In this article, it is argued that Hittite did not only possess a series of long ejective stops, as has previously been proposed, but that it also knew a series of short ejective stops. In this way... Show moreIn this article, it is argued that Hittite did not only possess a series of long ejective stops, as has previously been proposed, but that it also knew a series of short ejective stops. In this way, the Hittite stop system can be analysed as consisting of two types of stops, plain and ejective ones, with both types showing a length opposition: plain short /t/ vs. plain long /tː/, and ejective short /t’/ vs. ejective long /t’ː/. Show less
In the field of Hittite linguistics there is a longstanding debate on the phonetics of the Hittite fortis and lenis stops in intervocalic position, and on how to phonologically interpret the... Show moreIn the field of Hittite linguistics there is a longstanding debate on the phonetics of the Hittite fortis and lenis stops in intervocalic position, and on how to phonologically interpret the distinction between these two series. Although it is usually assumed that the two series were distinct in voice, /t/ vs. /d/, respectively, arguments in favor of a length distinction, /tː/ vs. /t/, have been put forward as well (Melchert 1994 and Kloekhorst 2008; 2014; 2016). This article will discuss two recent treatments of this topic: one by Simon (2020), who specifically argues against a length distinction, and adduces new arguments in favor of the traditionally assumed voice distinction; and one by Patri (2009; 20191)), who rather posits a distinction /th / vs. /d/. It will be argued that the arguments used by both Simon and Patri are untenable, and that all evidence rather points to a length contrast, /tː/ vs. /t/. Show less
