of Akkadian. 3rd printing, with corrections. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Kienast, Burkhart, Erhart Graefe & Gene B. Gragg. 2001. Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Krebernik, Manfred & Michael P. Streck. 2001. šumman lā qabi’āt ana balāṭim … Wärst du nicht zum Leben berufen … Der Irrealis im Altbabylonischen. In Bartelmus Rüdiger & Norbert Nebes (eds.), Sachverhalt und Zeitbezug: Semitistische und alttestamentliche Studien Adolf Denz zum 65. Geburtstag, 51–78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Carl Stegmann. 1988. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. T. 2. Satzlehre. Bd. 2. Reprograph. Nachdr. d. 2., neubearb. Aufl. Hannover, Hahn, 1914. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Labat, René. 1932. L’akkadien de Bogaz-köi. Bordeaux: Librairie Delmas.Google Scholar
Laneri, Nicola & Mark Schwartz. 2011. Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age. The Oxford handbook of ancient Anatolia: (10,000–323 bce). Oxford Handbooks Online, EBSCOhost (17 August 2014). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1984. Conditional clauses in the early Indo-European dialects. In Alberto Pajares Bernabé [ et al.] (eds.), Athlon: Satura grammatica in honorem Francisci R. Adrados, vol. 11, 235–244. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1998. Einräumung und Zugeständnis. Skalare und universale konzessive Konditionalsätze im Hethitischen. In Jiří Prosecký (ed.), Intellectual life of the Ancient Near East. Papers presented at the 43rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Prague, 1–5 July 1996, 221‒230. Prague: Oriental Institute.
. 2001. Zum Modalfeld im Hethitischen. In Onfrio Carruba & Wolfgan Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.–25. September 1998, 239–262. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen.Google Scholar
Moscati, Sabatino (ed.). 1964. An introduction to comparative grammar of Semitic languages: Phonology and morphology. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Moran, William L. 1953. Amarna šumma in main clauses. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7(3). 78–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinches, Theophilus G. 1910. An outline of Assyrian grammar. London: H.J. Glaisher.Google Scholar
Puhvel, Jaan. 1984–. Hittite etymological dictionary. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rieken, Elisabeth. 1999. Zur Verwendung der Konjunktion ta in den hethitischen Texten. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 591. 63–88.Google Scholar
Riemschneider, Kaspar K. 1970. Babylonische Geburtsomina in hethitischer Übersetzung. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Roth, Martha T. 1995. Law collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Rubio, Gonzalo. 2009. Semitic influence in the history of Latin syntax. In Pierluigi Cuzzolin & Philip Baldi (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Part 1: Syntax of the sentence, 195–239. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rutz, Matthew T. 2012. Mesopotamian scholarship in Hattusa and the Sammeltafel KUB 4.53. Journal of the American Oriental Society 132(2). 171–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Jeanette Sakel & Yaron Matras (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 38), 15–29. New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Smyth, Herbert W. 1920. Greek grammar for colleges. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Soden, Wolfram von & Werner R. Mayer. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Roma: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar
Soldt, Wilfred H. van. 1991. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and grammar. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.Google Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1948. Hethiter und Hethitisch. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Speiser, Ephraim A. 1947. A note on the derivation of šumma . Journal of Cuneiform Studies 11. 321–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternemann, Reinhard. 1965. Temporale und konditionale Nebensätze des Hethitischen. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 111. 231–274, 377–415.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tischler, Johann & Günter Neumann. 1977–. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Traugott Closs, Elizabeth. 1985. Conditional markers. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, 24–26 June 1983, 289–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2007. Strategies of subordination in Vedic. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Nathan. 2012. Most probably: Epistemic modality in Old Babylonian. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 61. 1–49.Google Scholar
. 1985. Indo-European *-kwe “and” in Hittite. In Ölberg, Hermann M. & Gernot Schmidt (eds.), Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch zum 65. Geburtstag am 5. Januar 1984, dargebracht von Freunden und Kollegen, 491–497. Innsbruck: Inst. für Sprachwissenschaft der Univ. Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Weeden, Mark. 2011. Hittite logograms and Hittite scholarship. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Zorman, Marina. 2016. Modal construction with man in Hittite and Akkadian. Journal of Indo-European Studies 44(3–4). 1–11.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Aubrey, Rachel & Michael Aubrey
2022. Bibliography of Conditionals. Journal of Translation 18:2 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.