(natively 𒉈𒅆𒇷 nešili
/ "the language of Neša
", or nešumnili
/ "the language of the people of Neša"), also known as Nesite
/ Neshite, Nessite), was an Indo-European language
that was spoken by the Hittites
, a people of Bronze Age Anatolia
who created a mighty state, centred on Hattusa
, as well as parts of the northern Levant
and Upper Mesopotamia
The language, now long extinct, is attested in cuneiform
, in records dating from the 17th
) to the 13th centuries BCE, with isolated Hittite loanwords and numerous personal names appearing in an Old Assyrian
context from as early as the 20th century BCE, making it the earliest-attested of the Indo-European languages.
Indo-European family tree in order of first attestation. Hittite belongs to the family of Anatolian languages and the oldest written Indo-European language.
is the modern scholarly name for the language, based on the identification of the Hatti (Ḫatti
) kingdom with the Biblical Hittites
), although that name appears to have been applied incorrectly:
The terms Hattian
refer respectively to the indigenous people who preceded them and to their non-Indo-European Hattic language
In multilingual texts found in Hittite locations, passages written in Hittite are preceded by the adverb nesili
), "in the [speech] of Neša
(Kaneš)", an important city during the early stages of the Hittite Old Kingdom
. In one case, the label is Kanisumnili
, "in the [speech] of the people of Kaneš".
Although the Hittite New Kingdom
had people from many diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, the Hittite language was used in most secular written texts. In spite of various arguments over the appropriateness of the term, Hittite
remains the most current term because of convention and the strength of association with the Biblical Hittites
. The endonymic
, and its Anglicized variants (Nesite
), have never caught on.
The first substantive claim as to the affiliation of Hittite was made by Jørgen Alexander Knudtzon
in 1902, in a book devoted to two letters between the king of Egypt and a Hittite ruler, found at El-Amarna
. Knudtzon argued that Hittite was Indo-European, largely because of its morphology
. Although he had no bilingual texts, he was able to provide a partial interpretation of the two letters because of the formulaic nature of the diplomatic correspondence of the period.
His argument was not generally accepted, partly because the morphological similarities he observed between Hittite and Indo-European can be found outside of Indo-European and also because the interpretation of the letters was justifiably regarded as uncertain.
Knudtzon was definitively shown to have been correct when many tablets written in the familiar Akkadian cuneiform script
but in an unknown language were discovered by Hugo Winckler
in what is now the village of Boğazköy
, Turkey, which was the former site of Hattusa
, the capital of the Hittite state.
Based on a study of this extensive material
, Bedřich Hrozný
succeeded in analyzing the language. He presented his argument that the language is Indo-European in a paper published in 1915 (Hrozný 1915), which was soon followed by a grammar of the language (Hrozný 1917). Hrozný's argument for the Indo-European affiliation of Hittite was thoroughly modern although poorly substantiated. He focused on the striking similarities in idiosyncratic aspects of the morphology that are unlikely to occur independently by chance or to be borrowed.
They included the r
in some noun stems (the heteroclitics
) and vocalic ablaut
, which are both seen in the alternation in the word for water
between the nominative singular, wadar
, and the genitive singular, wedenas
. He also presented a set of regular sound correspondences. After a brief initial delay because of disruption during the First World War
, Hrozný's decipherment, tentative grammatical analysis and demonstration of the Indo-European affiliation of Hittite were rapidly accepted and more broadly substantiated by contemporary scholars such as Edgar H. Sturtevant
, who authored the first scientifically acceptable Hittite grammar with a chrestomathy
and a glossary. The most up-to-date grammar of the Hittite language is currently Hoffner and Melchert (2008).
Unlike other Indo-European languages, Hittite does not distinguish between masculine and feminine grammatical gender, and it lacks subjunctive and optative moods
as well as aspect. Various hypotheses have been formulated to explain these differences.
Other linguists, however, prefer the Schwund ("loss") Hypothesis in which Hittite (or Anatolian) came from Proto-Indo-European, with its full range of features, but the features became simplified in Hittite.
A third hypothesis, supported by Calvert Watkins
and others, views the major families as all coming from Proto-Indo-European directly and as being all sister languages or language groups; differences might be explained as dialectical.
According to Craig Melchert
, the current tendency is to suppose that Proto-Indo-European evolved and that the "prehistoric speakers" of Anatolian became isolated "from the rest of the PIE speech community, so as not to share in some common innovations".
Hittite and the other Anatolian languages
split off from Proto-Indo-European
at an early stage. Hittite thus preserved archaisms that would be lost in the other Indo-European languages.
Hittite has many loanwords, particularly religious vocabulary from the non-Indo-European Hurrian
languages. The latter was the language of the Hattians
, the local inhabitants of the land of Hatti
before they were absorbed or displaced by the Hittites
. Sacred and magical texts from Hattusa
were often written in Hattic, Hurrian
even after Hittite had become the norm for other writings.
The Hittite language has traditionally been stratified into Old Hittite (OH), Middle Hittite (MH) and New Hittite or Neo-Hittite (NH, not to be confused with the polysemic
use of "Neo-Hittite
" label as a desination for the later period, which is actually post-Hittite), corresponding to the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms of the Hittite history (ca. 1750–1500 BCE, 1500–1430 BCE and 1430–1180 BCE, respectively). The stages are differentiated on both linguistic and paleographic grounds.
Hittite was written in an adapted form of Peripheral Akkadian cuneiform
orthography from Northern Syria. The predominantly syllabic nature of the script makes it difficult to ascertain the precise phonetic qualities of some of the Hittite sound inventory
The syllabary distinguishes the following consonants (notably, the Akkadian s series is dropped),
b, d, g, ḫ, k, l, m, n, p, r, š, t, z,
combined with the vowels a, e, i, u. Additionally, ya (= I.A : 𒄿𒀀), wa (= PI : 𒉿) and wi (= wi5 = GEŠTIN : 𒃾) signs are introduced.
The Akkadian unvoiced/voiced series (k/g, p/b, t/d) do not express the voiced/unvoiced contrast in writing, but double spellings in intervocalic positions represent voiceless consonants in Indo-European (Sturtevant's law
The limitations of the syllabic script in helping to determine the nature of Hittite phonology have been more or less overcome by means of comparative etymology and an examination of Hittite spelling-conventions. Accordingly, scholars have surmised that Hittite possessed the following phonemes:
- Long vowels appear as alternates to their corresponding short vowels when they are so conditioned by the accent.
- Phonemically distinct long vowels occur infrequently.
Hittite had two series of consonants, one which was written always geminate
in the original script, and another that was always simple. In cuneiform
, all consonant sounds except for glides could be geminate. It has long been noticed that the geminate series of plosives is the one descending from Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops
, and the simple plosives come from both voiced and voiced aspirate stops, which is often referred as Sturtevant's law
. Because of the typological implications of Sturtevant's law, the distinction between the two series is commonly regarded as one of voice. However, there is no agreement over the subject among scholars since some view the series as if they were differenced by length
, which a literal interpretation of the cuneiform orthography would suggest.
Supporters of a length distinction usually point the fact that Akkadian
, the language from which the Hittites borrowed the cuneiform script, had voicing, but Hittite scribes used voiced and voiceless signs interchangeably. Alwin Kloekhorst
also argues that the absence of assimilatory voicing is also evidence for a length
distinction. He points out that the word "e-ku-ud-du
- [ɛ́gʷtu]" does not show any voice assimilation. However, if the distinction were one of voice, agreement between the stops should be expected since the velar
and the alveolar
plosives are known to be adjacent since that word's "u" represents not a vowel but labialization
Hittite preserves some very archaic features lost in other Indo-European languages. For example, Hittite has retained two of the three laryngeals
word-initially). Those sounds, whose existence had been hypothesized in 1879 by Ferdinand de Saussure
, on the basis of vowel quality in other Indo-European languages, were not preserved as separate sounds in any attested Indo-European language until the discovery of Hittite. In Hittite, the phoneme is written as ḫ
. In that respect, Hittite is unlike any other attested Indo-European language and so the discovery of laryngeals in Hittite was a remarkable confirmation of Saussure's hypothesis.
Both the preservation of the laryngeals and the lack of evidence that Hittite shared certain grammatical
features in the other early Indo-European languages have led some philologists to believe that the Anatolian languages split from the rest of Proto-Indo-European much earlier than the other divisions of the proto-language
. See #Classification
above for more details.
Hittite is the oldest attested Indo-European language.
It lacks several grammatical features that are exhibited by other early-attested Indo-European languages
such as Sanskrit
, Ancient Greek
, Old Persian
. Notably, Hittite does not have a masculine-feminine gender system. Instead, it has a rudimentary noun-class system that is based on an older animate–inanimate opposition.
for nine cases
, and instrumental
; two numbers
: singular, and plural; and two animacy
classes: animate (common), and inanimate (neuter).
Adjectives and pronouns agree with nouns for animacy
, and case
The distinction in animacy
is rudimentary and generally occurs in the nominative case
, and the same noun is sometimes attested in both animacy classes. There is a trend towards distinguishing fewer cases in the plural than in the singular and a trend towards distinguishing the plural in fewer cases. The ergative case
is used when an inanimate noun is the subject
of a transitive verb
. Early Hittite texts have a vocative case
for a few nouns with -u
, but it ceased to be productive by the time of the earliest discovered sources and was subsumed by the nominative in most documents. The allative
was subsumed in the later stages of the language by the dative
. An archaic genitive
is found irregularly in earlier texts, as is an instrumental
plural in -it
. A few nouns also form a distinct locative
, which had no case ending at all.
The examples of pišna- ("man") for animate and pēda- ("place") for inanimate are used here to show the Hittite noun declension's most basic form:
The mi-conjugation is similar to the general verbal conjugation paradigm in Sanskrit and can also be compared to the class of mi-verbs in Ancient Greek. The following example uses the verb ēš-/aš- "to be".
Hittite syntax shows one noteworthy feature that is typical of Anatolian languages: commonly, the beginning of a sentence or clause is composed of either a sentence-connecting particle or otherwise a fronted or topicalized form, and a "chain" of fixed-order clitics
is then appended.
- ^ Yakubovich 2020, p. 221–237.
- ^ van den Hout, Theo, (2020). A History of Hittite Literacy: Writing and Reading in Late Bronze-Age Anatolia (1650–1200 BC), Published online: 18 December 2020, Print publication: 07 January 2021, "Introduction": "...The hero of this book is literacy, writing and reading, in the Hittite kingdom in ancient Anatolia, or modern-day Turkey, from roughly 1650 to 1200 bc, give or take several years or perhaps even a decade or two..."
- ^ Yakubovich 2010, p. 307
- ^ Güterbock, Hans Gustav; Hoffner, Harry A.; Diamond, Irving L. (1997). Perspectives on Hittite civilization. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. p. 188. ISBN 9781885923042.
- ^ J. D. Hawkins (2009). "The Arzawa Letters in Recent Perspective" (PDF). British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan. 14: 73–83.
- ^ Beckman, Gary (2011). S.R. Steadman; G. McMahon (eds.). "The Hittite Language: Recovery and Grammatical Sketch". The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10,000-323 B.C.E.: 518–519. hdl:2027.42/86652.
- ^ Silvia Alaura: "Nach Boghasköi!" Zur Vorgeschichte der Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša und zu den archäologischen Forschungen bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg, Benedict Press 2006. ISBN 3-00-019295-6
- ^ Fortson (2004:154)
- ^ Melchert 2012, pp. 2–5.
- ^ Melchert 2012, p. 7.
- ^ Jasanoff 2003, p. 20 with footnote 41
- ^ Coulson 1986, p. xiii
- ^ "Hittite Grammar" (PDF). Assyrianlanguages.org. Retrieved 2017-01-17.
- ^ "The Telepenus "Vanishing God" Myth (Anatolian mythology)". Utexas.edu. Retrieved 2017-01-17.
Introductions and overviews
- Goetze, Albrecht (1954). “Review of: Johannes Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg: Winter)”, Language 30, pp. 401–5.
- Kloekhorst, Alwin. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2008.
- Puhvel, Jaan (1984–). Hittite Etymological Dictionary. 10 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1931). “Hittite glossary: words of known or conjectured meaning, with Sumerian ideograms and Accadian words common in Hittite texts”, Language 7, no. 2, pp. 3–82., Language Monograph No. 9.
- The Chicago Hittite Dictionary
- Hoffner, Harry A.; Melchert, H. Craig (2008). A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona: Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-1-57506-119-1.
- Hout, Theo van den (2011). The Elements of Hittite. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139501781.
- Hrozný, Bedřich (1917). Die Sprache der Hethiter: ihr Bau und ihre Zugehörigkeit zum indogermanischen Sprachstamm. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
- Inglese, Guglielmo (2020). The Hittite Middle Voice: Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology. Leiden-Boston: Brill. ISBN 9789004432307.
- Jasanoff, Jay H. (2003). Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924905-9.
- Luraghi, Silvia (1997). Hittite. Munich: Lincom Europa. ISBN 3-89586-076-X.
- Melchert, H. Craig (1994). Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ISBN 90-5183-697-X.
- Patri, Sylvain (2007). L'alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d'Anatolie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-05612-0.
- Rose, S. R. (2006). The Hittite -hi/-mi conjugations. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. ISBN 3-85124-704-3.
- Sturtevant, Edgar H. A. (1933, 1951). Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. Rev. ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951. First edition: 1933.
- Sturtevant, Edgar H. A. (1940). The Indo-Hittite laryngeals. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.
- Watkins, Calvert (2004). "Hittite". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages: 551–575. ISBN 0-521-56256-2.
- Yakubovich, Ilya (2010). Sociolinguistics of the Luwian Language. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9789004177918.
- Archi, Alfonso (2010). "When Did the Hittites Begin to Write in Hittite?". Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. pp. 37–46. ISBN 9783447061193.
- Hrozný, Bedřich (1915). "Die Lösung des hethitischen Problems". Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 56: 17–50.
- Melchert, Craig (2020). "Luwian". A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 239–256. ISBN 9781119193296.
- Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1932). "The Development of the Stops in Hittite". Journal of the American Oriental Society. American Oriental Society. 52 (1): 1–12. doi:10.2307/593573. JSTOR 593573.
- Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1940). "Evidence for voicing in Hittite g". Language. Linguistic Society of America. 16 (2): 81–87. doi:10.2307/408942. JSTOR 408942.
- Wittmann, Henri (1969). "A note on the linguistic form of Hittite sheep". Revue hittite et asianique. 22: 117–118.
- Wittmann, Henri (1973) . "Some Hittite etymologies". Die Sprache. 10, 19: 144–148, 39–43.
- Wittmann, Henri (1969). "The development of K in Hittite". Glossa. 3: 22–26.
- Wittmann, Henri (1969). "The Indo-European drift and the position of Hittite". International Journal of American Linguistics. 35 (3): 266–268. doi:10.1086/465065. S2CID 106405518.
- Yakubovich, Ilya (2020). "Hittite". A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 221–237. ISBN 9781119193296.
Last edited on 5 May 2021, at 00:53
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0
unless otherwise noted.