3

One of the oldest splits within Indo-European was between the Centum and Satem languages; they differ in what they did to the "accented velar" phonemes (like * and *ǵ).

However, if I understand right, the Anatolian languages split off some time before the Centum-Satem division happened.

So, what happened to "accented velars" in Anatolian?

7

Several points:
1. some people have put into question the distinction between the k, g, gh series (usually called "velars") and your "accented velars" *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵh (usually called "palato-velars") in PIE. IMO this is hardly defensible, and the distinction is doubtless necessary.
2. the conventional view is that both velars and palato-velars become k or kk in Hittite. See for example Kloeckhorst's etymological dictionary of Hittite.
3. some people (like Pisani) have challenged that point of view. IMO there's indeed a problem with the conventional approach. And I rather believe that the so-called velars become spirants h and hh in Hittite.

| improve this answer | |
  • Fascinating! Do you have any examples of PIE *k, *g, or *gh becoming Hittite h or hh? If so, that would round out this answer nicely (and I'd happily accept it). – Draconis Nov 14 '19 at 15:52
  • for *k, a good example is "blood" *H1es-rk => Hittite eshar vs Old Indian asrk. I think we don't need to posit that Hittite is from *H1esH2r. If *k > h is accepted, then the equation is perfect. Another item is Hittite *huis- "to live", which can easily be derived from *gweyH- "to be alive". Of course, if we accept the spirantisation of velars in Hittite, it changes the picture of Hittite etymology. – Arnaud Fournet Nov 15 '19 at 7:23
3

Whether you believe that *k and *ḱ merged to a single phoneme in Anatolian, or that *k split into *k and *ḱ after the separation of Anatolian from IE - in both cases you will get the same result.

| improve this answer | |
  • Not quite the same result: the three-way distinction still discernible (just) in Luvian is best explained a merger within Anatolian (see Draconis’ new answer). – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 10 at 6:12
3

Melchert argues that the "plain velars" and "accented velars" remained distinct in Proto-Anatolian, because they show different reflexes in Luvian: *k becomes Luvian k, while * becomes Luvian z.

He cites as an example the Luvian pronoun zi- "this" from PIE *ḱis, cognate with Hittite ki-, Latin cis, OCS , English he, etc.

| improve this answer | |
  • The claim originated with Melchert (as far as I know), but I don’t think it’s really a case of just “Melchert argues” anymore – in my experience, most Indo-Europeanists accept the three-way distinction in Luvian nowadays. It seems as close to communis opinio as anything in Anatolian ever seems to get. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 10 at 6:11
  • @JanusBahsJacquet That's fair! In that case I'll probably move the accepted answer to this one—nothing against Fournet's answer, but if there's a decent scholarly consensus on this, that's what I was looking for. – Draconis May 10 at 16:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.