Armenian is an Indo-European language, but it is known for harboring many words that are not inherited from Proto-Indo-European. This PhD dissertation takes a close look at three distinct, early... Show moreArmenian is an Indo-European language, but it is known for harboring many words that are not inherited from Proto-Indo-European. This PhD dissertation takes a close look at three distinct, early loanword layers in Armenian: words from Hurro-Urartian languages, from Kartvelian languages, and from at least one language that also loaned words to other Indo-European languages. By scrutinizing these three groups of loanwords, we learn more about the contact events that shaped the early history of Armenian, but also about the population movements that brought speakers of Armenian into their historical homeland in the highlands south of the Caucasus. Show less
The East Baltic languages, Lithuanian and Latvian, are well known for their conservative phonology with respect to Proto-Indo-European. This has led to a stereotype that these languages have... Show moreThe East Baltic languages, Lithuanian and Latvian, are well known for their conservative phonology with respect to Proto-Indo-European. This has led to a stereotype that these languages have developed in relative isolation without much contact with other languages. In this dissertation, I take a deep dive into the East Baltic lexicon, peeling away the layers of prehistoric borrowings in the process. As well as significant contact events with known languages, like the Russian dialect of Novgorod-Pskov, Gothic and the ancestors of modern Finnish, Sámi and Mordvin, the lexicon also reveals evidence of contact with unattested languages from which earlier populations must have shifted upon the arrival of the Balts in the Baltic region. The fragments obtained not only shed light on the linguistic features of these lost languages, but also provide a new perspective on the sociolinguistic scenario which led the earlier populations of the region to undergo language shift. Show less
Since the so-called “Ancient DNA Revolution” of the past decade, which has yielded many new insights into the genetic prehistory of Europe and large parts of Asia, it can no longer be doubted that... Show moreSince the so-called “Ancient DNA Revolution” of the past decade, which has yielded many new insights into the genetic prehistory of Europe and large parts of Asia, it can no longer be doubted that the Indo-European languages spoken in Europe and Central and South Asia were brought there from the late fourth millennium BCE onward by population groups from the Pontic–Caspian steppes who had belonged to the archaeologically defined Yamnaya culture.1 We may therefore assume that the population groups bearing the Yamnaya culture can practically be equated with the speakers of Proto-Indo-European, the reconstructed ancestor of the Indo-European languages of Europe and Asia, and that the spread of the Indo-European language family is a direct consequence of these migrations of Yamnaya individuals into Europe and Asia. Show less
This article studies Young Avestan forms in -āiš (formally instr.pl.m./n. of a-stems), -ā ̊ (formally nom.-acc.pl.f. of ā-stems) and -īš (formally nom.pl.f. of ī-stems) that are used in contexts... Show moreThis article studies Young Avestan forms in -āiš (formally instr.pl.m./n. of a-stems), -ā ̊ (formally nom.-acc.pl.f. of ā-stems) and -īš (formally nom.pl.f. of ī-stems) that are used in contexts where neuter nom.-acc.pl. / collective forms in -ā ̆(a-stems) and -ī ̆(consonant-stems) are expected. It is argued that these forms in -āiš, -ā ̊ , and -īš are secondarily created pluralizations of original neuter collectives in reaction to the syntactic change according to which their original singular verbal concord is in Young Avestan times changed to plural verbal concord. The choice for forming these newly pluralized collectives with the endings -āiš, -ā ̊ , and -īš lies in the fact that these are the plural variants of the singular endings -ā ̆(instr.sg.m./n. of a-stems), -ā ̆(nom.sg.f. of ā-stems) and -ī ̆(nom.sg.f. of ī-stems), respectively, which are formally identical to the collective neuter endings -ā ̆(a-stems) and -ī ̆ (consonant-stems). The ‘collective plural’ forms in -āiš, -ā ̊ , and -īš can thus be explained through a simple four-part analogy. Show less
My postulation of a phonemic glottal stop in Hittite as the outcome of PIE *h1 (Kloekhorst 2006, 2008, 2014) has been criticized by several colleagues. In the present paper I will reassess the... Show moreMy postulation of a phonemic glottal stop in Hittite as the outcome of PIE *h1 (Kloekhorst 2006, 2008, 2014) has been criticized by several colleagues. In the present paper I will reassess the evidence and argue that most of the points of criticism cannot withstand scrutiny, and that Hittite did indeed contain a phonemic glottal stop in the environments /°VʔV°/ and /ʔV°/. Moreover, it will be argued that the spelling practices employed by the Hittite scribes to note down the glottal stop in these environments perfectly match the Old Babylonian scribal practice for indicating an ’aleph (= [ʔ]) in these positions. Show less
Inspired by earlier work on the distribution between the sign kán and the sign sequences k/g/qa-an in Hittite texts (Frotscher forthcoming), this article investigates the Hittite usage of three... Show moreInspired by earlier work on the distribution between the sign kán and the sign sequences k/g/qa-an in Hittite texts (Frotscher forthcoming), this article investigates the Hittite usage of three more cuneiform signs of the structure CaR (pár, ḫal and tar) vis-à-vis their corresponding Ca-aR spellings (pa-ar, ḫa-al, t/da-ar). It is argued that the distribution between CaR and Ca-aR spellings is not random, but etymologically determined: consistent spelling with CaR reflects PIE *CR̥ and *CeR[C], whereas alternation between CaR and Ca-aR reflects PIE *CoR. This is interpreted as evidence for a synchronic phonetic / phonemic distinction between the two types of spelling: consistent CaR renders the vowel /ə/, whereas alternation between CaR and Ca-aR denotes the vowel /a/. Show less
This article starts with the observation that the Hittite 3sg.pret.act. form šipantaš, šipandaš (OH/MS) ‘(s)he libated’ can hardly be analysed as consisting of a tarna-class inflected stem šipant... Show moreThis article starts with the observation that the Hittite 3sg.pret.act. form šipantaš, šipandaš (OH/MS) ‘(s)he libated’ can hardly be analysed as consisting of a tarna-class inflected stem šipant/da- + the 3sg.pret.act. ending -š, since the OH/MH verbal paradigm of ‘to libate’ contains no other tarna-class inflected forms. It is therefore argued that šipantaš, šipandaš should be analysed as consisting of the consonantal verbal stem šipant- + -š, which implies that the a in šipantaš, šipandaš is an empty vowel. In order to explain the spelling -ntaš, -ntaš vs. the spelling -nza, which is commonly used to note down the sequence /-nts/ < PIE *-nts, it is argued that -ntaš, -ndaš denotes /-ntːs/, the regular outcome of a PIE sequence *-nds. Show less
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the phonetics and phonology of the Hittite dental stops, which is especially based on a detailed treatment of the usage of the cuneiform signs TA... Show moreThis article provides a comprehensive analysis of the phonetics and phonology of the Hittite dental stops, which is especially based on a detailed treatment of the usage of the cuneiform signs TA and DA in all positions in the word, and in all chronological stages of Hittite. Show less
Following Rieken’s 2008 establishment that the Anatolian hieroglyphic sign *41 (CAPERE/tà) denoted the syllable /da/, with lenis /d/, Yakubovich (2008) argued that the sign’s phonetic value was... Show moreFollowing Rieken’s 2008 establishment that the Anatolian hieroglyphic sign *41 (CAPERE/tà) denoted the syllable /da/, with lenis /d/, Yakubovich (2008) argued that the sign’s phonetic value was acrophonically derived from the Hittite verb dā-i /d- ‘to take’. In the present article it is argued that this view can no longer be upheld in view of new proposals regarding the phonetic value of sign *41 (rather [ða]) and the interpretation of Hitt. dā-i /d- (rather [tʔā-]). It is proposed that the value of sign *41 has instead been derived from the Luwian verb ‘to take’, lā-i /l-, which from a historical linguistic perspective must go back to earlier *ðā-i / *ð-. This acrophonic assignment of the value [ða] to sign *41 must then be dated to the beginning of the 18th century BCE at the latest, which implies that already by that time the Anatolian hieroglyphs were in use as a real script that made use of phonetic signs. Show less
In this article it is argued that the Hittite ts-sound spelled by z-signs was not a monophonemic affricate /ts /, as is often assumed, but that Hittite instead contained several clusters of dental... Show moreIn this article it is argued that the Hittite ts-sound spelled by z-signs was not a monophonemic affricate /ts /, as is often assumed, but that Hittite instead contained several clusters of dental stop + sibilant. We can distinguish four of such clusters in intervocalic position: (1) lenis /t/ + lenis /s/, which is spelled Vz-zV; (2) lenis /t/ + fortis /sː/, which is spelled Vz-šV; (3) fortis /tː/ + lenis /s/, which is spelled Vz-zV; and (4) fortis /tː/ + fortis /sː/, which is spelled Vt-šV. Show less
