Kassian 2010 Hattic-SCauc

Sonderdruck aus
UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN

Internationales Jahrbuch
fr die
Altertumskunde Syrien-Palstinas

Herausgegeben von
Manfried Dietrich Oswald Loretz

Band 41
2009

Ugarit-Verlag Mnster
2010

Anschriften der Herausgeber:
M. Dietrich / O. Loretz, Schlaunstr. 2, 48143 Mnster
Manuskripte sind an einen der Herausgeber zu senden.
Fr unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewhr bernommen werden.
Die Herausgeber sind nicht verpflichtet,
unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen.
Manuskripte fr die einzelnen Jahresbnde werden jeweils
bis zum 31. 12. des vorausgehenden Jahres erbeten.

2010 Ugarit-Verlag, Mnster
(www.ugarit-verlag.de)
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.

Herstellung: Hubert & Co, Gttingen
Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-042-5

Printed on acid-free paper

Inhalt

Artikel
Bojowald, Stefan
Noch einmal zum Personennamen t 6 6 ww in Urk. IV, 11, 9 ..........................1
Bretschneider, Joachim / Van Vyve, Anne-Sophie / Jans, Greta
War of the lords. The battle of chronology. Trying to recognize historical
iconography in the 3
rd
millennium glyptic art in seals of Ishqi-Mari
and from Beydar..............................................................................................5
De Backer, Fabrice
Evolution of War Chariot Tactics in the Ancient Near East..........................29
Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald
Der ugaritische Parallelismus mn || dbb (KTU 1.4 I 3840) und die
Unterscheidung zwischen dbb I, dbb II, dbb III................................................ 47
Ugaritisch nn (Komposit-)Bogenschtze, qt Kompositbogen,
Bogen und qt / Pfeil. Beobachtungen zu KTU 1.17 VI 1314.
18b25a .............................................................................................................. 51
Prventiv-Beschwrung gegen Schlangen, Skorpione und Hexerei
zum Schutz des Prfekten Urtnu (KTU 1.178 = RS 92.2014) ........................ 65
Urbild und Abbild in der Schlangenbeschwrung KTU
3
1.100.
Epigraphie, Kolometrie, Redaktion und Ritual .............................................75
Die keilalphabetischen Briefe aus Ugarit (I). KTU 2.72, 2.76, 2.86, 2.87,
2.88, 2.89 und 2.90........................................................................................... 109
md I Paar und md II Axt, Doppelaxt nach KTU 4.169; 4.363;
4.136; 1.65 ..................................................................................................165
Faist, Betina I. / Justel, Josu-Javier / Vita, Juan-Pablo
Bibliografa de los estudios de Emar (4) .....................................................181
iv Inhalt [UF 41
Galil, Gershon
The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa / Neaim.
Script, Language, Literature and History ....................................................193
Gillmann, Nicolas
Quelques remarques additionnelles sur le siege de Lachish........................243
Halayqa, Issam K. H.
A Supplementary Ugaritic Word List for J. Troppers
Kleines Wrterbuch des Ugaritischen (2008)................................................. 263
Halayqa, Issam K. H.
Two Middle Bronze Age Scarabs from Jabal El-Tawain
(Southern Hebron).......................................................................................303
Kassian, A.
Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language .........................................................309
Keetman, Jan
Die Triade der Laterale und ihre Vernderungen
in den lteren semitischen Sprachen............................................................449
Matoan, Valrie / Vita, Juan-Pablo
Les textiles Ougarit. Perspectives de la recherche....................................469
Mazzini, Giovanni
On the Problematic Term syr/d in the New Old Aramaic Inscription
from Zincirli ................................................................................................505
Melchiorri, Valentina
Le tophet de Sulci (S. Antioco, Sardaigne).
tat des tudes et perspectives de la recherche ...........................................509
Murphy, Kelly J.
Myth, Reality, and the Goddess Anat. Anats Violence and
Independence in the Baal Cycle .................................................................525
Nahshoni, Pirhiya / Ziffer, Irit
Caphtor, the throne of his dwelling, Memphis, the land of his
inheritance. The Pattern book of a Philistine offering stand from
a shrine at Nahal Patish. (With an appendix on the technology
of the stand by Elisheva Kamaisky) ............................................................543
Natan-Yulzary, Shirly
Divine Justice or Poetic Justice? The Transgression and Punishment
of the Goddess Anat in the Aqhat Story. A Literary Perspective...............581
Shea, William H.
The Qeiyafa Ostracon. Separation of Powers in Ancient Israel ..................601
2009] Inhalt v
Staubli, Thomas
Bull leaping and other images and rites of the Southern Levant
in the sign of Scorpius .................................................................................611
Strawn, Brent
kwrwt in Psalm 68: 7, Again. A (Small) Test Case in Relating Ugarit to
the Hebrew Bible.........................................................................................631
Sturm, Thomas Fr.
Rabbtum ein Ort der Textilmanufaktur fr den aA Fernhandel
von Assyrien nach Zentralanatolien (ca. 19301730 v.Chr.) ......................649
Zadok, Ran
Philistian Notes............................................................................................659
Buchbesprechungen und Buchanzeigen
W. BERTELMANN u. a. (Hrsg.): Alt-Jerusalem. Jerusalem und Umgebung
im 19. Jahrhundert in Bildern aus der Sammlung von Conrad Schick
und R. HARDIMAN / H. SPEELMAN: Auf den Spuren Abrahams.
Das Heilige Land in alten handkolorierten Photographien
(Wolfgang. Zwickel) ...................................................................................689
Sophie DMARE-LAFONT / A. LEMAIRE (Hrsg.): Trois millnaires de
formulaires juridiques (Oswald Loretz) ......................................................690
Manfried DIETRICH / Walter MAYER: Der hurritische Brief des Duratta
von Mttnni an Amen`otep III. Text Grammatik Kopie. Englische
bersetzung des Textes von Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst. ......................691
Jo Ann HACKETT: A Basic Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Oswald Loretz) 692
Detlev JERICKE: Regionaler Kult und lokaler Kult. Studien zur Kult- und
Religionsgeschichte Israels und Judas im 9. und 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.
(Oswald Loretz)...........................................................................................693
Valrie MATOAN (Hrsg.): Le Mobilier du Palais Royal dOugarit
(Alexander Ahrens) .....................................................................................694
Maciej POPKO: Arinna. Eine heilige Stadt der Hethiter (Manfred Hutter).......697
Carole ROCHE (Hrsg.): DOugarit Jrusalem. Recueil dtudes pigra-
phiques et archologiques offert Pierre Bordreuil (Oswald Loretz)........701
Benjamin D. SOMMER: The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel
(Oswald Loretz)...........................................................................................701
Rita STRAUSS: Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna. Ein Beitrag zur Erfor-
schung hethitischer Ritualtradition und Kulturgeschichte (Piotr Taracha).703
Josef TROPPER / Juan-Pablo VITA: Das Kanaano-Akkadische der
Amarnazeit (Matthias Mller) .....................................................................708
W. H. VAN SOLDT (Hrsg.): Society and Administration in Ancient Ugarit.
Papers read at a symposium in Leiden, 1314 December 2007
(Oswald Loretz)...........................................................................................713
vi Inhalt [UF 41
Jordi VIDAL (ed.): Studies on War in the Ancient Near East. Collected
Essays on Military History (Fabrice de Backer)..........................................713
Abkrzungsverzeichnis.....................................................................719
Indizes
A Stellen .........................................................................................................735
B Wrter .........................................................................................................737
C Namen .........................................................................................................742
D Sachen.........................................................................................................745
Anschriften der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter ...................................749

Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language

A. Kassian, Moscow
1

1 On the Hattic language (Hattic vocalism, consonantism, nominal and
verbal morphosyntax).............................................................................311
1.1 Hattic vocalism...............................................................................312
1.2 Hattic consonantism.......................................................................312
1.3 Hattic morphosyntax. Nominal wordform (main slots)..................313
1.4 Hattic morphosyntax. Verbal wordform (main slots) .....................313
1.5 ........................................................................................................314
2 Previously proposed West Caucasian attribution....................................314
2.1 General remarks..............................................................................316
2.2 Structural features and morphosyntax ............................................317
2.3 HatticWCauc. root etymologies ...................................................319
2.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................320
3 Previously proposed Kartvelian attribution............................................321
4 Sino-Caucasian hypothesis.....................................................................321
4.1 Sino-Caucasian (or Dene-Sino-Caucasian) macrofamily...............321
4.2 Phonetic correspondences...............................................................322
4.2.1 Vocalism (a very preliminary schema) ................................324
4.2.2 Consonantism......................................................................324

1
I am grateful to Ouz Soysal (Chicago), who has taken pains to read my MS through
and made a number of valuable remarks, additions and corrections to the Hattic data. My
warm thanks go to the participants of the Moscow Nostratic Seminar (Center for Compa-
rative Linguistics of the Institute of Oriental Cultures and Antiquity, Russian State Uni-
versity for the Humanities) for their criticism and general discussion (Vladimir Dybo,
Anna Dybo, Alexander Militarev, Albert Davletshin and others), I am especially indebted
to George Starostin for his help in the compilation of actual lexicostatistical trees of the
Sino-Caucasian macrofamily. The tabarna-problem has been ardently discussed with
Ilya Yakubovich (Chicago/ Moscow). I am grateful to Mark Iserlis (Tel Aviv University)
for his help in archaeological matters. Naturally, all the infelicities are the authors only.
In the present paper I quote Hattic forms after HWHT unless otherwise mentioned.
All forms from Sino-Caucasian languages are generally given after the Tower of Babel
Project databases (Abadet.dbf, Caucet.dbf, Sccet.dbf, Stibet.dbf, Yenet.dbf, Basqet.dbf,
Buruet.dbfsee the list of references) unless otherwise mentioned. I adopt S. Starostins
reconstruction of the Proto-West Caucasian phonological system which is somewhat
different from Chirikbas one (see Starostin, 1997/ 2007 for the nal discussion). Some
AdygheKabardian and Ubykh forms are quoted from , 1957; ,
1977; , 1975; Vogt, 1963standardly without special references.
310 A. Kassian [UF 41
4.2.2.1 Labials ...................................................................327
4.2.2.2 Dentals..................................................................329
4.2.2.3 Alveolar, post-alveolar and palatal affricates.........331
4.2.2.4 Other front consonants...........................................332
4.2.2.5 Laterals ..................................................................333
4.2.2.6 Velar and uvular consonants ..................................334
4.2.2.7 Laryngeals .............................................................334
4.2.2.8 Clusters with *w ....................................................335
4.2.2.9 xK(w)-clusters........................................................336
4.2.2.10 ST-clusters............................................................336
4.2.2.11. lC- and rC-clusters................................................337
4.2.2.12 NC-clusters ..........................................................337
4.2.2.13 Clusters with laryngeals.......................................338
4.3 Root structure .................................................................................338
5 HatticSino-Caucasian root comparisons...............................................340
5.1 Roots with reliable SCauc. cognates ..............................................340
5.2 Loans, dubia, and roots without etymology....................................368
6 HatticSino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons .....................397
6.1 Auxiliary morphemes with reliable SCauc. cognates .....................397
6.2 Some auxiliary morphemes with dubious or improbable SCauc.
cognates ..........................................................................................400
7 Contacts with neighboring languages.....................................................402
8 Conclusion..............................................................................................404
8.1 Linguistic afliation .......................................................................404
8.2 Geographical problem....................................................................416
9 Phonetic symbols. Language name abbreviations. References ..............433
9.1 Phonetic symbols (selectively) .......................................................433
9.2 Language name abbreviations ........................................................434
9.3 References ......................................................................................435
Abbreviations....................................................................................................446

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 311
1 On the Hattic language (Hattic vocalism, consonantism,
nominal and verbal morphosyntax)
Hattic is an ancient unwritten language spoken in Central Anatolia at the begin-
ning of the 2
nd
millennium BC and in all likelihood earlier. We have to suppose
that Hattians were Anatolian autochthons before the Hittite-Luwian migrations
in this region (more about the sociolinguistic situation see Goedegebuure,
2008).
2
The Hattic language is known only in Hittite cuneiform transmission
(ca. 16501200 BC), with the exception of some personal names from Old As-
syrian Cappadocian colonies (the early 2
nd
millennium BC).

Fig. 1. Anatolia, the second half of the 3
rd
the rst half of the 2
nd
millennia BC.
The map reects only known linguistic units

2
The Alaca Hyk royal tombs as well as the corresponding sites in the Hatti Heart-
land of the 3
rd
millennium BCKalnkaya, Resulolu and others, see, e. g., Zimmer-
mann, 2009, Yildirim/ Zimmermann, 2006require Hattic attribution. It is not clear to
me on what evidence some scholars (e. g., Bryce, 2005, 14) attribute the Alaca Hyk
tombs to the Hittito-Luwians. We know that the Hattians had institution of kingship, de-
veloped pantheon and were metal-workersit ts the Alaca Hyk culture very well.
But we cannot say the same about the prehistoric Hittito-Luwian tribes known to us. The
traditional (pre-C
14
) dating places Alaca Hyk tombs in the second half of the 3
rd
mil-
lennium BC, although . Yalin in New investigations on the royal tomb of Alacah-
yk (paper presented on May 27 at the Meeting on the Results of Archaeometryses-
sion of the 32
nd
International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry, or-
ganized by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Republic of Turkey, May 2428, 2010,
Istanbul) reported that the recent C-14 analysis of a wooden fragment from the old 1930s
excavations gave the date from 2 500 to 10 000 BC [sic!], but this result is not very re-
liable (I am grateful to Thomas Zimmermann, Ankara, for this reference).
The modern state of research in the Hattic language is reected in the
publications of O. Soysal, especially in his brilliant monograph HWHT. Now we
can postulate ca. 300 Hattic roots and stems; the meanings of ca. 200 of them
are established with different degrees of reliability (for the list of Hattic lexemes
see Soysal, HWHT, 274 ff.).
For a short sketch of the Hattic grammar, which is based mostly on HWHT,
see , 2010.
1.1 Hattic vocalism
i

u
e (?)

a
Signs of the E-series can reect the phoneme /e/ or be a mere graphical
phenomenon, since there are a lot of examples where I- and E-signs freely alter-
nate.
1.2 Hattic consonantism
p t

k

/
f s

h
m n

w l, r j
Consonants can be graphically geminated and non-geminated in the intervocalic
position (a-ta vs. at-ta), but it seems that this graphical phenomenon is signi-
cantly less regular than the same opposition in Hittite (where Hitt. -t- < IE *d,
*dh; Hitt. -tt- < IE *t). It is very likely that Hattic had two or more consonant se-
ries (e. g., voiceless ~ voiced, lax ~ tense or ejective ~ aspirate ~ plain), but this
opposition differed phonetically from the analogous opposition in Hittite and
Hittite scribes met with difculties in transferring their graphical method onto
Hattic texts.
/f/ is postulated for the ligatures wa
a
, we
e
, wi
i
, wu
u
, wu
, pu
u
, wi
p
, wu
pu
and
for the cases where we see an alternation of W- and P-signs. Such an alternation
is very frequent in known Hattic texts. Since the Hattic corpus is too small, it is
unclear whether every p may alternate with w or w-ligature (and vice versa:
whether every w may alternate with p and w-ligature). From the formal view-
point we should postulate only two labial phonemes in Hattic/m/ and /f/and
eliminate /p/ and /w/ from the table above. In the etymological studies below I
am impelled to treat p, w and f as one phoneme.
// is expressed by the signs of Z-series.
/s/ is written by the signs of -series. Sporadical usage of S-signs (OS+) may
reect the second sibilant (e. g., //), but the available data are too scant.
In some morphemes (both root and auxiliary) we see a free alternation of T-
and -signs. I postulate something like // for these cases, but, e. g., interdental
fricative // is, of course, an equivalent solution here.
/h/velar or post-velar (e. g., laryngeal) fricative, expressed by the -signs.
In Akkadian -series reects a phoneme, which originates from the Semitic
voiceless uvular fricative *; in Hittite graphical h covers velar/uvular spirant
(Patri, 2009, 107 ff.).
1.3 Hattic morphosyntax. Nominal wordform (main slots)
5
particles
4
(?)
3
locative
preposition
2
possessive
pronoun
1
number
0
root
1
case
2
particles
ma/ fa a, i fe, ha, ka,
zi
u
le, e/ te
ai?
up (uf?)
if(a)
fa/
a/ i
u/ tu
n
i

1.4 Hattic morphosyntax. Verbal wordform (main slots)
9
negation
8
opta-
tive
7
subject
6
?
5
direct
object
4
locus
3
locus
2
locus
1
?
0
root
1
tense,
mode,
aspect
2
particles
ta/
a/
te/
e
ta/ te fa
u, un
a?
ai, e, i
tu/ u h, k,
m, n
p, , t,
w(a),
wa
a

ta, za,
e, te,
tu
h(a),
ha,
ka,
za?,
pi, wa
k(a),
zi
f(a) u
e
a
ma, fa,
pi
(=?),
a/ at

1.5 The genetic attribution of Hattic is debatable. There are two main
theories, advocated by various scholars: West Caucasian and Kartvelian.
3

2 Previously proposed West Caucasian attribution
The West Caucasian family consists of a relatively small number of languages:
1) Abkhaz, Abaza; 2) Adyghe, Kabardian; 3) Ubykh.
The modern West Caucasian reconstruction was made by S. Starostin (see
NCED, Caucet.dbf, Abadet.dbf), later it was veried and partly modied by
V. Chirikba (Chirikba, 1996). Some important details were more explicitly stated
in Starostin, 1997/ 2007.
According to the glottochronological procedure, the North Caucasian proto-
language split into East Caucasian and West Caucasian branches ca. 3800 BC. In
its turn West Caucasian split into Abkhaz-Abaza, Ubykh and Adyghe-Kabardian
ca. 640 BC.
The following tree of the NCauc. family (g. 2) is based on 50-wordlists of
the majority of modern NCauc. languages. The 50-wordlist includes the 50 most
stable items from the classical Swadesh 100-wordlist. The procedure consists
of the subsequent reconstruction of corresponding wordlists for intermediate
proto-languages and screening of synonyms at every stage.
4
The primary
lexicographic data which were used can mostly be found in the database section
of the Tower of Babel Project. The tree has been compiled by the author as part
of the ongoing research on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical Tree of the worlds
languages (within the Evolution of Human Language project, supported by the
Santa Fe Institute). The tree on g. 2 is preliminary, maybe some nodes will be
corrected as a result of further researches, but it gives the general frame of the
NCauc. family.
The next tree (g. 3) represents the WCauc. branch. The tree is based on
classic 100-wordlists and compiled according the standard procedure.
5

3
Sometimes more exotic attributions are proposed. E. g., Fhnrich, 1980 tries to show
the specic relationship between Hattic and Cassite or Hurrian, but I must accede to Soy-
sals criticism of Fhnrichs comparisons (see HWHT, 34 ff.).
4
For this kind of glottochronological procedure see detailed in Starostin G., 2010. For
the general principles of the Swadesh wordlist compilation process now see Kassian et
al., 2010.
5
For this kind of glottochronological procedure see Starostin, 1989/ 1999.
2
0
0
9
]

H
a
t
t
i
c

a
s

a

S
i
n
o
-
C
a
u
c
a
s
i
a
n

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

3
1
5

Fig. 2. Glottochronological tree of the North Caucasian family (50-item wordlist-based)
Fig. 3. Glottochronological tree of the West Caucasian branch (100-item wordlist-based)
For the rst time the structural similarity between Hattic and West Caucasian
languages was noted by E. Forrer (1921, 25; 1922, 229). Later J. von Mszros
(1934, 27 ff.) gave the list of grammatical and lexical isoglosses between Hattic
and Ubykh. Further the idea of the West Caucasian attribution of Hattic was sup-
ported by I. Dunaevskaja (, 1960; , 1961, 134 f.gram-
matical features), I. Diakonoff (, 1967, 172 ff.Hattic afxes),
Vl. Ardzinba (, 1979grammatical features), Vja. Ivanov (in a num-
ber of publications; see , 1985 for the summed up list of Hattic roots and
auxiliary morphemes with WCauc. cognates), Viach. Chirikba (Chirikba, 1996,
406Hattic roots and afxes, structural features), and Jan Braun (,
1994Hattic roots; , 2002Hattic local prexes). It must be noted that
after the outdated von Mszros list of cognates it was Ivanov, who for the rst
time made an attempt to prove the West Caucasian hypothesis by a scientic ap-
proach. Despite the fact that I do not agree with the West Caucasian attribution
of Hattic, Ivanovs publications denitely got the problem of Hattic etymology
off the ground and serve as a good start point for subsequent studies.
The following difculties arise when one attempts to compare Hattic with
WCauc. languages.
2.1 General remarks
2.1.1 Attested Hattic chronologically is more ancient than the late Proto-
WCauc. language by almost 1000 years. Therefore it is possible to compare Hat-
tic forms only with the WCauc. forms, which can be assuredly reconstructed for
the Proto-WCauc. level.
An example. Chirikba, 1996, 414 compares Hattic zi- (a nominal prex with
ablative semantics, e. g., from top-down) with AbkhazAbaza *(a- under,
*(- from down. As a matter of fact AbkhazAbaza *(a-/ *(- has doubtless
cognates in the other WCauc. languages: AdygheKabardian *ca- under,
Ubykh -(a bottom, lower part, etc., so we must reconstruct WCauc. *\V bot-
tom, lower part ; under (preverb) here (< NCauc. *H\n bottom), and
immediately the comparison with Hattic zi- becomes phonetically unlikely (for
regular NCauc. *\ ~ Hatt. l see below).
2.1.2 As is known, the rst Indo-Europeanists of the XVIII c. used to pro-
pose etymological comparisons like follows (e. g., RussianGerman): pri-nes-i
bring! (2 sg.) ~ bringen Sie or u-bi-l he has killed ~ bel and so on. Un-
fortunately some of the authors mentioned above get caught in the same pitfall.
An example. The Hattic well-attested lexeme (a)haf god has a regular
plural form fa-haf deities. Von Mszros, 1934, 32, , 1985, 37 and
Chirikba, 1996, 425 compare fa-haf with the AdygheKabardian and Ubykh
compounds of WCauc. *wa sky; god + *a grey; powder: AdygheKa-
bardian *wa-a sky (< grey sky), Ubykh wa-a thunder and lightning
6

6
Not god, see , 1977 2, 89 f.
(< heavenly blasting powder). Such a comparison can hardly be accepted.
2.1.3 There is an old comparison of Slav. *medv-d bear (< one who
eats honey) and OInd. madhv-d- Ses essend (said of birds in Rig-Veda).
But despite the exact phonetic regularity it is hard to reconstruct such a
compound for the Proto-IE level, since tatpurua madhv-d- is formed after a
synchronically regular and very productive model and there are not any reasons
to suspect a Proto-Indic stem here rather than an occasional word-forming in a
poetic text. We see the same situation with some previously proposed Hattic
WCauc. etymologies.
An example. Hatt. verb tuh to take is compared by Chirikba, 1996, 419
with Abkhaz *t- to take from inside, where *t is a standard locative pre-
verb and * means to take (< WCauc. *x to take). This comparison is not
reliable, since Hattic is almost 3000 years distant from the split of the Common
AbkhazAbaza proto-language (see g. 3 above) and we know that local prever-
bation is a living and productive model of forming verbal stems in the modern
AbkhazAbaza dialects.
2.1.4 A great part of previously proposed comparisons must be rejected now
with certainty, since they were based on erroneous and out-of-date interpretation
of the Hattic data. On the other hand, sometimes scholars operate with incorrect
WCauc. forms.
Examples. , 1967, 173 compares Hatt. fa-/ - (plural of the nomina-
tive and oblique cases) with Abkhaz -wa (a plural marker of the animate class),
but in reality Abkhaz -wa forms the names of races (both in singular and plural),
see Hewitt, 1979, 149. In his turn , 1994, 20 compares Hatt. malhip good,
favorable with Adyghe mk property, fortune, which in fact is a recent
Arabic loanword (Arab. mulk ownership, property, see , 1977 1,
272).
2.2 Structural features and morphosyntax
2.2.1 All the authors mentioned above note the similarity between the Hattic
polysynthetic verbal wordform, where prexation prevails, and the same pheno-
menon in WCauc. languages (cf., e. g., Abzakh verbal scheme in Paris, 1989,
196 ff.). As a matter of fact, the reconstruction of Proto-WCauc. morphosyntax
is the task of future research, today we can operate with modern Abkhaz
Adyghe paradigms only.
2.2.2 Second, it is clear that the Hattic verbal wordform does not coincide
directly with attested WCauc. schemas. We can speak about typological similari-
ty only and suggest monophonemic comparisons between some Hattic and
WCauc. afxes.
2.2.3 Third, polysynthetic verbal morphosyntax is characteristic of some
other branches of Sino-Caucasian macrofamily, not only of the WCauc. sub-
branch. See , 1999 for the Proto-Yenisseian verbal reconstruction,
Berger, 1998 1, 104 for the Burushaski verbal wordform (Hunza-Nager dialect)
and, e. g., Holton, 2000, 163 ff. for Tanacross, which possesses verb structure
typical of Na-Dene languages. Yenisseian, Burushaski and Na-Dene schemas are
also rather similar to the known Hattic verbal wordforms, therefore we cannot
speak about exclusive HatticWCauc. connection in this case. On the contrary,
we must suppose that polysynthetic verbal morphosyntax with prexation was
characteristic of the Sino-Caucasian proto-language (this feature was almost
completely destroyed in the Sino-Tibetan family due to contacts with isolating
Austric languages,
7
and was seriously rebuilt in the East Caucasian sub-
branch
8
).
2.2.4 Fourth, we cannot say that the most part of Hattic auxiliary mor-
phemes nds its counterparts in WCauc. languages. On the contrary, the authors
mentioned above operate with individual afxal comparisons and fail to
reconstruct hypothetical Proto-HatticWCauc. sets of grammatical morphemes.
9

An appreciable part of HatticWCauc. afxal comparisons, which were pre-
viously proposed, must be rejected now, since they are based on the incorrect
interpretation of the Hattic grammatical system. On the other hand, the majority
of reliable HatticWCauc. afxal comparisons possesses cognates in East Cau-
casian sub-branch of the NCauc. family or in other families of SCauc. macro-
family, and it is impossible to speak about exclusive HatticWCauc. isoglosses
in these cases.
An example. The Hattic genitive marker -n is standardly compared with
WCauc. *-n (ergative and general indirect case; possessive case; transforma-
tive case). As a matter of fact WCauc. *-n goes back to the Common NCauc.
genitive sufx *-nV: Nakh *-n (genitive; adjective and participial sufx; inni-
tive), Av.-And. *-nV (ablative; translative), Lak -n (dative I, lative, innitive),
Lezgh. *-n (genitive; elative; temporal ; suff. of adjectives and participles;

7
See Benedict, 1972 for morphological relicts in the languages of the Sino-Tibetan
family.
8
See Bengtson, 2008, 97 ff. for similar conclusions about this ECauc. innovation. Cf.,
e. g., , 1960 for the rests of the verbal prexal polysynthetism in the ECauc.
languages. Quite differently Chirikba, forthc. a and forthc. b, who claims that Proto-
North Caucasian was an analytic language, while Pre-Proto-West Caucasian developed
into an isolating (Chinese-like) formation, but I do not understand on which positive evi-
dence Chirikbas syntactical theory is based.
9
Chirikba, 1996, 412 ff. and , 2002 make attempts to etymologize the system of
Hattic local prexes integratedly. In reality the only reliable exclusive Hatt.WCauc. iso-
gloss in their lists is the Hatt. verbal local prex ta- ~ WCauc. preverb *tV- in; super.
On the contrary, Common NCauc. etymologies for Hatt. ha- and ka- are not less probable
than Narrow WCauc. ones. The meaning and function of Hattic ni- / nu- are unknown
(see HWHT, 232 f.). Verbal li- does not exist. Nominal zi- / za- and fe- cannot be com-
pared with WCauc. *\V- and *a- on phonetical grounds. The morpheme ta- is found
only in the totally opaque compound itarrazil earth [22] ; the same concerns the mor-
pheme kil, which has been arbitrarily singled out from kiluh runner-spy [33] by
J. Braun.
terminative; ergative).
2.2.5 Chirikba, 1996, 407 ff. lists structural parallels between Hattic and
WCauc. languages, but unfortunately almost all of them do not seem persuasive.
a) The grammatical system of Hattic is debatable. It is an open question
whether Hattic was a nominative-accusative, ergative (e. g., Taracha, 1988) or
active language (for split activity theory see Goedegebuure, 2010). Although an
ergative pattern seems most probable for Hattic, it cannot prove genetic relation-
ship, but rather represent an areal feature (cf., e. g., the neighboring Hurrian lan-
guage).
b) The Hattic case system is not so rudimentary from the typological view-
point (cf. the schema above).
c) The role of word formation compounding in Hattic is comparable rather
with East Cauc. languages and some other Sino-Caucasian languages
10
than with
WCauc. dialects.
d) For verbal polysynthetism with prevailing prexation see above, 2.2.3.
e) Unmarked nominal plural forms which are sometimes attested in Hattic
texts is the same case as verbal polysynthetismit is not an exclusive Hattic
WCauc. isogloss. The phenomenon of unmarking plural in nouns is known from
other Sino-Caucasian languages: for the Yenisseian family see Castrn, 1858,
16 ff., / , 1968, 235 ff. ; for Na-Dene Holton, 2000, 157 ff. (the
Tanacross language).
f) The restriction on initial r- is a common areal feature, known at that epoch
from East Caucasian languages to Ancient Greek dialects.
g) Some listed Hattic phonetic features cannot be included in the compari-
son, since the Hittite cuneiform gives no reliable data for such an analysis and,
second, we know too little about the Hattic morphonology and phonetic sandhi.
2.3 HatticWCauc. root etymologies
As is known, the normal Proto-NCauc. nominal root had the shape CVCV,
where C is a consonant or a combination of consonants; the standard Proto-
NCauc. verbal root looked like =VCV(R), where = is a class marker, Can
obstruent consonant or a combination of consonants, Ra sonorant (see NCED,
82 ff.). These structures were seriously rebuilt in the WCauc. proto-language,
where the prevailing shape of nominal and verbal roots became CV.
In its turn the standard Hattic root (both nominal and verbal) is CVC, where
C can be a combination of consonants.
Thus, there are three hypothetical ways to compare Hattic with Proto-
WCauc.
2.3.1 We may assume that the reduction of the root structure in Proto-
WCauc. language took place after Hattic had set apart. But in this case we must
compare Hattic directly with the NCauc. proto-language, not with the WCauc.

10
E. g., with Yenisseian (see , 1968).
proto-language as it is today reconstructed on the basis of known WCauc. dia-
lects.
2.3.2 We can divide Hattic roots into C- or CV- root nucleus with some
consonant extensions of unknown nature. This method is accepted in a number
of Vja. Ivanovs and J. Brauns etymologies (e. g., , 1985, 11, 20, 22,
50, 58, and so on; , 1994), but it is clear that it is the way to nowhere.
2.3.3 Finally we can compare Hattic roots with compounds or inected
forms from the modern WCauc. dialects. Of course, with such approach we
immediately get caught in bringen-Sie- or madhvad-pitfalls, for which see
2.1.22.1.3 above.
An example. , 1985, 45 compares Hatt. ul to let, to let in with
Ubykh ca-w-la to let, release exhaustively, where ca- is a preverb used with
verbs of motion (Vogt, 1963, 104), w is a frequent verbal root to enter, go
(< WCauc. *V to enter < NCauc. *=or to go, walk, enter), while -la is a
regular exhaustive sufx.
2.4 Conclusions
2.4.1 Hattic cannot be directly compared with WCauc. due to the fundamental
difference in root structure. Grammatical Hatt.WCauc. isoglosses are also
rather weak.
2.4.2 Indeed, Hattic possesses a number of monoconsonantal roots which
can be compared with WCauc. data, but in almost all these cases proposed
WCauc. roots have reliable NCauc. cognates, therefore such comparisons cannot
prove an exclusive HatticWCauc. relationship.
An example. , 1994, 19 compares Hatt. root zuwa- in sufxed zuwa-tu
wife with WCauc. *p-zV female; bitch (AbkhazAbaza *ps, Adyghe
Kabardian *bz, Ubykh bza, with the frequent Proto-WCauc. prex *p-). In
reality WCauc. *-zV is not an isolated form, but goes back to NCauc. *
wjV
(~ -I-) woman, female (further to SCauc. *wjV (~ s-, ~ -I-) female), and
the direct HatticNCauc. or HatticSCauc. comparison is self-suggesting.
2.4.3. Even if we undertake a monophonemic etymologization of Hattic
CVC-roots, the genetic relationship to the WCauc. sub-branch cannot be proved,
since the regularity of phonemic correspondences in monophonemic compari-
sons must be established by a solid corpus of cognates that is not the case.
2.4.4. A great part of HatticWCauc. isoglosses which were previously
proposed need to be left out, since they are based on incorrect and out-of-date
Hattic data.
2.4.5. It is worth noting, however, a small number of probable WCauc. loan-
words in Hattic, for which see Section 7 below.
3 Previously proposed Kartvelian attribution
Girbal, 1986, 160163 proposes four HatticKartvelian root etymologies, two of
them are striking: Hatt. tumil rain ~ Kartv. *wim- to rain and Hatt. am(a)
to hear (vel sim.) ~ Kartv. *sem- to hear. Of course, genetic relationship can-
not be established by a couple of comparisons (even if they belong to the
Swadesh wordlist), and we must treat these etymologies as chance coincidences.
Note that Hatt. tumil and am(a) possess reliable SCauc. cognates. Gabeskiria,
1998 attempted to add some new Kartvelian cognates of Hattic lexemes, but
without much successfor the criticism of Gabeskirias studies see HWHT,
33 f.
4 Sino-Caucasian hypothesis
Although the WCauc. attribution of Hattic is improbable, it is very likely that
Hattic represents a separate branch of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily. Below I
list a number of Hattic root and auxiliary morphemes with probable SCauc. cog-
nates. It is important that the percentage of the so called basic vocabulary in my
list is relatively high. Of course, the regularity of the assumed phonemic corre-
spondences between Hattic and Proto-SCauc. cannot be proved due to the
scantiness of Hattic lexical data, but it should be noted that :
a) the main part of the proposed phonemic correspondences are trivial (e. g.,
SCauc. *p ~ Hatt. f, SCauc. *( ~ Hatt. t, SCauc. * ~ Hatt. t~ (//?), SCauc. * ~
Hatt. l, SCauc. *k ~ Hatt. k and so on);
b) some special types of phonetic developments (e. g., consonant cluster
simplication) are very typical of the other daughter proto-languages of the
SCauc. macrofamily, and therefore can be regarded as common innovations.
4.1 Sino-Caucasian (or Dene-Sino-Caucasian) macrofamily
For the rst time the genetic relationship between three proto-familiesNorth
Caucasian, Yenisseian and Sino-Tibetanwas partially substantiated on the
ground of regular phonetic correspondences in , 1982/ 2007. Some
other papers by the same author, dedicated to the Sino-Caucasian problem, can
be found in , 2007 (both in Russian and English). For the preliminary
comparative phonetics of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily see SCC (this work
was not nished and therefore remains unpublished). The highly preliminary
Sino-Caucasian etymological dictionary is available as Sccet.dbf.
As in the case of the NCauc. family (g. 2) the following preliminary Sino-
Caucasian tree is based on 50-wordlists (see com. on g. 2 above for detail). The
tree has been compiled by G. Starostin (pers. comm.) as part of the ongoing re-
search on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical Tree of the worlds languages (within
the Evolution of Human Language project, supported by the Santa Fe Insti-
tute): g. 4.
11

The tree gives the general frame of the SCauc. macrofamily, but it must be
stressed that the tree cannot be regarded as a nal solution. During the continu-
ing studies of SCauc. daughter families this schema will probably be improved.
Three main proto-languages are the basis of the SCauc. reconstruction:
North Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan and Yenisseian. They possess relatively well-
done comparative grammars (especially phonetics) and etymological dictionaies.
NCauc. familyCaucet.dbf, which has been published as NCED (w. lit.). STib.
familyStibet.dbf, based on Peiros/ Starostin, 1996 (w. lit.), but seriously im-
proved. Yen. family, 1982/ 2007 and Yenet.dbf, based on -
, 1995 and Werner, 2002 with additions and corrections.
The Proto-Na-Dene reconstruction is not done (or not published) yet, there-
fore I do not use Na-Dene data in my paper. Isolated Burushaski and Basque
also do not provide considerable help due to natural reasons.
4.2 Phonetic correspondences
Below I quote phonetic charts from SCC, 24 ff. and add the Hattic column with
suggested Hattic counterparts. As it was said above, unfortunately S. Starostin
did not manage to nish SCCin particular it concerns the phonetic charts,
whose cells are sometimes incomplete or, on the contrary, redundant. Despite
this fact, the tables are quoted as they have been compiled by S. Starostin with
the exception of few cells important to us, which I corrected,these cells are
marked by footnotes.
The correspondences are illustrated by the Hattic examples taken from sec-
tions 5.1 and 6.1.

11
Position of the Hurro-Urartian proto-language is not quite clear. Pace the work Diako-
noff / Starostin, 1986, where Hurro-Urartian is traditionally included into the ECauc.
stock of the NCauc. family, it is very likely that this cluster represents a separate branch
of the SCauc. macro-family (at the beginning of the 2000s S. Starostin himself tended to
lean towards the same conclusion). Because of many lacunae in the Hurrian 50-wordlist
it is impossible to process Hurrian using the formal algorithm (Hurrian is not included in
the tree on g. 4), but it is clear that Hurro-Urartian belongs to the NCauc.Yen. branch,
not to the STib.Na-Dene one, and some isoglosses may prove the specic relationship
between the Hurro-Urartian and Yen.Burush. stocks. See Kassian, 2010 for some
details. The Na-Dene branch on g. 4 does not include the Haida language.
2
0
0
9
]

H
a
t
t
i
c

a
s

a

S
i
n
o
-
C
a
u
c
a
s
i
a
n

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

3
2
3

Fig. 4. Glottochronological tree of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily (50-item wordlist-based)
4.2.1 Vocalism (a very preliminary schema)
SCauc. NCauc. STib. Yen. Burush. Hattic
*i i, e e, i () i i
*e e, i a, a, e (), a, e
i / e,
(ae, a)
* a, i, e e (), i, a, e a, (i / e)
* , , i i, i i / e
* , a, , e a, , o o, a a, i / e
*a a e, a,
a (), e (),

a, e (i) a, (u)
*u o, u u, o o (), u u, o
*o o, u , a u, , o a, o (u)
u
Consonant cluster simplications may cause a preceding vowel change:
SCauc. *\npV tongue; lip; to lick > alef tongue [1]
SCauc. *xlw forelock; horn > kai horn [14]
Yen. *t[e]mb-V- root ~ tup root [63]

4.2.2 Consonantism
Below for Hattic I use cuneiform notation: for /s/, z for //, t~ for //.

*p p ph, -p p ph-, p
* , b p-, -p b p
*b b p, ph, -p p b
f / p/ w
*m m m b- / p- / w-, m m f- / p- / w-, m
*w w () w/ 0 0-, w/ 0 b-, 0(u)
w-, -u-, -f-,
(-m-)
*t t th, -t d th
* t, -t d t, ()
*d d t, th, -t t t, ()
t, z (_i)
*n n n d-, n n n
*r r r - / t-, r, r
1
d-, r -, -r-, (-l-)
*c c ch/ s, -t s s
* ( C, -t c, s - ~ -, s
t-, z- (_i / e), z-,
--
* ch, h , s s
*s s s ( / ch), -0 s, d-(V) d-, s -
*z z ,
* , ,h, -t -, s s/ , / (, -
* ( , ,h, , -t s, c (h), ,/
, -
t-, -t-, -z- (_i)
*j , , -t -, s
12
,- /
-, s/ ( / )
* s ( / ch), -0 s, d-(V) d-, / (V)
* ?
* , ,h -( / -), s / , / (, -
* ( , ,h , / , / (, -
-~t-, t-, z- (_i),
--
* , , / (, , t
* -, -0 s, d-(V) s/ /
* r rj
1
, r d-, r
* n -, , n n
*j j j j, 0 j, 0 -0-
* r(..L), -k j-, lt-, lt / l
*\ \
, l, r(..L),
-k/ -
j-, l, lt-, lt / l
* , l, -k r, r
1
lt-, lt / l
l
* l, j-, l, lt- (l-), ld
* l-, -, -l d-, l, r
1
, r
13
l r, (l)
*l l r d-, l ~ r, r
1
l l

12
Updated cell.
13
Updated cell.
*k k k-, -k g, -k- k(h)
* kh, gh, -k g-, -k, -g- k
k
*g g k-, -k k g
*x x -, -0 x, ~ G h h
* g q ~
* n b-, 0-, f-, n
*q q
qh-, G-, x-,
- ; -k/ -
q-, q/ G q(h),
*q q Gh-, q; -k, - q-, q/ G q(h),
k
*G G
q, qh-,
[G(h)-], k/ -
x-/-, q/G q(h),
* , , qh-, -0 , x h h
* G-, q-, , -j / -w , G 0/
*
0 () ; w >
- ~ -
-, j ; w >
h/ x
0/ h/ j
* 0; w > ()-
-, j, 0; w >
h/x
0/ h/ j
* 0; w > - ; w > h/x 0/ h/ j
*h h
0; hw >
(/ -, w-)
-, j ; hw >
h/ x
0/ h/ j 0
*
0; w > j-,
w- (/-)
-, j,
14
0/h/j h, (0)
* 0; w > ?
-, j ; w >
h/ x
0/ h/ j (0)
*xm ? f m w-
*x ? x
*w m b-, m-, -n/ -m
*xw f b-, h-

14
Updated cell.
*xg g k~q, -, -k q, x, g k, h
*xk k-,-k q-, q/ G () h-,-q-,-
*x
k-, kh- ~ gh-
~ qh-, -k
q, G, qh, , -q k, h
*xq q k, g, -k q, , x
15
qh, , -q h
*xqw qw k, g, -k x, g k, g k
*xq q gh, (k) q, , x qh, h
*xqw qw k, kh x, g k, g k
*xG G, () g, kh q, , x qh, , q
*xG*w Gw ghw, kw k k, g
*sd c(h) t c (~ ch, (h)
*st c ch/ s, -t(s), -s t c
*s ( ch/ s t c ( ~ () t
*d ~ ,h ? ch
*t c ? ?
* ( , h t ?
*d t (h), ,
*t , t ? t-, -z- (_i)
* ( ? t h

4.2.2.1 Labials
SCauc. *p, *, *b merge in Hatt. f / p/ win all likelihood more than one pho-
neme, but can hardly be distinguished due to the imperfect and inconsistent
cuneiform transcription:
SCauc. *q[]pV to cover > kip to protect [18]
SCauc. *[p]r lightning; brilliance > paru bright [33]
SCauc. *aplxqwE leaf > puluku leaves [39]
SCauc. *[p]HV to blow (STib. *bt) > pu-an to blow on [43]

15
Updated cell.
SCauc. *[]VrV to speak, pray > fara-ya priest [32]
NCauc. *bV cattle-shed ~ fael house [30]
STib. *bhr abundant, numerous ~ far thousand [31]
SCauc. *br a k. of predator > pra leopard [37]
SCauc. *[
]ombi superpower > tafa-r-na lord, tawa-nanna lady [52]

Yen. *bot- often ~ fute long (in temporal meaning) [44]
Yen. *p to cover; to plug; to close ~ tip gate [49]
STib. *Pr-V country ~ fur country; population [41]
STib. *tp (~ d-) fear, to be confused ~ tafa fear [53]
STib. *cVp (~ -) bitter, pungent ~ zipi-na sour [66]
Yen. *q[e]p (~ -) moon ~ kap moon [15]

The situation with Hatt. f / p/ w resembles the Yenisseian reexes of SCauc. labial
stops, for which see , 1982/ 2007, 149 f. Yen. *p yields p/ p
h
/ p
f
/ h in
known languages, while Yen. *b > b/ p/ v. An exact parallel to Hattic are early
records of Kottish, Arin and Pumpokol, were f, p
h
, p
f
, p and even b freely alter-
nate.

SCauc. nasal *-m- in the medial position is retained:
NCauc. *=a(m)sV to be silent, listen ~ am(a) to hear [48]

Labial m > n before a dental consonant is without doubt a late (synchronic?)
process in Hattic:
SCauc. *=VmV(r) to stand, stay > *(a)mti > (a)nti to stand [28]

But in the initial position SCauc. *m- coincides with SCauc. labial stops and
yields Hatt. f-/ p-/ w-:
SCauc. *mVjwV sour, salty > wet (fet?) sour [34]
SCauc. *mIlwV to blow; wind > pezi-l wind [35]
STib. *mVn to perceive; to think ~ pnu to look [36]
STib. *mor grain ~ fula bread [38]
SCauc. *HmoV to die, dead > fun(a) mortality [40]
STib. *mVt to eat, swallow ~ pu to devour [42]

The process of denasalization in the initial position is paralleled by the Yenis-
seian branch, where SCauc. *m- > Yen. *b-/ p-/ w- (for the distribution see SCC,
37 f.).
16
Synchronically Hattic possesses a number of stems with initial m-:

16
Roots in m-, attested in the synchronic Yen. languages, are Russian, Nenets, etc. loan-
words. The second source of m- in the Yen. languages is the late distant assimilation Yen.
*bVN- / *wVN > mVN which occurs in some auxiliary morphemes.
ma/ fa and [47], mai(u) a valuable cloth [48], malhip good, favorable
[49], mar or kamar to slit, slash [50], mael or parel cult performer,
chanter, clown
?
[51], milup or lup
??
bull, ox [52], mi to take (for oneself)
[53], mu/ fu mother, lady, mistress (vel sim.) [54], muh(al) hearth [55],
muna-muna foundation, base, bed stone [56], mu smth. relating to tree,
fruit
?
[57]. None of these roots possesses a reliable SCauc. etymology, and cul-
tural terms clearly prevail in the list, so we can threat all these words as loans. At
least for two of the mentioned stems the source of borrowing can be established:
malhip good, favorable [49] < WCauc. *ma\V good, luck (with lhip for the
palatalized labialized lateral *\); mael cult performer, chanter, clown
?
[51]
< WSem. ml (milu) cymbal player.
An interesting case is Hatt. mi to take (for oneself) [53], belonging to the
basic vocabulary. Its SCauc. cognate may be Yen. *ma() take! (the compari-
son is possible if we suppose the loss of the nal consonant in Yen. allegro
forms)an exceptional case of preserving m- in Proto-Yen.
On the other hand, Hattic possesses a few grammatical prexes in m- (for the
list see HWHT, 230 f.). This fact, however, does not contradict our theory, since
the situation, when auxiliary morphemes violate common phonotactical rules, is
not so rare in the word languages. Second, some of these prexes have variants
with initial f- (see HWHT, 165, 230 f.), the same concerns conjunction ma and
[47] and noun mu mother, lady, mistress (vel sim.) [54], which alternate with
variants fa and fu respectively (note that mu/ fu mother, lady, mistress (vel
sim.) [54] is attested only as the second element of compounds).
In addition cf. Hatt.
D
fazulla, which is probably the same deity as
D
mezulla,
known from Hittite texts (HWHT, 911 w. lit.).

SCauc. *w is generally retained in Hattic:
SCauc. *wV thou > we thou (2
nd
person sg. personal pronoun), u- thy
(2
nd
person sg. possessive pronoun) [77]
SCauc. *VwV to pour; wet > tefu to pour [57]
STib. *lw to be able ~ lu to be able [25]
SCauc. *=w to take > ku to seize [19]

In one case we see the dissimilative nasalization *-uw- > -um- (that resembles
similar phonotactical process in Hittite):
SCauc. *cjwIlV rainy season > *tuwil > tumil rain [62]

4.2.2.2 Dentals
SCauc. *t, *, *d were merged in Hatt. t (~ tt). Cf. :
SCauc. *=tV to put, leave > ti to lie, put [55]
SCauc. *dVHV to grow; big > te big [54]

Also with an unidentied dental :
STib. *tp (~ d-) fear, to be confused ~ tafa fear [53]
Yen. *kat (~ g-, -c) old (attr.) ~ katte king [17]
Yen. *bot- often ~ fute long in temporal meaning [44]

An important case is Hatt. z for SCauc. dental stop:
Yen. *d()q- (~ *dk-) to fall ~ zik (< *tik) to fall [65]

It seems that /ti/ became /i/ (graphical zi) in Hattic, since the sequence ti is
relatively rare in texts known to us (in contrast to zi) and sometimes ti-forms
have by-forms in zi (e. g., tiuz ~ ziuz rock). The same assibilation /ti/ > /i/ is
observed in the reexes of SCauc. affricates, which standardly yield the stop
phoneme /t/, but affricate // before /i/, see 4.2.2.3 below. Together with the dis-
similation /u/ > /um/ this process of assibilation nds its direct parallel in the
Proto-Hittite historical phonology.

SCauc. nasal *n is a stable phoneme:
SCauc. *hVnV now > anna when [2]
SCauc. *=HVV(-n) clear (of weather) > etan sun [5]
SCauc. *xnI (-) water; wave > han sea [7]
NCauc. *=a
wVn to open ~ han to open [8]

SCauc. *=axgwV(n) to look, see > kun to see [21]
STib. *mVn to perceive; to think ~ pnu to look [36]
STib. *n to tread, trace ~ nu to come, go [29]
NCauc. *-nV, genitive ~ -n, genitive [74]

In one case we see *n > m before a labialized guttural :
NCauc. *nV woman, female > *limhu-t > nimhu-t woman [27]

SCauc. non-initial *-r- standardly yields Hatt. r:
SCauc. *Vrqw wide > harki- wide [9]
STib. *bhr abundant, numerous ~ far thousand [31]
SCauc. *[]VrV to speak, pray > fara-ya priest [32]
STib. *Pr-V country ~ fur country; population [41]
SCauc. *torV crust, incrustation, skin, shell > tera-h leather covering
[58]

There is one example for SCauc. *-r- > Hatt. -l-:
SCauc. *xq(w)VrV old, ripe > hel to ripen [11].
The closest analogy is Proto-Yen., were SCauc. *-r- > Yen. *r/ r
1
with unknown
distribution, while Yen. *r
1
gives l-reexes in most attested languages (-
, 1982/ 2007, 156).

Initial r- is strongly prohibited for Hattic root and auxiliary morphemes (an ex-
ception is the fossilized r-sufx, etymologically singled out in some nominal
and verbal stems). I suppose that SCauc. *r- > Hattic -.
SCauc. *rw breast, heart > aki- heart [47].
The comparison seems reliable despite the fact that the standard way to elimi-
nate initial *r- in SCauc. daughter-languages is > t-/ d-.

4.2.2.3 Alveolar, post-alveolar and palatal affricates
Reexes of SCauc. voiceless alveolar (*c, *() and palatal (*, *() affricates are
similar: Hattic stop or affricate in the initial position and Hattic sibilant -- in
other positions. This process of fricativization in the medial and nal position
runs parallel with Proto-Yen., cf., e. g., SCauc. * > Yen. *-, *s.

SCauc. voiceless alveolar affricates *c, *( yield Hatt. t- in the initial position and
Hatt. -- in other positions.
Initially:
SCauc. *cjwIlV rainy season > tumil rain [62]
SCauc. *=VV to eat, drink > tu to eat [59]

Non-initially:
SCauc. *= to put > e (~ et?) to put [4]
STib. *mVt to eat, swallow ~ pu to devour [42]
SCauc. *[p]HV to blow (STib. *bt) > pu-an to blow on [43]

Some roots show Hattic z, which is in all likelihood a secondary Hittite assibi-
lation /ti/ > /i/, see 4.2.2.2 above:
NCauc. *
wV stick; timber ~ zeha-r, ziha-r wood [64]

STib. *cVp (~ -) bitter, pungent ~ zipi-na sour [66]

In one case Hatt. z-reex of SCauc. *( remains without explanation. Despite this
irregularity the comparison can hardly be rejected:
SCauc. *wjV (~ s-, ~ -I-) female > zuwa-tu wife [68]
The SCauc. voiceless palatal affricates *, *( yield Hatt. t~ (//) or t- in the ini-
tial position and Hatt. -- in other positions. Of course Hattic t- may cover //
here, since it is possible that spelling variants with - are merely unattested for
some morphemes.
Initially:
SCauc. *Hu earth, sand > ahhu ~ tahhu ground [45]
STib. *IH to govern; lord ~ ai-l ~ tai-l lord [46]
SCauc. *VxqV to scratch, scrape; to shave > taha-ya barber [50]
SCauc. *VwV to pour; wet > tefu to pour [57]
SCauc. *=wV (STib. *H) to take > tuh to take [60]
STib. *H to work; to build ~ teh to build [56]
SCauc. *VQV to step, run > tuk to step [61]

Non-initially:
Yen. *- (< SCauc. *() to let come, let enter ~ a to come (here) [3]

In one case a secondary Hittite assibilation /ti/ > /i/ is observed:
SCauc. *V (~ -) stone, mountain > *ti > zi mountain [67]

SCauc. voiced palatal affricate * > Hatt. t in both initial and medial positions:
Yen. *p to cover; to plug; to close ~ tip gate [49]

As opposed to the aforementioned affricative phonemes, the SCauc. post-alveo-
lar voiceless affricates *, *( yield Hatt. t in all positions:
SCauc. *[

In one case we see a secondary Hittite assibilation /ti/ > /i/ :
SCauc. *mIlwV to blow; wind > *peti-l > pezi-l wind [35]

4.2.2.4 Other front consonants
SCauc. *s, * are retained as Hatt. (/s/):
NCauc. *=a(m)sV to be silent, listen ~ am(a) to hear [48]
SCauc. *V (~ -) stone, mountain > zi mountain [67]
NCauc. *-:w, plural stem marker ~ a-/ i-, plural of the accusative case [70]
Yen. *a-KsV- (~ x-) temple (part of head) ~ ka head [16]

SCauc. *j was lost in the intervocalic position:

4.2.2.5 Laterals
SCauc. lateral affricates *, *\, * merge in Hatt. l :
17

SCauc. *jV time, year, season > li year [24]
NCauc. *bV cattle-shed ~ fael house [30]
STib. *lw to be able ~ lu to be able [25]
STib. *roH light ~ leli light [23]

One case of the occasional distant assimilation must be noted:
NCauc. *nV woman, female > *limhu-t > nimhu-t woman [27]

SCauc. *l > Hatt. l :
SCauc. *hiltw to run (away) > luizzi-l runner [26]
STib. *q(h)r to throw (into water), scatter ~ hel to strew [10]
STib. *re to dislike ~ le to envy [22]
STib. *mor grain ~ fula bread [38]

SCauc. * yields Hatt. l as well as r. Cf. similar situation in Proto-Yen., where
SCauc. * > Yen. *l ~ *r
1
~ *r with unknown distribution.
SCauc. *=gwV (*gwVV) (~ xgw-) to lose, hide > her to hide [12]
? SCauc. *VH arm, sleeve > her, hir to allocate, assign; to entrust ; to
hand over, assign; to administer [14]
SCauc. *VV (~ x-) lock, bolt > *halu bolt, lock [6]
STib. *roH light ~ leli light [23]

4.2.2.6 Velar and uvular consonants
SCauc. velar and uvular voiceless stops *k, *, *q, *q merge in Hatt. k.
Velar stops:
SCauc. *HkV to look, search > hukur to see [13]
SCauc. *rw breast, heart > aki- heart [47]
SCauc. *=w to take > ku to seize [19]

17
It is interesting but not surprising that Hattic renders lateral obstruents by lh/ lk in the
borrowings from Proto-West Caucasian: Hatt. malhip good, favorable [49] < WCauc.
*ma\V good, luck ; Hatt. hapalki iron [12] < WCauc. *I-\V iron or rather
*I-p\ copper.
Yen. *a-KsV- (~ x-) temple (part of head) ~ ka head [16]
Yen. *kat (~ g-, -c) old (attr.) ~ katte king [17]

Uvular stops:
SCauc. *q[]pV to cover > kip to protect [18]
SCauc. *snqV panther, leopard > take-ha lion [51]
SCauc. *VQV to step, run > tuk to step [61]
Yen. *d()q- (~ *dk-) to fall ~ zik to fall [65]
Yen. *q[e]p (~ -) moon ~ kap moon [15]

SCauc. velar and uvular voiceless fricatives *x, * yield Hatt. h:
NCauc. *
wV stick; timber > zeha-r, ziha-r wood [64]

NCauc. *=a

SCauc. initial nasal *- > *m- > Hatt. f- (the development is exactly paralleled
by Proto-Yen.):
SCauc. *V I > fa- I, 1
st
person sg. subject [75]

In other positions SCauc. nasal * > Hatt. n:
SCauc. *HmoV die, dead > fun(a) mortality [40]

4.2.2.7 Laryngeals
SCauc. *h drops:
SCauc. *hVnV now > anna when [2]

SCauc. * standardly yields Hatt. h:
NCauc. *nV woman, female > nimhu-t woman [27]

But SCauc. * drops in initial / nal clusters, see 4.2.2.13 below.

The only example of SCauc. * is:

An example for SCauc. *w > 0 could be:
SCauc. *wir water, lake > ur(i) spring, well [109], if the comparison is
correct.
SCauc. *H (an unidentied laryngeal) > Hatt. h:
SCauc. *HkV to look, search > hukur to see [13]
STib. *H to work; to build ~ teh to build [56]
SCauc. *=wV (STib. *H) to take > tuh to take [60]

SCauc. *H (an unidentied laryngeal) > Hatt. 0:
SCauc. *dVHV to grow; big > te big [54]
STib. *IH to govern; lord ~ ai-l ~ tai-l lord [46]
SCauc. *HmoV to die, dead > fun mortality [40]

4.2.2.8 Clusters with *w
SCauc. labialized consonants (treated as Cw-clusters by S. Starostin) lose the la-
bial element in Hattic. They yield reexes which coincide with their non-labial-
ized counterparts:
NCauc. *
wV stick; timber ~ zeha-r, ziha-r wood [64]

SCauc. *hiltw to run (away) >
L
luizzi-l runner [26]
NCauc. *-:w, plural stem marker ~ a-/ i-, plural of the accusative case [70]

The same with velars/ uvulars:
SCauc. *rw breast, heart > aki- heart [47]
NCauc. *=a


In a few cases Hattic shows unmotivated u-vocalism:
SCauc. *Hxqw to preserve, guard > (a)ku escort [20]
Of course one can try to explain it by the inuence of an old labialized conso-
nant. As a matter of fact ve examples above, where labialized velars/ uvulars
completely lose their labial element without vowel change, speak against such a
supposition.

4.2.2.9 xK(w)-clusters
SCauc. clusters of the type *xK(w) (where Kvelar/ uvular) yield Hatt. k or h
without evident rule of distribution.

SCauc. *xgw > Hatt. h, k:

SCauc. *x > Hatt. h, k:

SCauc. *xq > Hatt. h:
SCauc. *VxqV to scratch, scrape; to shave > taha-ya barber [50]

SCauc. *xqw > Hatt. k:
SCauc. *Hxqw to preserve, guard > (a)ku escort [20]

SCauc. *xq > Hatt. h:
SCauc. *xq(w)VrV old, ripe > hel, hil to ripen [11]

SCauc. *xqw > Hatt. k:

4.2.2.10 ST-clusters
SCauc. clusters of the ST-type yield Hatt. t, that coincides with the Proto-Yen.
reex (SCauc. *ST > Yen. *t).
SCauc. *s :

SCauc. *t :
[58]

SCauc. *tw (with a secondary Hittite assibilation /ti/ > /i/):
SCauc. *hiltw to run (away) > *luiti-l > luizzi-l runner [26]

4.2.2.11 lC- and rC-clusters
SCauc. *l is dropped in combination with post-alveolar and palatal affricates
(this process is normal for all SCauc. branches except NCauc., SCC, 87 f.):

For r in combination with *( see comm. on p(a)ra leopard [37] (< SCauc.
*br a k. of predator).

Quite surprising is the fact of retention of SCauc. *l and *r in combinations with
velar/ uvular (note that all SCauc. branches except NCauc. standardly lose the
sonorant in such clusters).

In combination with * SCauc. *l is retained:

But SCauc. * is lost in combination with some unidentied laryngeal :
Such a development is paralleled by STib., where SCauc. *, * > *, * >
STib. *0 (SCC, 19, 191). Note that Yen. has regular *r/ r
1
< SCauc. *lH/ H
(SCC, 84).

4.2.2.12 NC-clusters
SCauc. nasal drops in combination with labial :
SCauc. *[

Such a simplication is standard for all SCauc. branches except NCauc., but
there is a signicant number of examples, where Yen., STib. and Burush. retain
the nasal, see SCC, 39 ff., 48 ff.

Combination with post-alveolar affricate *m( > *mt > *nt :
Note that the retention of the nasal in such a position is not typical of SCauc.
languages.

In combination with guttural the nasal drops (a standard development in SCauc.
branches except NCauc.):

In combination with * Hattic retains the SCauc. nasal :

4.2.2.13 Clusters with laryngeals
In the initial and nal positions Hattic loses laryngeals in clusters:
[58]
SCauc. *HmoV to die, dead > fun mortality [40]

In the medial position laryngeals can be retained:
4.3 Root structure
For the general discussion see SCC, 1 ff. The standard shape of SCauc. nominal
root was CVCV (where C can be a cluster). Normally Hattic retains this structure
as CVCV or CVC (with unknown rules of the nal vowel drop). Cf. the follow-
ing selective examples.

CVCV:
SCauc. *rw breast, heart > aki- heart [47].
[58]

CVC:

The situation with SCauc. verbal roots is more complicated, since the actual
SCauc. reconstruction in general is NCauc.-centric, but it is clear that the struc-
ture of some types of verbal roots was seriously rebuilt in the Proto-NCauc. lan-
guage.
I suppose that the main SCauc. verbal shapes were:
CVCV
CVC
VCV(R)
CV
where C can be an obstruent, a sonorant or a consonant cluster. Very often
NCauc. (or rather its ECauc. sub-branch?) adds an initial =V- or =HV-, which
serves as a spacer between ECauc. class exponents (=) and root. In most cases
S. Starostin projects such a spacer onto the Proto-SCauc. level (e. g., he ac-
cepts SCauc. *=VCVR instead of *CVR). Since the reconstruction of NCauc.
and SCauc. morphosyntax is the task of futher research and is not a goal of my
paper, I adopt Starostins reconstructions of individual roots. It should be noted
that Hattic does not show traces of these =V-/ =HV- spacers, thus conforming
in it with the STib., Yen., Burushaski and Basque branches.
Standardly Hattic retains the shape of SCauc. verbal proto-roots, but some-
times in a polysyllabic structure a nal vowel may have been lost (as in the case
of nominal roots the rules of a nal vowel drop are not clear).

SCauc. CVCV > Hatt. CVCV:
SCauc. *HkV to look, search > NCauc. *H[o]kV ~ STib. *ku ~ Yen. *b-
[o]k- ~ Hatt. huku-r to see [13]
SCauc. *[]VrV to speak, pray > STib. *p(r)IwH ~ Yen. *ba- ~ Burush.
*bar ~ Hatt. fara-ya priest [32]
SCauc. *VxqV to scratch, scrape; to shave > NCauc. *VqV ~ Yen.
*[e]()V ~ Hatt. taha-ya barber [50]
SCauc. *VwV to pour; wet > NCauc. *=w ~ STib. *w ~ Burush.
*ao ~ Hatt. tefu to pour [57]

SCauc. CVCV > Hatt. CVC:
SCauc. *xq(w)VrV old, ripe > NCauc. *=rqw to ripen ~ STib. *gr
old, large ~ Hatt. hel to grow, ripen [11]
SCauc. *q[]pV to cover > STib. *Gp ~ Yen. *qepVn- ~ Hatt. kip to pro-
tect [18]
SCauc. *VQV to step, run > STib. *ek ~ Yen. *q- ~ Hatt. tuk to
step [61]

SCauc. =V-CVR > Hatt. CVR:
NCauc. *=a
wVn to open ~ Hatt. han to open [8]

SCauc. *=gwV (*gwVV) (~ xgw-) to lose, hide > NCauc. *=igwV ~
STib. *koj (~ -l) ~ Basque *gal- ~ Hatt. her to hide [12]
SCauc. *=w to take > NCauc. *=w ~ STib. *Khu ~ Hatt. ku to
seize to seize [19]
SCauc. *=axgwV(n) to look, see > NCauc. *=agwV ~ STib. *kn ~ Yen.
*qo ~ Hatt. kun to see [21]

SCauc. VCV > Hatt. VCV:
SCauc. *=VmV(r) to stand, stay > NCauc. *=Vm
Vr ~ STib. *hi-oH ~
Hatt. (a)nti to stand, stay [28]

SCauc. VCV > Hatt. VC:
SCauc. *= to put > NCauc. *=i ~ Yen. *es- ~ Basque *ecan ~ Hatt.
e to put [4]

SCauc. =V-CV > Hatt. CV:
SCauc. *=tV to put, leave > NCauc. *=tV-r ~ STib. *dhH ~ Yen. *di(j)
~ Hatt. ti to lie, put [55]
SCauc. *=VV to eat, drink > NCauc. *=V
V ~ STib. *ha-H ~ Yen. *s- ~

Burush. *i / *i / *u ~ Hatt. tu to eat [59]
5 HatticSino-Caucasian root comparisons
Entries are arranged in the following alphabetic order: a, e/ i, h, k, l, m, n, f/ p/ w,
/ s, t, u, z. The numeration in section 5.1 (reliable root comparisons) is contin-
ued in section 6.1 (reliable grammatical comparisons). The same concerns the
numeration with character stroke () in section 5.2 (dubious root comparisons),
which is continued in 6.2 (dubious grammatical comparisons). The entries have
the following structure:
No. Hattic data.
= Hittite equivalent in bilingual or quasi-bilingual texts.
Proposed Sino-Caucasian etymology.
Comments and references.
5.1 Roots with reliable SCauc. cognates
1. alef (alep, alip, aliw) tongue; word; to say
?

= Hitt. EME.
SCauc. *\npV tongue; lip; to lick >
NCauc. *\npV lip > Tsez. *\ipu (~ --, - -), Lezgh. *\amp- (~ -).
STib. *ep tongue, to lick > Tib. gab to lick, Kachin (H) i-lep
tongue.
Yen. *alVp (~ --, -r
1
-, -b) tongue > Kott. alup, Arin ap, elep.
Yen. *a- (a former class-prex?) exactly matches the Hattic onset. The Hat-
tic meaning corresponds to Yen. and STib. as opposed to NCauc.
Similarly , 1985, 1 (Hatt. + Yen.). Untenably , 1994, 21
(Hatt. + WCauc. *(a):V word, speech; to say; to swear).
2. anna when, sobald, als
= Hitt. mn.
SCauc. *hVnV now >
NCauc. *h[]nV now > Nakh *hin-ca/ *hin-a now, Tsez. *hin-V to-
day, Dargwa *han- now, Lezgh. *hin- now, WCauc. *n- today; cf.
Hurr. henni, Urart. hini now.
STib. *n[] time or place of, when > Chin. *n particle by verbalizing,
as, and yet, and (?), Tib. na year(?); stage of life, age; when, Kachin
(H) na, na to extend in time, na loc. or abl. sufx, Lushai nia at the
time of; when, -na the place of or where, instrument of or for.
Yen. *en now > Ket n, Yug en. The Ablaut form *an- in compounds >
Yug an-es
5,6
morning (an- + God, sky), an-bks
5
tomorrow = Ket
ank
5,6
tomorrow (an- + *pVk- morning); apparently the basic mean-
ing of an- in the compounds listed is when, not now. *en-a > Kott.
eaa now, Arin ini today.
Double nn in the Hattic form may point to an old cluster. If so, Yen. *en-a
appears the closest parallel (* > n seems regular for Hattic), despite se-
mantic difference and vocalic alternation.
, 1985, 2 compares Hattic anna with some WCauc. adverbial / pro-
nominal forms of the shape an-, covering a large spectrum of demon-
strative meanings. E. g., Ubykh an- here (l); then, at that time (alors)
(Vogt, 1963, 85), Abkhaz an there, ani that, inx -an- when, and so
forth. According to NCED, these WCauc. morphemes go back to WCauc.
*nV (a demonstrative stem), further to NCauc. *nV this, that. Since
their temporal semantics is not paralleled by the corresponding ECauc.
pronouns/ adverbs, it is possible that part of the WCauc. forms listed
above originates from the same NCauc. stem *h[]nV now.
3. a to come (here), imp. aa komm (herein)!
= Hitt. ehu.
Yen. *- to let come, let enter > Ket :te, Yug -:hl.
An exclusive HatticYenisseian isogloss, although the vocalic correspon-
dence is not very clear. Yen. *-- should go back to SCauc. *(.
, 1994, 21: to WCauc. *a (~ *-) to go, walk < NCauc. *=n to
go, to lead < SCauc. *=A- to pull, lead (NCauc. + STib. * to
bring, arrange + Yen. *- to pull, drag). The loss of *-n in Hattic is
unclear in this case.
4. e, i (and maybe et, it) to put
= Hitt. dai-.
SCauc. *= to put >
NCauc. *=i to give, compensate; to put > Av.-And. *=i(- to compen-
sate, reimburse, Lezgh. *i(a- to give, WCauc. *(V to lay eggs; to put
(with preverbs).
Yen. *es- to put > Ket a
6
, Yug si-sa
6
, Kott. i-ei.
Basque *ecan to lie down, rest (tr.), to put down.
The Hattic meaning corresponds to Yen., WCauc. and Basque attestations.
5. etan, atan sun, Sun-goddess; day
?

= Hitt.
D
UTU.
SCauc. *=HVV(-n) clear (of weather) >
NCauc. *=Hu
V-n ( ~ -j
-) to clear up (of weather) > Av.-And. *=V(:Vn-

(~ -(:-), Lezgh. *o(:Vn-; cf. Hurr. hemi clear, bright.
STib. *oj (~ -l) clear (of weather) > Chin. *ojs clearing sky, Burm.
ajh to stop, as raining or sound; to clear, as weather.
Yen. *- clear, quiet (of weather) > Ket t
4
/
4
, Yug :hl. Perhaps with an
initial reduction *in bright day in Ket d bright day, q-di holi-
day, Yug !n holiday etc.
Burush. *, *n, *ja clear (of sky); half-clear (of sky); to stop (of
rain).
Note the vocalic correspondence in the rst syllable between Hattic and Yen.,
as opposed to NCauc.
Incorrectly , 1985, 11: to NCauc. *msa (~ -, -) sky, cloud;
soul, breath; god < SCauc. *ms soul, breath; god, sky.
6. *halu in redupl. halu-halu wooden bolt, lock,
= Hitt. hattalwa GI-ru.
SCauc. *VV (~ x-) lock, bolt >
NCauc. *uI/ *Iu lock, bolt ; key > Av.-And. *ulV, Lak ula, Lezgh.
*ul (~ -o-), WCauc. *l.
STib. *klH bolt, lock > Chin. *gar door bar, bolt, Lushai kal to be
locked or fasten.
The comparison is reliable if the SCauc. onset was *x-. Note that the Hattic
vowel of the rst syllable corresponds to the STib. forms, not to the
NCauc. ones.
Similarly , 1985, 17 (Hatt. + NCauc.).
7. han sea
= Hitt. aruna-.
SCauc. *xnI (-) >
NCauc. *xnI water > Nakh *i, Av.-And. *:ini, Tsez. *:i, Lak :in,
Dargwa *xin, Lezgh. *:n:, Khin. xu.
STib. *w(s) water, moisture > Tib. hus moisture, humidity, Kachin
kho
2
to spill, Lushai hu wet, Kiranti *k water.
Yen. *x (~ -) wave > Ket bk
1
, Kott. en, *n.
Burushaski *hn-chil water from a wound; watery (tea, soup).
Basque *u-hain wave.
Phonetically Hattic exactly matches the Yen. forms.
8. han to open
= Hitt. ha- to open, and da- to take(?!).
NCauc. *=a
wVn to open > Av.-And. *=aVn; Tsez. *=[]:-.

9. harki-mah to be(come) wide
= Hitt. palhi- e-.
SCauc. *Vrqw wide >
NCauc. *rq[w] wide > Av.-And. *qa-b-, Tsez. *qeq-, Lak u-t:a-, Dar-
gwa *-au-, Lezgh. *hIarq-, WCauc. *b()V.
STib. *qH wide, broad > Chin. *k wide, broad, large, Kachin
()wu
2
-wa
2
, to be wide, ample, Lushai v to be broad, wide, etc.
Yen. *iG-V (~ *i-V) wide, broad > Ket q, Yug xe: / xej
3
, Kott. hgal.
Yen. shows the -sufx.
The second element mah in the Hattic stem is probably the same mah which
is observed in kazue-mah < kazue cup, bowl, hikkir-mah ?, her-mah
?.
10. hel, hil to strew, pour, scatter
= Hitt. ihuwai-.
STib. *q(h)r to throw (into water), scatter > Chin. g
r (~ w-?) to
wash, Tib. skjur-ba to throw, throw into water, cast, Lushai vor to
scatter, throw up, toss.
STib. *q(h)- originates from SCauc. *qw, Gw-, w-, w- and so on (SCC,
8993), while *-r- < SCauc. *-l- and *-r-.
11. hel, hil to grow, ripen
= Hitt. mai-.
SCauc. *xq(w)VrV old, ripe >
NCauc. *=rqw to ripen > Av.-And. *=iq-, Tsez. *=iq-, Lak =ija-, Dar-
gwa *=iqur-, Lezgh. *i(r)qV, WCauc. *a- (~ -G-).
STib. *gr old, large > Chin. *grij old, *grij great, large, Tib. bgre
to grow old, Burm. krih to be old; be big.
The correspondence Hatt. l ~ SCauc. *r is strange, cf., however, Yen. *r/ r
1
as
reexes of SCauc. *r with unknown rules of distribution (Yen. *r
1
yields
l-like phonemes in the majority of daughter languages).
12. her (also hert?) to hide, conceal
= Hitt. munnai-.
SCauc. *=gwV (*gwVV) (~ xgw-) to lose, hide >
NCauc. *=igwV to lose, get lost ; to steal > Av.-And. *golV (~ -a-) thief,
Tsez. *gVl- thief, Lezgh. *ik:l- to lose; to get lost ; hidden, secret,
Khin. dugun- to lose.
STib. *koj (~ -l) to hide > Burm. kwaj to conceal, keep out of sight, Ka-
chin mkoi
1
hide, conceal.
Basque *gal- to lose, corrupt, spoil.
Sccet.dbf reconstructs the SCauc. stem with *gw, but in fact we cannot
distinguish *gw and *xgw without Yen. cognates. For SCauc. * ~ Hatt. r,
cf. SCauc. * > Yen. *r/ r
1
with unknown rules of distribution.
The Hattic meaning is closer to STib., rather than to NCauc.
, 1985, 7 compares Hatt. her(t
?
) with an isolated WCauc. form:
Ubykh qarda- tre assis, cach (Vogt, 1963, 164).
13. hukur to see, look, notice
= Hitt. au-.
SCauc. *HkV to look, search >
NCauc. *H[o]kV to look, search > Tsez. *hak- (~ -), Lak uI=i-, Lezgh.
*akV-/ *okV-.
STib. *ku (~ g-) to seek, choose, understand > Chin. *gu to seek, ask
for, Tib. sko, bsko to choose, go to know, understand, Burm. (Naxi)
*kh[ua] hear.
Yen. *b-[o]k- (~ w-) to nd > Ket b:
4
, b
4
, Yug b:hk, Kott. bapuk.
The (verbal) sufx -rV is rather common in SCauc. languages, especially in
the NCauc. sub-branch. In synchronic Hattic the r-onset is prohibited for
any morphemes (both root and auxiliary) and huku-r seems the only ver-
bal stem known to us, where we can suspect an r-sufx. Some nominal
stems, however, contain a similar fossilized morpheme: zeha-r building
wood [64]. On the hypothetical Hatt. **tafa-r to rule see tafarna [52].
Girbal, 1986 compares the Hattic stem with Georgian qur- to lookan iso-
lated Georg. root, which theoretically may be related to Kartv. qur- ear;
to hear, see Schmidt, 1962, 141.
14. kai horn (anatomic
18
)
= Hitt. SI.
SCauc. *xlw forelock; horn >
NCauc. *lwi forelock, plait ; horn > Nakh *u( forelock, tuft of hair;
mountain top, Av.-And. *i( (~ *i() forelock, Lezgh. *al/ *kal
horn; plait, womans hair.
STib. *khaj horn, a pair of horns > Chin. khaj one horn turning up and
one down, Lushai ki horn.
Burush. *uy hair.
The loss of l in combination with an affricate is regular for all SCauc. sub-
branches except the NCauc. one (SCC, 87 f.). Hattic probably shows an
interesting development *l > j here.
15. kap moon
= Hitt.
D
SN.
Yen. *q[e]p (~ -) moon > Ket qp, pl. qi:
3
, Yug xep, pl. xejfn
1
.
For the meaning of the Hattic term see HHB2, 173, 412 f., 416 ff., 464
fn. 948 and Soysal, 2004, 364.
An important HatticYen. isogloss. The second Yenisseian word for moon
is *(V)suj (Kott., Arin, Pump.), which probably possesses an external
etymology (SCauc. *w moon), whereas *q[e]p (~ -) seems an in-
ner Yenisseian innovation.
16. ka, ki head, Kopf, Haupt
= Hitt. haran-, SAG.DU
Yen. *aKsV- (~ x-) temple (part of head) > Kott. axei, further see
Yenet.dbf #11 and , 1995, 180 with possible KetYug cognates
and the general discussion.
An exclusive HatticYen. isogloss.
Yen. *a- appears to be a fossilized class prex, causing a secondary reduc-
tion of the root vowel, as, e. g., in Yen. *saq- ~ *a-sq- guilty (< SCauc.
*cVrqV).
An alternative, semantically more persuasive etymology is SCauc. *VqV
head (NCauc. [only WCauc. *SqIa head] ~ Yen. *c[]G- head ~ Bu-
rush. *-anes back of head), if one assumes a consonant metathesis
in the Hattic root. Cf. Sum. SAG head (an unclear coincidence?).
17. katte king, katta-h queen
= Hitt. LUGAL, MUNUS.LUGAL.
Yen. *kat (~ g-, -c) old (attr.) > Ket kat, pl. kate
5
, Yug kat, pl. kate
5
.
An exclusive HatticYen. isogloss. Hattic shows a very common semantic

18
O. Soysal, pers. comm.
shift old > elder.
Chirikba, 1996, 424 compares Hatt. katte with AbkhazAbaza compound
*qa-da chief (adj.), whose elements are unclear.
18. kip to protect
= Hitt. pah-.
SCauc. *q[]pV to cover (reconstructed as *qHpE in Sccet.dbf)>
STib. *Gp to cover > Chin. *kts (< *kps) to cover, conceal ; a cover
(of a car), *gp to thatch, to cover, Tib. bkab to cover, gab to hide,
Kachin mgap
2
to cover, Lushai hup (hu) to cover, put over, Lepcha
kap to cover over, to envelop, to wrap round as garment, Kiranti *kop
cover.
Yen. *qepVn- (~ -) to close (door) > Ket qegej
6
, Yug di-fnbdi ich
mache es zu, imper. fne.
Sccet.dbf adds NCauc. *q
HapE hat, cap (Av.-And., Tsez., Lak, Dargwa,

Lezgh., WCauc.) here that is implausible since forms like KAPV (/ PAKV)
hat are clear wandering words.
Hattic shows a common semantic development to cover/ wrap > to pro-
tect.
Cf. also SCauc. *xwV to graze; guard > NCauc. *fV to guard, to
graze ~ STib. *[u]a gamester, guard. Interesting, but phonetically un-
satisfactory (k ~ *).
19. ku to seize
= Hitt. epp-.
SCauc. *=w to put ; to take >
NCauc. *=w to put (together), take; to lie, fall > Nakh *=- to fall
down; crumble, Av.-And. *=V-/ *V-b- to put together; to lie; to fall
down; to take, collect, Tsez. *=o- B to fall ; to gather, to (be) put to-
gether, Lak l-i=(i- to put in; establish, Dargwa *=a-/ *=i- to put,
Lezgh. *e- to steal, conceal ; to hide; to choose; to put, Khin. l-=-
to hide, conceal, WCauc. * to catch, hold, grab; cf. Hurr.-Urart.
*ew- to put.
STib. *Khu (~ -ua, -w) to take out, extract > Chin. *gu to assemble,
accumulate (?), Tib. bku to extract (to make an extract of a drug by
drawing out the juice), Burm. khuh to take out (e. g., boiled rice out of a
pot).
It seems that the NCauc. forms reveal more than one proto-root (to take and
to put, to lie). Semantically the Hattic verb is close to the WCauc. and
STib. attestations.
An alternative cognate of the Hattic verb is NCauc. *=iq
wV to hold, catch
(> Av.-And. *=ik:-, Tsez. *=o:-, Dargwa *=ujk:-, Lezgh. *iq-,
WCauc. *q:Ia (~q-, q-)), but this comparison does not explain the Hat-
tic u-vocalism.
, 1985, 23, and Chirikba, 1996, 421 (Hattic + WCauc. *q:Ia).
, 1994, 21 (Hatt. + WCauc. *).
20. ku (or aku) soldier, escort (vel sim.) or rather subject(s of the king).
Attested only in pl. form: faku (paku, wa
a
ku).
SCauc. *Hxqw to preserve, guard >
NCauc. *Hqw to graze, guard, preserve > Tsez. *=o- (~ -:-) to graze,
feed, Lezgh. *oI to guard, preserve, WCauc. *IV to graze (intr.
and trans.).
STib. *k to help; friend, companion > Chin. *gu mate, companion,
*kus to help, save, relieve, Burm. ku help, Kachin khu
2
to become
friends, (H) mkhu friend, lkhu to guard, protect, Lushai *ku help,
Kiranti *ku look after.
Semantically the Hatt. root is closer to the STib. forms rather than to the
NCauc. ones.
21. kun to see
= Hitt. au-.
SCauc. *=axgwV(n) to look, see >
NCauc. *=agwV to see > Nakh *gu-/ *=ag-, Av.-And. *-Vg-, Tsez.
*=[e]g- A, Lak k:a=k:a-, Dargwa *g-/ *=irg()-, Lezgh. *ak:-.
STib. *kn (~ g-) to glance at ; to regard > Chin. *kn to glance at,
Lushai khon to regard, pay attention to.
Yen. *qo (~ -) to see > Ket d-ba--s-, Yug di-ba--s-, Pump. ja-xa-ldi
I see.
Morphologically the Hattic form is close to the STib. attestations.
, 1985, 21 compares Hatt. kun with unclear AdygheKabardian
*- (found in some compounds like mirror) with the possible meaning
to look/ see.
22. le or ale to envy (vel sim.), neidisch sein, beneiden (vel sim.)
= Hitt. araniya- to be angry (at); to envy.
STib. *re to dislike > Kachin nri
4
to be annoyed, displeased, (H) gri to
regard as undesirable, Lushai hre to dislike, object to.
A HatticSTib. isogloss (STib. *r goes back to SCauc. *r or *l).
23. *leli in leliyah or leliyahu source of light; lustre, brilliance. An epithet
of the Sun-goddess
= Hitt. lalukkima-.
STib. *roH light > Chin. *ron to be beautiful, handsome, Tib. khrol-
khrol bright, shining, khrol-po sparkling, glistening, dazzling, Burm.
hrwanh to be clear, bright, shining.
Apparently the Hattic stem contains the sufx -ya, which forms nomina
agentis, and female sufx -ah [125]. The same sufxal chain -ya-ah is
seen in the quasi-synonymous kaparuyah source of light [33] (= Hitt.
lalukkima-)another epithet of the Sun-goddess. Alternatively it is
possible to single out the morpheme yah here: thus , 1985, 15
(proposing *yah bright) and O. Soysal, pers. comm. (comparing it with
yah heaven, sky).
The vocalic correspondence between Hattic and STib. is not clear, however.
Sccet.dbf #570 tentatively includes the STib. stem into SCauc. *li skin,
colour (> NCauc. *li colour; to paint, Yen. *o hull, suffusion,
Basque *laru skin) which seems lame semantically.
24. li, le year
= Hitt. MU(.KAM).
SCauc. *jV time, year, season >
NCauc. *jV year, day > Av.-And. *aji- (*aHi-) year; in the daytime;
today, WCauc. *\V year; day.
STib. *lH year, season > Chin. *lh sacricial cycle, year, Tib. lo
year, Kachin khra
1
time, season, Kiranti *l[o] time.
The element - is apparently a sufx known from some other Hattic nominal
stems.
25. lu to be able, imstande sein; knnen
?

= Hitt. -za tarh-.
STib. *lw to be able > Tib. blo mind, intellect ; to be able, Kachin lu
2
-na
3

to can, (H) lu, thu to be able, can, Kiranti *l to feel, be affected, pre-
sent, be experienceable.
An exclusive HatticSTib. isogloss.
Sccet.dbf #705 adds here Chin. *los to understand; to instruct, enlighten
(if not to STib. *jw to understand, consider) and unites this STib. stem
with NCauc. *olwA to think. Apparently two different proto-roots, to
think and to be able, merged in some languages.
26.
L
luizzi-l runner, messenger,
= Hitt.
L
KA
4
.E.
SCauc. *hiltw to run (away) >
NCauc. *hilw to run (away) > Tsez. *=[]- to run (away), Lak liI=a-
to run, Lezgh. *hi- to run (away), Khin. =p- to run away,
WCauc. *c:a to run; to walk uncertainly.
STib. > Chin. *ho, *h to run, drive, * to run, make run, gallop.
Yen. *tut- to ee, hide > Ket tut
5
/ tuti
5
.
The Hattic stem shows the well-attested masculine sufx -l.
The shape of the Hattic stem (u-epenthesis between *l and obstruent cluster)
resembles the Yen. proto-form.
27. nimhu-t (or nimhu-tu), nimhu- woman
NCauc. *nV (~ --) woman, female > Dargwa *x:unul woman,
Lezgh. *:n:(ol) woman; female.
-t(u)/ -(u) is a female sufx. Although Hattic shows assimilated n- for ex-
pected **l-, the comparison seems reliable. Note Hatt. -m- for *-n- before
labialized h.
Untenably , 1994, 19 (Hatt. + WCauc. *p-A- woman, where
*p- is a fossilized class prex and - is a diminutive sufx).
28. (a)nti to stand; to stay
= Hitt. ar-.
SCauc. *=VmV(r) to stand, stay >
NCauc. *=Vm
Vr to stand, stand up > Nakh *-tt-, Av.-And. *=i(:- /

*i(r)(:-, Tsez. *=ar- / *=e-, Lak =iza-n, Dargwa *=ic:Vr- / =ilc:-,
Lezgh. *ec:r-.
STib. *hioH (~ jh-) to be at, sit, stay > Chin. *,ho to be at, in, on,
Tib. ges to sit, stay, wait.
Hatt. *mt > nt seems regular.
, 1985, 29 compares Hatt. (a)nti with the isolated Ubykh nt
door which is certainly less probable.
29. nu to come, go (intr.); to bring
?
(trans.)
= Hitt. pai-, uwa-.
STib. *n to tread, trace (> Chin. *u, *u, *us to tread, trample,
Kachin knu
4
a pattern of carving or embroidery, Lushai hnu to print, a
mark).
, 1994, 21, and Chirikba, 1996, 421 compare Hatt. nu with Abkhaz
Abaza *n-qa- to walk, move (a preverb + root *qa to walk <
NCauc. *=Huqn to go, come) which is not persuasive either phoneti-
cally or morphologically.
Not better , 1985, 58: to Ubykh bayna-w to move off/ away,
containing an unclear element bayna and the root w to enter, go
(< WCauc. *V to enter < NCauc. *=or to go, walk, enter).
30. fael, fel, l (wa
a
el, we
e
l, wi
i
l, also pail
?
, pel
?
, pil
?
) house, perhaps also
verbal to dwell, (be)hausen
= Hitt. (-ir).
NCauc. *bV cattle-shed > Av.-And. *bi\:i cattle-shed, Tsez. *buu A
(~ -) cattle-shed; pub, Lak p:al cattle-shed, Dargwa *bik: cattle
herd.
The comparison is reliable both phonetically and semantically. The connec-
tion to SCauc. *bl\V house (> NCauc. *bl\
V (~ --) house ~ STib.

*[b]k dwelling ~ Burush. *balt veranda, outside room) is more
tempting semantically, but not phonetically in view of the vocalic
irregularity SCauc. *o vs. Hatt. ae/i (as for the rare SCauc. cluster *l\,
note that its standard reexes are STib. *k and Yen. *, SCC, 81 ff.).
, 1985, 62 analyzes the Hattic stem as fe-l and compares it with
WCauc. *Ina house (< NCauc. *GwinV (~ --, --) village;
house) which is certainly unjustied.
31. far (par, wa
a
r) thousand
= Hitt. LM.
STib. *bhr abundant, numerous > Chin. *bar abundant, *bar to
be prosperous, rich, numerous, Tib. dpar glory, splendour; wealth,
abundance; welfare, happiness, Lushai bar very, much.
An interesting HatticSTib. isogloss.
32. fara-ya (paraya, parayu, perayu, wa
a
rai, wa
a
rayu) priest
= Hitt.
L
SANGA.
SCauc. *[]VrV to speak, pray >
STib. *p(r)IwH to speak > Chin. *ps to respond, announce, Burm.
prawh to speak, Lushai pau speech, word, Kiranti *br(-n/-t) speech,
word.
Yen. *ba- (~ -r
1
-) to pray > Ket babt
6
, bavt
6
, Yug barbl
5
(lit. to make
a prayer); Ket babe-
6
cross (object of prayer).
Burush. *bar speech, word.
For Hattic nomina agentis in -ya cf. taha-ya barber [50], etc. Semantically
the Hattic root exactly matches Yen.
33. *paru bright, shining in kaparuyah (ka-a-paru-ya-h) source of light
or luminous. An epithet of the Sun-goddess
= Hitt. lalukkima- source of light.
SCauc. *[p]r lightning; brilliance >
NCauc. *pr lightning > Av.-And. *piri lightning, Tsez. *pr lightning;
thunder, Lak par lightning; lustre, Dargwa *paIr lightning, Lezgh.
*par/ *rap lightning. Also in a compound with *(j re: *(j-pr
lightning (Av.-And., Lak, Lezgh.).
STib. *prH bright ; morning > Chin. *pra bright, clear, Burm.
prau to be brilliant, blazing, glorious.
In all likelihood one should analyze the Hattic stem as follows: ka-a-paru-
ya-h. Prexes ka-a- are not rare in nominal stems, although their mean-
ing and function remain vague. The sufx -ya forms nomina agentis (like
para-ya priest, taha-ya barber), while -(a)h is a female sufx [125].
The same sufxal chain -ya-ah is found in the quasi-synonym leliyah
source of light (= Hitt. lalukkima-)another epithet of the Sun-goddess.
For an alternative analysis of -yah (bright or heaven) see leliyah
source of light [23]
Semantically Hattic is closer to STib., rather than to NCauc.
34. wet, wit (perhaps also pet, pit, i. e. fet / t) to be(come) sour/ bitter
= Hitt. ammale-, ammalliya-.
SCauc. *wVjmV/ *mVjwV sour, salty >
NCauc. *mVj
w sour > Nakh *musi-n sour, Tsez. *aa-lu sour,

Lak qur(i- sour, bitter, Dargwa *qan(a vinegar, Lezgh. *im(V-r-
/ ir(V-m- sour; salty, Khin. mi( sour, WCauc. *(V to get sour;
sour.
STib. *[h]am salt > Chin. *ham (~ ch-, -e-) buck, lye, Kachin um
2

salt, Lushai (KC) *thum sour, salty.
Burush. *hmil poison.
Hitt. verbs ammale-, ammalliya- are attested almost exclusively in the
texts translated from Hattic (CHD , 111 ff.). Since we know the Hattic
word afat apple-tree/ apricot-tree [83] and Hittite word amalu with
the same meaning, the only sensible solution is to treat Hitt. ammale-,
ammalliya- as an occasional loan translation from Hattic with the mean-
ing to be(come) like an apple/ apricotfor the precise translation to be
sour/ bitter see Soysal, 1989 and Soysal, 2004, 8892 (in the latter paper
an additional semantic development to to be crabby, angry is also dis-
cussed). Note that the derivation in Hattic wet (*fet) to be sour a-fat
a k. of apple/ apricot is typologically normal (for the prex a- see
HWHT, 238), while Hittite shows an opposite direction amalu apple/
apricot ammale-/ ammalliya- to be(come) sour/ bitter, which
must be explained by the calqued nature of the Hittite verbs.
Hattic shows the same consonant metathesis as the NCauc. proto-form.
Cf. Hatt. witanu cheese [75], which is probably derived from this verb.
35. pezi-l, pize-l, pizi-l (errors: pzael, wa
a
zil) wind
= Hitt. huwant- wind, also heu- rain (sic!).
SCauc. *mIlwV to blow; wind >
NCauc. *mIlwV wind > Av.-And. *moi (/ *mii), Tsez. *mu: A, Lak
mar, Lezgh. *mu.
STib. *mt to blow > Burm. hmut to blow, Kachin (Ben) mut to blow,
Lushai (KC) *hmut, Lepcha mt, mt to blow, to breathe at, s-mut
wind, Kiranti *mt to blow.
The Hattic stem contains the masculine sufx -l.
The loss of l in combination with an affricate is regular for all SCauc.
branches except the NCauc. one (SCC, 87 f.).
Vocalically the Hattic word is closer to the NCauc. proto-form than to the
STib. one.
Unconvincingly , 1985, 63, where the Hattic element zil is
compared with unclear Kabardian s- rain(?) (found in compound).
Untenably , 1994, 20: to WCauc. *p:a wind; to blow (< NCauc.
*woV wind, to blow with WCauc. prex *p-).
36. pnu to observe, look
= Hitt. uk-.
STib. *mVn to perceive; to think > Chin. *mn to hear; to perceive, to
get to know; to smell, Kiranti *min to think.
The Hattic root was probably **pVnu with a reduction of the medial vowel
in prexed forms.
An interesting HatticSTib. isogloss, but not quite reliable in view of too
general semantics.
Not plausibly , 1985, 33, and Chirikba, 1996, 421 (to WCauc. *bA
~ *p:A to see).
37. pra or para leopard (attested form: ha-pra-un)
= Hitt. PRIG.TUR.
SCauc. *br (~ -) a k. of predator >
NCauc. *br (~ -) wolf > Nakh *bor( wolf, Av.-And. *bo(o wolf,
Tsez. *b( A wolf, Lak bar( wolf, Dargwa *be( wolf, WCauc.
*bVgV-bV,V jackal, hyena (a Proto-WCauc. compound: NCauc. *bVga
fox, jackal + wolf).
Yen. *pe()s-tap (~ -b) wolverine > Kott. fetap, ftap, phetap, Arin
hjstap.
Basque *oo wolf.
A rather interesting case. The Hattic root can be para (with an occasional re-
duction para > pra in the prexed form) or pra.
In the case of para one should suggest a retention of sonorant in the SCauc.
clusters r + affricate in Hattic. If so, an a-anaptyxis in the old cluster is
paralleled by an u-anaptyxis in the old lxq-cluster as illustrated by puluku
leaves [39] < SCauc. *aplxqwE leaf.
In the case of pra Hattic shows development *CVRC > CRVC, which is an
exclusive feature of the STib. branch (see SCC, 58, 88).
The Hattic word cannot be a NCauc. loanword in view of the root structure
and semantic difference: the shift wolf < > leopard is possible in the
case of long separate language development, but it seems strange in the
case of borrowing of the name of the well-known beast (we assume that
the Hattians were Anatolian autochthons and therefore were familiar with
leopards).
This NCauc.Hattic stem is widespread in Eurasia as a Wanderwort with the
meaning leopard, but the exact source of borrowing can hardly be estab-
lished. Grk. -/ - in , leopard (Hom.+) as
well as Iranian forms like Sogd. pwrnk- from the phonetic viewpoint
speak for the NCauc. origin (with regular NCauc. *( > Grk. , see
, 1985, 68 ff. 8, 11, 12, 33), but semantically corresponds to
the Hattic stem. Hitt. par- in parna-, parana- leopard, also leopard-
man (a cult functionary) (OS+) is very similar to Hattic except for the
root structure CVRC. Persian prs leopard. panther and numerous
Turkic forms bars, pars tiger, leopard, etc. probably originate from some
Anatolian Post-Hittite language.
38. *fula bread in fula-ne bread, used in ritual action; bread offering
STib. *mor (~ -u-) grain > Burm. mun bread, Lushai hmor-h name of
a sp. of rice, Lepcha j-mr-zo a spec. of zo (rice).
Hattic fulane should be analyzed as a compound fula-ne, where ne [89]
means offering (cf. tefu-ne libation [57]).
In all probability the STib. root is not connected with SCauc. *HmrV a k.
of berry.
Untenably , 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
39. puluku leaves, foliage, greenery
= Hitt. lahhurnuzziyant-.
SCauc. *aplxqwE leaf >
NCauc. *aplqw (~ -) burdock; leaf(?) > Av.-And. *HabuV burdock,
Tsez. *emuq(a) burdock, Dargwa *hequl(i) burdock, Lezgh. *palqI
burdock, ? WCauc. *p: (~ b-) leaf; to open (of leaves).
STib. *phak (~ bh-) leaf > Burm. phak leaf (of tree), Kachin pha
2
-lap
2

tea, tea-leaf, Kiranti *phok leaf.
Burush. *bilgur a k. of weed
For an anaptyxis between l and velar in the Hattic stem cf. pra leopard
[37].
40. fun (pun, wu
u
n) or funa (puna, wu
u
na) mortality, mortals
= Hitt. dandukear.
SCauc. *HmoV to die, dead >
STib. *mo to die > Chin. *smo to die (of king), Burm. (LB) *mha
corpse, Kachin ma
1
a corpse, carcass, Lushai ma to die, Lepcha
mak to die (said of man, animal, tree, re, dispute); dying.
Yen. *bo dead man > Ket b, Yug bo.
An interesting HatticSTib.Yen. isogloss.
Unpersuasively , 1985, 66, and , 1994, 20, who compare the
Hattic root with WCauc. *wV person; people, persons and WCauc. *V
person; self.
41. fur (wu
u
r, pur, pu
u
r) country; population
= Hitt. utne, KUR(-e), utniyant-.
STib. *PrV country > Chin. *pr country, state, Burm. pra coun-
try.
An exclusive HatticSTib. isogloss. The STib. proto-form shows a frequent
reduction of the medial vowel and the common sufx -V.
42. pu or pue to devour, swallow
= Hitt. ed-.
STib. *mVt to eat, swallow > Chin. *mht to feed grain to horses, Tib.
mid to swallow, ? Burm. mwat-sip to be thirsty.
STib. *-t can originate from SCauc. *-t / - / -d as well as from SCauc. *-c/ -(
and *-/ -(/ -,.
43. pu-an to blow on, fan (a re or burning materials)
= Hitt. parai-.
SCauc. *[p]HV to blow >
NCauc. *pHV to blow, blowing > Nakh *hu(:)p to blow, blowing, Av.-
And. *pu- to blow, Tsez. *p-- to blow; to swell, blow up; to whis-
tle, Khin. p air; to blow, WCauc. *p:Vwa (~ b-) to breathe; breath.
STib. *b, bt > Chin. *pt gust of wind, Tib. bud to blow, sbud
bellows, Burm. phw bellows, Kachin phot
2
to blow in puffs,
Lushai phu to blow out of the mouth.
Yen. *pV(j) to blow > Ket ugij, Yug duap-p, Kott. ifu.
Burush. *phu to blow.
The Hattic form apparently contains the sufx -an, which is known from
some other verbal stems (e. g., am ~ aman to hear, further cf. HWHT,
210).
Despite the fact of the onomatopoeic nature of the SCauc. root, the Hattic
terminus technicus exactly matches the STib. forms both phonetically
(STib. *-t can go back to SCauc. *-t / - / -d as well as to SCauc. *-c/ -( and
*-/ -(/ -,) and semantically.
It is interesting that in the Dargwa group a similar root is observed: Proto-
Dargwa *pu(a) bellows; bubble, bladder (< NCauc. *prwA (~ -l-)
bubble, bladder; to swell). Since there is no another evidence for Hat-
ticProto-Dargwa contacts, I suspect that we deal with a chance coinci-
dence here.
Cf. also p(a)un breath
?
; soul
?
; lung
?
[71].
44. fute, futi (wu
u
te, wu
u
ti, puti) (to be) long in temporal meaning (usually
in the collocation long years)
= Hitt. talugi- (e-).
Yen. *bot- often > Ket bt.
An interesting HatticYen. isogloss.
45. ahhu/ tahhu ground, bottom (e. g., of the sea)
= Hitt. tekan- earth, ground.
SCauc. *Hu/ *Hu dirt, dust, earth, ground >
NCauc. *Hu/ *Hu dirt, dust, earth, ground, sand > Nakh *()il
(~ --) ashes, dust, Av.-And. *:VlV silt, slime, Lak :aIlu/ :aI- earth,
ground, Lezgh. *:il earth; oor.
Basque *olho meadow; eld; eld (prepared for sowing).
Caucet.dbf proposes the NCauc. proto-form *Hu with reference to the
pharyngealization in Lak :aIlu as an indicator of NCauc. *H. As a matter
of fact Lak has doublets :aIlu ~ :aI-, where :aI- points to the proto-
form *Hu (for the phonetic development see NCED, 6970). Basque
*orho also speaks for the *Hu variant.
Note the simplication *H > hh in Hattic.
46. ai-l / tai-l lord, master. Probably the same stem without the masculine
l-sufx ai(u) lord and with the feminine t/-sufx e-t, se-t, si-t lady
?
.
Also found in the compounds like zihar-tail Holz-Meister (= carpenter),
huzza-ai Herd-Meister (= smith), fur-ail Land(es)-Herr.
STib. *IH to govern, rule; lord > Chin. *co (~ -) steward; minister,
Tib. r,e, ,o lord, master, Burm. wh to govern, direct, awh king,
queen, royalty, Kachin (H) au to rule.
A HatticSTib. isogloss. STib. *- can originate from SCauc. */ (/ , and
*/ (/ .
47. aki-l, ki-l, aki-l, also without the masculine l-sufx: aki heart
= Hitt. (-ir).
SCauc. *rw breast, heart >
NCauc. *jrw heart > Nakh *do, Av.-And. *roo, Tsez. *r A, Lak
da, Dargwa *uri, Lezgh. *jir, Khin. ung, WCauc. *; cf. Hurr. egi,
igi inside.
STib. *r/ *rk breast > Chin. *(r)k bosom, Tib. bra chest,
breast, Burm. ra breast, Lushai e breast.
Yen. *t()ga breast > Ket tga
5
/ ta
5
, Yug tga
5
, Pump. tke.
Burush. *dak hope, belief.
SCauc. initial *r- > Hattic -. Cf. also Sum. AG heart (an unclear
coincidence?).
48. am(a) (and perhaps sam-an) to hear, listen (vel sim.)
NCauc. *=a(m)sV to be silent, listen (> to talk) > Av.-And. *sVs(Vn)- to be
quiet, silent, Dargwa *=urs- (/ =us-) to say, tell, Lezgh. *asV to be si-
lent ; to listen.
The Proto-NCauc. form may originate from virtual SCauc. **sVmV (with
regular morphonological processes in the Proto-NCauc. verbal stem: re-
duction of the medial vowel and metathesis -CR- > -RC-, see SCC, 1 f.).
The Hatt.NCauc. comparison is somewhat doubtful, however, due to the
scantiness of the NCauc. data.
Girbal, 1986, 162 compares Hatt. am(an) with Kartv. *sem- to hear, *sm-
en to listen (to), possessing reliable Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic cognates
(Kartet.dbf; Afaset.dbf; Klimov, 1998, 163, 167). This comparison is ex-
act both phonetically and semantically, but proceeding from general rea-
sons we must treat it as a mere accidental coincidence (cf. a similar situa-
tion with Hatt. tumil rain [62]).
A borrowing of such a basic term from Akkad. em to hear (< Semitic
*Vma- to hear < Afro-Asiatic *sim- ear) is not probable.
49. tip (probably not tip
19
) gate
= Hitt. K.
Yen. *p to cover; to plug; to close > Ket -dp to plug, -dup to close,
Yug !i:
h
p
4
to cover, close, Kott. ha-p to cover.
A HatticYen. isogloss. Hattic shows a very common semantic shift cover >
door. Yen. *- may originate from SCauc. */ , and */ (/ .
50. taha-ya barber, Barbier (ein Kultdiener)
= Hitt.
L
U.I.
SCauc. *VxqV to scratch, scrape >
NCauc. *VqV/ *q
VV to scratch, rub > Av.-And. *:V- to scrape, Tsez.

*:- (~ --) to write, Dargwa *=iq- to scratch, scrape; to tear,
Lezgh. *(i:an- to scrape, rub; to dget ; to peel ; to tear.
Yen. *[e]()V to shave > Ket d:
3
, Yug !ou
3
// !o:, Kott. hran-ex to
hack, bevel.
20

Burush. *qha to rub.
For Hattic nomina agentis in -ya cf. para-ya priest. The Hattic meaning ex-

19
Soysal, 2004, 370 proposes that the Hattic loanword in Hittite
kakatipa- gatehouse,
portal is a reduplicated formation *kas(k)-kas(k)-tipa with the sufx -tipa (known as
-epa/ -zipa from other Hittite stems), but I think that we deal with a compound word-
forming here: kaku gate building [29] + tip gate, although the binding vowel
change u > a remains unclear.
20
In many compounds this verbal root has the meaning to split, hack, make notches,
etc. among the Yenisseian languages, but the basic meaning of the plain stem is to
shave (see Yenet.dbf #836; Werner, 2002 1, 205).
actly matches the Yen. root. Sccet.dbf reconstructs the SCauc. proto-form
as *VqV (~ -xq-) which seems unjustied.
, 1985, 50 compares Hattic ta-ha-ya with WCauc. *V to comb;
to scrape (< NCauc. *hrg
w comb) which is not persuasive either

phonetically or morphologically.
51. takeha, takiha, also with the masculine l-sufx takeha-l, takiha-l lion;
hero
= Hitt. UR.MAH, UR.SAG(-i-).
SCauc. *snqV panther, leopard >
NCauc. *nq
V lynx, panther > Nakh *(q ounce, snow leopard, Av.-

And. *(irq:V lynx; ounce, snow leopard, Lak (iniq tiger, leopard, Dar-
gwa *(irq panther.
STib. *chi()k leopard > Tib. gzig leopard; porcupine, Burm. (kjah)-sa
leopard, Kiranti *sk-ba tiger, leopard.
The sufx -(e)ha in take-ha remains without clear parallels among known
Hattic stems (it can hardly be identied with the feminine -(a)h [125] as
in katta-h queen, etc.). Despite this fact the comparison is reliable both
phonetically and semantically. The simplication *nK > K seems regular
for Hattic as well as for the other SCauc. daughter languages except the
NCauc. branch.
Sccet.dbf reconstructs the SCauc. proto-form as *nqV (~ s-), but *s- is
more preferable in view of STib. *ch-.
52. tafarna (tabarna, tawa
a
rna) lord, the title of the Hittite king;
(f)
tawananna lady, Herrscherin, the title of the Hittite reigning queen
= Hitt. labarna-, tabarna- and
f
tawananna.
SCauc. *[
]ombi superpower >

NCauc. *
ombi god; mercy > Nakh *(bV idol, god; heathen deity;
priest, Av.-And. *(:VbV mercy, grace, Lak (imi grace, mercy, pity,
Dargwa *(um pity.
STib. *m honour, authority > Chin. * to honour, go to pay court ;
ancestor; master, Tib. gom, bom pride, haughtiness, arrogance, Ka-
chin um authority.
Widely discussed Hattic words, see now Soysal, 2005 w. lit. and EDHIL w.
lit. (both scholars advocate non-IE, scil. Hattic origin of tabarna) vs.
Yakubovich, 2009, 229 ff. w. lit. and Melchert, 2003a, 18 ff. (for the Ana-
tolian origin of tabarna and tawananna).
The theory of borrowing such regal terms from Luwian or Hittite into Hattic
(and Palaic) is not very probable proceeding from general reasons. We
know several dozens of Hattic loanwords in Hittite
21
(especially concern-

21
For the list see now Goedegebuure, 2008, 146 f. w. previous lit.
ing cultic and regal terminology), but not a single HittiteLuwian loan-
word in Hattic is revealed up to now.
22

If the term tabarna functioned in Hattic as a Hittito-Luwian Exotismus refer-
ring just to the Hittite king (like refers to the Roman emperors in
Ancient Greek texts), it is strange that we nd this term in Hattic archaic
formulaic passages. The formal difculties associated with the Hittito-Lu-
wian origin of the term tabarna are more serious.
1) The Luwian athematic verb tabar- to rule lacks IE etymology. The com-
parison with Germ. adjective *apraz heavy; sad, downcast (Orel,
2003, 68) or with Slav. adjective dobr good ( 5, 45) is untenable
both semantically and morphologically
23
. An analysis of tawananna ac-
cepted by Melchert, 2003a, 18 ff. (to IE *st-, *st- to stand) is not
persuasive either.
2) The Luwian morphological pattern of nomen actoris in -na (tabar- to
rule > tabar-na- one who rules) is unique. A postulation of a hypotheti-
cal Luw. adjective **tabra- mighty (cf. the previous paragraph), from
which the adjective tabar-na- mighty has been derived (as per Melchert,
2003a, 18 ff.), and an explanation of athematic tabar- to rule as a back-
formation are totally unprovable. Slightly differently Yakubovich (2002;
2009, 229 ff.), who proposes not an adjective, but a Luw. substantive
**tabara- /daara/ or /aara/ power as a starting point of t/labarna
which seems ad hoc also.
24
Note that Yakubovich is compelled to postu-
late two unique Luwian phonemes (//, //) in order to explain the forms
in question. Further Yakubovich refers to early second millennium Cappa-
docian onomastics in an attempt to nd some evidence for Luwian **ta-
bara- /daara/ or /aara/ power. He quotes four PN-sWa-dapra-,
Wa-lapra-, Waa-tapra, upi-lapra- and attributes them to Luwian. As
a matter of fact the rst element of Wa-dapra-, Wa-lapra- is inexplicable
within Luwian (as was correctly noted by Yakubovich himself: 2009,
216). There are two ways to analyze Cappadocian Wa-dapra-, Wa-lapra-.
First, they can be Hattic names with the frequent Hatt. prex wa-. The
second and more probable solution is to divide these forms as Wada-pra-,
Wala-pra- (for their second element cf., e. g., morphologically doubtless
Cappadocian PN upi-pra, Garelli, 1963, 146). The third name Waa-
tapra may be either Luwian or not, since waa seems unetymologizable
within Luwian; equally well it can be, e. g., Hurrian: cf. Hurr. tabri atri-

22
The only candidate is the widespread cultural term zinar [118] lyre which could in-
deed be identied as a Luw. loanword (for the discussion see sub v.).
23
Note that Luw. tabar- per se does not look like a normal Anatolian verbal stem.
24
Yakubovich inserts an epenthesis between labial and r because of the Lyc. A perso-
nal name dapara = Grk. (PN is known from some other Grk.
sources, see Neumann, 2007, 36). But the meaning, origin and morphology of Lyc. A da-
para are unknown, and I really doubt whether this form can prove anything.
but de divinits (GLH, 247). Finally, the fourth name upi-lapra- seems
Hittite, since the element upi well attested in Cappadocian onomastics
can be rather assuredly identied with Hitt. (not Luw. !) adj. uppi-
clear. To sum up the onomastic discussion. With some difculties in
Cappadocian personal names we can reveal morphemes tapra and lapra,
whose origin and meaning are vague. Note that we do not have any posi-
tive evidence that tapra and labra represent a single morpheme. Of
course, one can attempt to connect lapra to the Mediterranean morpheme
-, which is known in some divine epithets of the rst millennium BC
or later,
25
or even to the more archaic term = Myc. da-
pu/pu
2
-ri-to- (see Yakubovich, 2002).
26
On the other hand tapra can be
identied with Luw. tabar- to rule, but it is not obligatory due to the ab-
sence of a vowel between labial and r in tapra (cf. also possible Hurr.
cognate of tapra above). In any case, postulating of Luw. /aar/ with a
unique phoneme //, which was rendered by t- in Luw. tabar- to rule
(with various Hitt.-Luw. derivates), but by l in the title labarna and the
onomastic element lapra, can hardly be justied from my point of view.
The same concerns the idea that []when conjectural []apra became a
Mediterranean wandering onomastic rootcould preserve its unique pho-
netic characteristics in the course of millennium and continue to be
spelled either as l or as d in non-cuneiform traditions (cf. Yakubovichs
examples: Myc. da-pu/pu
2
-ri-to- = Grk. ; Lyc. A PN dapara
= Grk. ).
3) The Luwian verbal stem tabar- with derivates as well as their Hittite
counterparts (tabarija- order, injunction, etc.) never show t/l-alternation,
while t/labarna is uniformly spelled as labarna in CLuw. texts, not
**tabarna.
4) The alternation tabarna ~ labarna can hardly be explained within Hittito-
Luwian phonology. A hypothetical one-example scenario proposed by
Melchert, 2003a, 18 ff. for Hitt. l- < Luw. t- in Luwian loanwords in
Hittite is not supported by any positive evidence and looks too compli-
cated and factitious (note that the CLuw. stable spelling labarna clearly
contradicts Melcherts phonetic theory). On the contrary, we know an
opposite occasional process Anat. *T- > Luw. l-, for which see below.
5) /f/ (wa
a
) in Hatt. tafarna can hardly be explained if one assumes a loan
nature of this lexeme in Hattic.
27

25
The Carian city and Zeus shrine Labraunda, known from some ancient Greek authors
like Herodotus or Strabo (, ) or the epithet of Zeus in Cyprus -
.
26
For the latter cf. also hypothetical Linear A -du-pu
2
-re master, as proposed in
Valrio, 2007.
27
Yakubovich, 2009, 230 fn. 29, advocating the Luwian origin of Hattic tafarna, postu-
lates the new Luwian phoneme // for this case (/daarna/), which was being transcribed
Almost all these difculties are avoided if we treat tafarna and tawananna as
proper Hattic stems. Despite the fact that tawananna never occurs with
the spelling wa
a
or pa, I suppose that we can regard Hattic tafarna and
tawananna as paronymous words and single out the Hattic root tafa-
/ tawa-, whose SCauc. etymology (see above) is exact both phonetically
and semantically. Note that even if we discard tawananna from the com-
parison, it does not seriously affect my conclusions. A morpheme -r- in
tafa-r-na is a rather common SCauc. sufx known from some other Hat-
tic stems, both verbal (huku-r to see [13] < SCauc. *HkV id.) and
nominal (zeha-r building wood [64] ~ NCauc. *
wV stick; timber).
The nominal sufx -na is also attested in Hattic: cf. zipi-na sour [66]
(~ STib. *cVp bitter) and probably kurkupal [39] ~ kurkufen-na [40]
(if nna < lna).
Meanwhile the lambdacized form labarna, which is unknown to Hattic, but
attested in Hittite texts, where it competes with the proper variant tabarna
(see Soysal, 2005, 191 ff. for statistics), may be a result of false ety-
mologization. One can propose that the Hittites and the Luwians under-
stood ta- in tafarna as a feminine morpheme and attempted to replace it
by the masculine la- after the model
D
halipinu (a male deity of the
HatticHittite pantheon) vs.
D
hatipinu (a female deity of the Hattic
Hittite pantheon)see Soysal, 2005, 199 ff., but with different conclu-
sions. Certainly the queen title tawananna (never attested in a lamb-
dacized form) has not been affected by such etymologization.
There is an alternative phonetic explanation of the lambdacized form
labarna, since we know that in some cases Anat. *T- yields Luw. l-. The
conditions of this phonetic change are unknown, but the correspondence
Hitt. ta- to take ~ CLuw. la- id. can hardly be rejected.
28
Further and
less obligatory examples are: Hitt. tuhhuessar smoke-substance, in-
cense(-resin) ~ Luwoid
?
lu(y)essar incense(-wood) and Hitt. tuwarna-
to break ~ Luwism :lawarriya- id..
29
On the ground of this phonetic

as the sign BA by the Hittites in the Hittite word and as WA
A
by the Hittites in the Hattic
word. I do not understand, on which positive evidence Yakubovichs theory is based. The
function of the sign BA in the Hittite cuneiform tradition is the task of further research,
but as far as I can judge, BA was being used by Hittite scribes merely as an occasional
graphical indicator of loanwords (Hurrian, Luwian, Akkadian, Hattic, etc.).
28
Despite Yakubovich, 2008, 21, fn. 24.
29
Melchert, 2003b, 181 claims that the Hittites can render initial t- by l- in Luwian
loanwords. His examples are: Hitt. allappahh- to spite ~ CLuw. tappa- id. (maybe <
IE *lap- to lap, lick, but note that the Hittite term used in archaic rites of Hattic origin
also resembles Hatt. alef tongue) and the personal name Hitt.
m
alalimi ~ HLuw. ta/i
5
-
ta/i
4
-mi. Firstly, it is unclear to me why Hitt. allappahh- is a Luwian loanword. Secondly,
HLuw. PN ta/i
5
-ta/i
4
-mi must be read as ala-ali-mi (see Hawkins, 2005, 28990; Rie-
ken/ Yakubovich, 2010; Yakubovich, 2009a). Thirdly, even if we accept these examples,
the form in question is labarna, not **alabarna.
phenomenon the only consistent scenario is the following one: Hattic
tafarna was borrowed into Hittite and Palaic as tabarna and into Luwian
as *tabarna > labarna (labarna is the only variant known from Luwian
texts); thereupon the Hittites borrowed labarna from Luwian and began
to use it equally with the proper form tabarna. Of course both explana-
tions (morphological and phonetical) of the t/l-alternations in Hittite are
not self-evident,
30
but they seem much more probable than Melcherts one
(for which see above).
As for the second element of tawa-nanna, in all likelihood nanna reects the
universally spread nursery word mother, cf., e. g., SCauc. *nnV fe-
male breast ; mother. An assumed compound honoured/ powerful
mother as a queen title ts Hattic matriarchal culture very well.
The fact that tabarna/ labarna was the throne name of the rst Hittite king
(the founder of the dynasty) is unhelpful, since both solutions are equal.
First, we can assume that originally tabarna/ labarna was a proper name
and thereupon became a regal title in Anatolia (cf. the linguistic fate of
Lat. Caesar). But the second scenario is not less probable: tafarna was a
Hattic regal term, which has been adopted by Hittite king as a throne
name, typologically cf. German family names Kaiser, Herzog etc. (note
that the most part of the throne names of the Old Hittite kingdom was
Hattic and only two or three of them permit Luwian attribution, see Goe-
degebuure, 2008, 165; Yakubovich, 2009, 251).
Thus, from my point of view the derivation of tabarna/ labarna from Luw.
tabar- to rule looks like a modern folk etymology. On the other hand, I
cannot exclude that the Hattic stem tafa-r with the probable meaning to
have honour/ authority/ power might have been borrowed into Hittite
Luwian dialects as tabar- to rule together with other Hattic terms of
government and kingship. The second hypothetical source of the Luw.
verb could be the WSem. verbal root *dbr to lead, force to walk (Ugar.,
Hebr., Off. Aram., etc., probably Arab. ; see DUL, 263; HJ, 239). The na-
ture and the origin of the Mediterranean scarcely attested onomastic ele-
ment laB(a)r/ TaB(a)r remain vague. A rather satisfactory etymology of
Myc. da-pu/pu
2
-ri-to- = Grk. has been recently briefly pro-
posed by , 2009, 110: Hsch. hole,
trench, or pit dug in the ground.
31

30
Cf. Yakubovichs (2009, 231) criticism of Soysals morphological scenario. Yakubo-
vich is right that in the case of the morphological reanalysis of a loanword this process is
standardly based on the grammatical patterns of the target language. But reanalysis
according to the grammatical patterns of the source language is also sometimes observed.
E. g., the name of the USA company Keds has been borrowed into Russian as sg. ked,
pl. kedy sneaker(s), where -s has been understood as the English plural ending and
loped off.
31
For the Greek substrate sufxes - and - see Beekes, 2007 (C.2). Except for -
, there are no clear examples for the sufx - (cf., however, / -
Quite differently Soysal, 2005 (following H.-S. Schusters idea): ta-far-na
from the Hattic roots far thousand [31] and na ?, i. e. tafarna as (lord
of) thousand na-s. Such an analysis is rather factitious from my point of
view. First, the elliptical construction (lord of) appears unparalleled
by known Hattic data. Second, the virtual collocation ta-far-na lacks the
expected plural sufx fa- found in the similar collocation far-fa-haf / ta-
far-fa-haf thousand deities (from haf god).
32
Third, the root na is not
attested elsewhere in Hattic (except for Soysals theoretical ta-wanan-na
(lady of) wanan na-s) which makes this monoconsonantal analysis
doubtful.
, 1985, 53 analyzes Hattic tawananna as a compound tawa-nanna,
comparing Hatt. tafa with Adyghe and Kabardian n-wa, n-wa- (,
, ) old woman and Hatt. nanna with WCauc. *nanV
mother, mummy; old woman, granny (< NCauc. *nnV female breast ;
mother). Although the elements of the Adyghe compound n-wa are not
entirely clear, Ivanovs etymology of Hatt. tawa- is improbable both pho-
netically and morphologically.
53. tafa (tauwa
a
) fear, fright
= Hitt. weridema-.
STib. *tp (~ d-) fear, to be confused > Chin. *tep, *tip scared stiff,
stupeed, *tep to fear, Tib. rtab to be confused, frightened; to be in
a hurry.
A HatticSTib. isogloss. The connection between Hattic tafa fear and tu

/ [Arist.] a kind of carp and [Hsch.] a bird ~ -
[Suid.], the examples by S. Yatsemirsky, pers. comm.), but one can draw here a
parallel with the Pre-Greek sufxes -/ - or -/ - which are well-attested in their
both variants: cf. especially the doublets like ~ hartwort, Tordylium
ofcinale and maybe ~ crust of bread scooped out to the form of a
spoon (the examples by S. Yatsemirsky, pers. comm.).
As for the uctuation d~l in the Pre-Greek (scil. Minoan) vocabulary, this pheno-
menon does not seem an exclusive feature of . Cf. other Furnes examples
in Beekes, 2007 (B.5.7): Myc. ka-da-mi-ta ~ Grk. name of a good-smell-
ing plant, (Hom.+) ~ Pergaean (Hsch.) sweet bay (Laurus nobilis),
(Hsch.) wood; tree ~ (Hsch.) tree, ~ , also
(Hom.+) ~ (Hsch.) quoit. It is possible that the primary function of the
Linear B voiced series (i.e. d-series) was rendering of some special phoneme of the
Minoan language (e. g., the lateral affricate).
32
O. Soysal (pers. comm.) points, however, to the fact that auxiliary morphemes can
sometimes be dropped out in Hattic compound proper names like, e. g., in fur-un-katte
king of the land (land-GEN king) for *fur-un-te-katte (land-GEN POSS-king). But I
suspect that in the case of possessive exponent omission we deal with the general prin-
ciple of the Hattic compound word-forming, cf. without possessive proclitics zihar-tail
carpenter (wood-master), huzza-ai smith (hearth-master), fur-ail lord of the land
(land-master) etc.
fear [102] is unclear.
, 1985, 52 compares the Hattic compound tafa-tu fear (and) hor-
ror with WCauc. *x cold; to get cold, freeze > AbkhazAbaza *x-ta
cold (adj.), AdygheKabardian *st- to get cold with a further seman-
tic development into fear in some WCauc. forms, e. g., Kabard. -t
frightened. The comparison in not persuasive.
54. *te, *ti great, big in te-li (masc.) and te-te, te-ti (fem.)
SCauc. *dVHV to grow; big >
NCauc. > WCauc. *dA big; most, at all ; much, very.
STib. *tajH big, much > Chin. *tj much, many, *thaj, *thiaj,
*trj, *thrj be great, Burm. taj very, ti sign of the plural, Kachin
the
2
and, Lushai te (< *tei ?) much, very much, -te sufx denoting
plurality, Lepcha t, ti-m to be great, large, big, Kiranti *dV big.
Yen. *tj- to grow > Ket tji
5
, -tij, Yug tji, -tj.
Phonetically the Hattic form is close to the STib. and Yen. attestations.
Similarly , 1994, 20, and Chirikba, 1996, 428 (Hatt. + WCauc.). Gir-
bal, 1986 compares the Hattic fem. form tete with Kartv. *did- big
(South Kartv. only: Georg., Megrel, Laz), which can be a WCauc. loan-
word (cf. a reduplicated stem in AdygheKabardian *do-da / *d-d
most, at all).
55. ti, te, also zi
?
to lie; to lay
?

= Hitt. ki-.
SCauc. *=tV to put, leave >
NCauc. *=tV-r to let, leave; to stay > Nakh *=it- to leave, Av.-And.
*=it- to leave, let ; to stay, be there, Lak =ita- to leave, Dargwa
*=atVr- to leave, Lezgh. *jatr- to let, leave, Khin. at- to be there, be
available, WCauc. *tV to be inside; to stand; to be (Abkhaz -ta-/ -t()-,
etc.).
STib. *dhH (/ *thH) to put, place > Chin. *a()s to place, position,
*tha dwell, stay, place, Tib. gda to be, to be there, gtad to lean
upon, deliver up, stad to put on, lay on, Burm. thah to put, place, Ka-
chin da
3
to put, place, Lushai da to put, place, set, Lepcha tho-m to
place.
Yen. *di(j) to lie down, put down > Ket dij to put, load, Yug di / di to put,
load.
Burush. *-t- to do, make, set up.
Hattic matches Yen. phonetically.
Chirikba, 1996, 421 compares Hatt. ti with WCauc. *:A to sleep (<
NCauc. *=HVw\
n) which is impossible phonetically. Doubtfully

, 1994, 21 (Hatt. + WCauc. *(V to lay eggs; to put (with pre-
verbs), for which see Hatt. e to put [4]).
56. teh, tih to build
= Hitt. wede-.
STib. *H > Chin. *,
r to work, serve, ofce, *,
rs affair, Tib.
ha to make, prepare, Kachin (H) a to pile or lay, as stones; to build,
as stone-wall, to build, as scaffold, ? Lushai sa (sak) to build or erect (as
house etc.)
A HatticSTib. isogloss (for the semantics cf. the Kachin and probably
Lushai cognates). STib. *- can originate from SCauc. */ (/ , and */ (/ .
The phonetic similarity with Hurr. teh- to grow up (of children) seems acci-
dental.
57. *tefu to pour in tefu-ne libation, offering
= Hitt. ipantuzzi-, malt[ear].
SCauc. *VwV to pour; wet >
NCauc. *=w to emit, pour; to vomit > Nakh *l-b- to bathe; to be
scattered about, Av.-And. *=a- (~ -o-) to splash; to rinse; to wash; to
bathe; to ow; liquid, Tsez. *e- to vomit, Lak =i=i- to to pour,
strew; to throw, Lezgh. *a- to ow, pour; to jump, y; to vomit,
WCauc. * to vomit.
STib. *w (-t) water, wet ; to scoop > Tib. hu water, bud moisture,
juice, sap, hu to ladle or scoop (water), Burm. w to be wet, moist,
Kachin o
3
to pour into, o
2
spoon, Lushai iau wet and dirty, Kiran-
ti Limbu cwal water
Yen. *a-- to pour > Ket tij, Yug atej / aej.
Burush. *ao to wash.
Hattic tefu-ne should be analyzed as a compound, where ne [89] means
offering (cf. fula-ne bread offering [38]).
Phonetically and morphologically the Hattic stem is close to the STib. and
Burush. forms, while semanticallyto the NCauc. and Yen. ones.
Cf. also Hurr. tab/w- to found (metal), whose similarity with the Hattic root
can be a chance coincidence (, 1995/ 2007, 632 connects the
Hurrian term to NCauc. *=VwV to pour, to soak, further to SCauc.
*=V[]wV water).
58. tera-h (probably not tera-h) leather covering, fell-cloak
= Hitt.
KU
NG.BR.
SCauc. *torV crust, incrustation, skin, shell >
NCauc. *orV skin, shell > Nakh *(r skin, envelope; shell, peel, Tsez.
*rV (~ :-) lambs skin (for making hats); a k. of Tsez. shoes, Lezgh.
*:ar(a) (milk) skin; sour cream; cream; mould, Khin. ar sour
cream.
Yen. *tlap- (~ -r-) bread crust > Ket tla:
3
, pl. ta
5
, Yug tlap
5
/ tla:p
3
,
pl. tlafn
5
.
Note the simplication *t- > t- in Hattic, the same process as in Yen. For
the Hattic sufx -(a)h see HWHT, 216.
Yen. shows a further semantic development, while NCauc. and Hattic retain
the primary meaning leather covering, envelope.
, 1985, 41 compares terah with NCauc. *rq carpet ; coverlet
which is less satisfactory both semantically and phonetically.
59. tu to eat
= Hitt. ed-.
SCauc. *=VV to eat, drink >
NCauc. *=V
V to drink; to gulp, to eat > Av.-And. *(:a- to drink, Tsez.

*=a(- to eat, Lezgh. *V(V (~ -(:-) to drink.
STib. *haH to eat > Tib. za to eat, gzan to eat, devour, zan fodder,
porridge, Burm. ah to eat, Kachin a
3
to eat, at
2
boiled rice, rice
for eating, Lushai fa rice, fa to feed with the mouth, Kiranti *o
(?/ *) to eat.
Yen. *s- to eat > Ket s to eat, Yug s to eat, Kott. ig Speise, Arin au
Speise, Pump. sogo to eat.
Burush. *i / *i / *u to eat.
The Hattic u-vocalism is unclear (cf. Burush. *u). Despite this fact, the
comparison seems reliable.
Improbably , 1985, 59, who arbitrarily singled out the Hattic root
u[f] and compared it with WCauc. *fV to eat (possibly < NCauc. *fV
to guard, graze).
60. tuh to take; to keep
?

= Hitt. (-za) da-; ? har(k)-.
SCauc. *=wV to take >
NCauc. *=wV > Av.-And. *=a- (~ -o-) to carry, Tsez. *=a(:)- to nd,
Dargwa *=u- to gather, collect ; to take, Lezgh. *a- to take; to take
away; to bring, WCauc. *V to take, carry.
STib. *H to seize > Chin. *ho to take, Tib. ,u to seize.
Basque *eui to take, hold, seize, grasp.
Note the similarity between the Hattic and STib. roots.
, 1985, 48 compares the Hattic root with WCauc. *tA- to give
(< NCauc. *=VtV to give) which is unconvincing. Chirikba, 1996, 419
compares tuh with AbkhazAbaza *t-x to take from inside (where *t
is a locative preverb and *x means to take) which is unconvincing, too.
Untenably , 1994, 22 (Hatt. + Abaza).
61. tuk to step, hintreten; beistehen
?

= Hitt. tiya-.
SCauc. *VQV to step, run >
STib. *ek (~ j-) to tread, trample > Chin. , *ek footprints, trample,
Tib. ()hags to tread, to walk, to move.
Yen. *q- to run > Ket tq-tt
5
to run, Yug at-tat
5
to trot, Kott. ag-
anthak running, ganthagk to run.
Note the vocalic similarity between the Hattic and Proto-Yen. forms.
62. tumil, with a secondary assimilation tumin (also umin?) rain
= Hitt. heyu-.
SCauc. *cjwIlV rainy season >
NCauc. *cjwIlV autumn, winter (rainy season) > Nakh *sab()V/
*bastV autumn; spring, Av.-And. *c:ibirV autumn; winter, Tsez.
*s:b(rV) A autumn, Lak s:u-t autumn, Lezgh. *cowl: autumn,
Khin. cuwa- autumn, WCauc. *: (~ *,) autumn; winter.
STib. > Chin. *hiw autumn.
Yen. *sir
1
- summer > Ket i
1
, Yug sr, Kott. ilpa, Arin il.
Basque *asaro November, (Sal.) autumn.
The nasalization *-w- > -m- in the Hattic form is not quite clear, but the com-
parison cannot be rejected. Such a dissimilation uw > um is a good par-
allel to a similar phenomenon of Hittite morphonology.
, 1985, 56 analyzes the Hattic stem as tu-mil and compares the
rst element with unclear Ubykh t- in t-sx hail (sx goes back to
WCauc. *cx to urinate; to rain) which is unconvincing.
Girbal, 1986, 162 compares tumil with Kartv. *wim- to rain, *wim-a-
rain (South Kartv. only: Georg., Megrel, Laz; see Kartet.dbf; Klimov,
1998, 312). It could be possible both phonetically and semantically (if we
single out the frequent sufx -l from the Hattic stem), but in all likelihood
we deal with a chance coincidence herethe same case as Hatt. am to
hear [48].
63. tup (probably not tup) root
= Hitt. urki-.
Yen. *t[e]mb-V- root > Kott. thempul, *thmpul, Arin lmbirga, lmbi-
a, tenbir.
A HatticYen. isogloss. Note an occasional retention of *m in Yen. and regu-
lar cluster simplication in Hatt. (for such a non-disappearing *m in
Yen. see SCC, 41). The nominal -sufx is not rare in Yen.
64. zehar, zihar (building) wood, timber
= Hitt. GI-ru.
NCauc. *
wV stick, chip; piece of wood, beam; timber > Tsez. *(i:

(~ --, -) chip, small piece of wood, Dargwa *c:e:eni beam, cross-
beam, Lezgh. *(o:an (~ *(V:an) perch, pole, log; wood, timber
Hattic stem contains the sufx -(V)r, which is rather common in SCauc. lan-
guages, especially in the NCauc. branch. For -(V)r cf. Hatt. huku-r to
see, look, notice [13].
Semantically unpersuasively , 1985, 72, and Chirikba, 1996, 423,
who compare Hatt. zehar with the AdygheKabardian compound *:o-
tree < WCauc. *c: a k. of tree (< NCauc. *H(r)w (~ -) a k. of
tree) + WCauc. *lA male; testiculus (< NCauc. *lw/ *wlV man,
male). The original meaning of AdygheKabardian *:o- was probably
acorn (see Caucet.dbf).
65. zik to fall
= Hitt. mau-.
Yen. *d()q- (~ *dk- ?) to fall > Ket dk
5
, Yug dk.
An important HatticYen. isogloss.
Yen. *d- can originate from SCauc. *t-/ -, *l-/ -, *n- and (in the case of Yen.
*-tone) from SCauc. *s-/ -/ -. The proto-form with the initial *t-/ - is
the most natural solution here. For Hattic secondary z < t before i see the
phonetic section above.
Sccet.dbf #865 with doubts connects Yen. *d()q- to fall to NCauc.
*=[a]rkVr to fall and STib. *k(h)rl (~ -) to fall, drop, proposing the
SCauc. proto-form *VkVrV/ *rVkVV, which is possible only theoreti-
cally: we must suppose assimilation -r > r-r in NCauc. and double meta-
thesis in STib.
, 1985, 73 compares Hatt. zik with an unclear Ubykh double-mor-
phemic form.
66. zipina sour (substantivized?)
= Hitt. EMU.
STib. *cVp (~ -) bitter, pungent > Burm. ap to be hot, pungent, hip
poison, Kachin ap
2
to be hot, pungent, peppery, map
3
red pepper,
Lushai thp to smart, be bitter (as egg-fruit).
An interesting HatticSTib. isogloss.
Although the Hattic sufx -na is not entirely clear, the analysis zipi-na seems
natural. For the sufx -na cf., e. g., kurkufenna wooden stand (vel sim.)
in rituals [40] vs. kurkupal peg [39] (if -nna < -lna) and maybe
tafarna lord [52].
, 1985, 81 compares Hatt. zipina with the WCauc. compound
*(V-qV to get sour; sour (< NCauc. *mVj
w sour + *=qwVn to
be sufcient, enough) smart is not persuasive phonetically.
The Hattic word might have been borrowed into Hurrian as a cultic term, cf.
Hurr. (Bogh.)
NINDA
zippinni (a k. of pastry used in rites) (GLH, 305).
67. zi mountain
= Hitt. HUR.SAG.
SCauc. *V (~ -) stone, mountain >
Yen. *s stone, pl. *- rock > Ket t, pl. t / ta:n
3
, Yug s, pl.
, a:n
3
rock, Kott. , pl. e, Arin kes, Pump. kit.
Burush. *hi mountain.
A HatticYen.Burush. isogloss.
Synchronically *-s in Yen. *s may be a singulative sufx (cf. the proto-
form of plural), but probably the Yen. paradigm is the result of a secon-
dary morphological reanalysis.
Sccet.dbf #140 unites Yen. and Burush. forms with NCauc. *wV small
stone (reconstructing the SCauc. root as *wV stone) which seems
theoretically possible, but not very apt either semantically or phonetically.
68. zuwa-tu wife or rather concubine
= Hitt. DAM.
SCauc. *wjV (~ s-, ~ -I-) female >
NCauc. *
wjV (~ -I-) woman, female > Nakh *psuw wife; princess,

Av.-And. *(:ijV female, Lak c:u- female, WCauc. *p-zV female;
bitch.
STib. > Chin. *hej female.
Basque *a-o old woman, (Sal) grandmother.
Hattic -tu is the female sufx -t(u)/ -(u).
Similarly , 1985, 83 (Hatt. + East Cauc. + incorrectly WCauc.
*s(m)(V woman), and , 1994, 19 (Hatt. + WCauc. *p-zV).
5.2 Loans, dubia, and roots without etymology
1. ah and/ or fah (wa
a
h, pah, wah) to set, set in order; to command, set-
zen, (ein)ordnen; befehlen
= Hitt. dai-, watarnahh-.
2. an to come (here
?
), imp. ana come (here
?
)!
= Hitt. ehu.
SCauc. *=VwV to go, travel >
NCauc. *=VwVn to go > Nakh *o-, Av.-And. *=VVn-, Tsez. *=o-, Lak
na-; cf. Hurr. un-, Urart. nun- to come.
STib. * (s-, -) to go.
Yen. *hejV to go > Ket je
1
/ je
5
; Yug eji
1
; Kott. heja. Probably
*hejV developed from Early Proto-Yen. *wVwV < *VwV (SCC,
29).
Burush. *n- to walk (go).
Basque *e-oHa-n to go.
If the comparison is correct, Hattic shows the phonetic development *w > 0,
which is unparalleled by the Sino-Caucasian daughter proto-languages.
3. ati or ti bird
= Hitt. MUEN.
4. *aw to come(?) in awa come here!
= Hitt. ehu.
5. haifenamul (haipinamul, haiwe
e
namul) manhood, virility, courage
= Hitt. pinatar, L-tar.
Morphologically opaque. It is self-suggesting to single out the masculine
sufx -l: haipinamu-l. On the other hand, one can see a compound
haipina-mul here. For its rst part cf. the well-attested noun haippin with
an unknown meaning (probably abstract, derived from n child, son). In
this case the second part -mul may correspond to:
SCauc. *mr[]V male >
NCauc. *mrV male (subst.) > Nakh *mr husband, Dargwa *marga
male, Lezgh. *mor:l/*uor:l man; male; male child; brave man, hero;
STib. > Chin. *m(h)(r) male animal.
If so, note the retention of *m- in Hattic -mul in the non-initial position.
6.
L
hakazue-l drinker, toaster,
= Hitt.
L
eguttarra- (< egu- to drink).
The stem is apparently derived from the Hatt. noun kazue bowl [32] (< Se-
mitic) with the frequent prex ha- and the masculine sufx -(i)l, see
Soysal, 1999, 164165, fn. 7.
, 1985, 82 unconvincingly analyzes Hatt. hakazuel as ha-ga-zu-el,
comparing zu with WCauc. *zwA- to drink. According to Caucet.dbf,
WCauc. *zwA- to drink corresponds to ECauc. to milk, going back to
NCauc. *=m, further to SCauc. *=md milk, to milk.
7. hamuruwa beam, rafter, (Dach)balken
= Hitt. GI.R.
If genuine Hattic, then perhaps ha-muru-a with the nominal prex ha-, al-
though the initial m- in an inherited root is unlikely.
, 1985, 5 compares Hatt. hamuruwa with the WCauc. root *poqa
(~ p:-, () wood, timber (< NCauc. *mrqw (~ --, -I) birch; tim-
ber), used in compounds, denoting some wooden instruments. Phoneti-
cally unsatisfactory.
In their turn, , 1983, 170, Chirikba, 1996, 423, Chirikba, 1996a,
59, quote the AbkhazAbaza compound *q(m)blra beam over the
hearth, cross-beam, which theoretically can be the source of borrowing
of the Hattic term.
The Hattic terminus technicus was borrowed as Akkadian (OB, Nuzi) amr
beam, timber (in construction of house, ship) (CDA, 15; CAD A2, 78)
probably via Hurrian with the same loss of h- as observed in Hurr. abalgi
iron < Hatt. hapalki id. [12].
On similar Grk. (~ -, -) dyke, dam; bridge, Arm. kamur bridge,
Turk. *kper id. see an extended discussion in Martirosyan, 2010,
351ff.
8. *hana in hanal, hanail, hanau food
?

Cf. NCauc. *nV fat.
9. hanti (hant?) to summon up
?

=
?
Hitt. galli- to summon up.
Cf. SCauc. *=alg[w]n >
NCauc. *=alg[w]n to speak > Av.-And. *gVl-, Lak =uk:i-, Dargwa
*=[a]lgwVn, Lezgh. *alga(n), WCauc. *ga; cf. Hurr. kul- to say, to pro-
nounce solemnly.
Dubious STib. *khn (~ *gh-) to see, look, know.
The comparison is possible, if we reject the STib. parallels, reconstruct
SCauc. *xg[w] instead of *g[w] and treat -ti in the Hattic form as a sufx
of unclear nature.
10.
(D)
hanfauit Throne-goddess, throne
= Hitt.
GI
halmauitta-,
GI
DAG.
Apparently a compound: hanfa-uit.
11.
L
hantipufa cook
= Hitt.
L
MUHALDIM.
An unclear compound.
12. hapalki iron
= Hitt. AN.BAR.
The same word is found in Hittite (habalki iron) and Hurrian (habalgi /
abalgi iron), where in all likelihood it should be regarded as a Hattic
loanword. Further cf. MAss. habalginnu a k. of metal (Reiter, 1997,
399 f.) that reects the same term, borrowed probably via Hurrian inter-
mediation.
If genuine Hattic, then probably ha-palki from the hypothetical root *palk.
33

33
Cf. Valrio/ Yakubovich, forthc., fn. 17, who tentatively propose that Hatt. **palki
iron (ore?) was borrowed as Luw. parza iron ore and subsequently the Luwian form
was adopted by neighboring Semitic dialects: Akkad. parzillu iron, Ugar. brl iron,
etc., see below sub kinawar copper [34] for detail (for the rst time the idea about the
On the other hand, Caucet.dbf (following Vja. Ivanovs theory about a par-
ticular relationship between Hattic and WCauc.) connects Hatt. hapalki to
the Proto-WCauc. compound *I-\V iron, lit. metal + blue: it
seems very tempting to relate *I-\V to the attested Hatti name for
iron, ap/walki (with Vw- rendering *I- and -lk- rendering the lateral
affricate -\-).
34

Since the proposed phonetical correspondences between Hattic and Proto-
WCauc. are totally unsupported by other data, the only idea we can dis-
cuss is the loan of WCauc. *I-\V iron > Hattic/ Hittite/ Hurrian. It
should be noted, that WCauc. languages have another form, which is pho-
netically a more probable candidate for the source of borrowing of
hapalki despite semantic difference: WCauc. *I-p\ (red) copper,
lit. metal + red (reconstructed on the basis of AdygheKabardian *a-
p id.), where the palatalized lateral fricative *\ is rendered by Hatt.
lki (cf. Hatt. malhip good, favorable [49] < WCauc. *ma\V with the
WCauc. palatalized labialized lateral fricative *\ > Hatt. lhip).
35

WCauc. *I-\V iron was independently borrowed as Hitt. (Luwoid)
kiklu(b)-/ kikli(b)- iron (on this stem see HED K, 174 f. w. lit. and
discussion) with alternative rendering of exotic phonemes: WCauc.
palatalized uvular fricative *I > ki and WCauc. labialized lateral affri-

relationship between Hatt. ha-palki and the Semitic words was proposed in Ancillotti,
1975, but without phonetic explanation due to the lack of the Luwian link). The theory of
the Hattic origin of the Luwian term seems rather vague, however. Indeed the
development ki > Luw. z can be theoretically explained within the Proto-Luwian process
IE * > Anat. * > Luw. z, but the change l > r is unmotivated (the late toponymic evi-
dence with the uctuation l~r can hardly prove anything here, from my point of view).
Note that aside from parza, the only case where we can suspect ki > Luw. z in a loan-
word, is virtual Luw. **zinar lyre < WSem. *kinnar (see below sub zinar lyre [118]),
but this etymology is rather hypothetical likewise. On the other hand, cf. Luw.
GI
kihit-
chair, throne < Hurr. kehi without the assibilation. In any event, if we accept Yakubo-
vichs theory about the borrowing from Hattic into Luwian, in all likelihood we deal with
a late reanalysis here (ha-palki), since the West Caucasian origin of the Hattic term
seems very probable.
Another problem case is Myc. pa/pa
3
-ra-ku, whose old conjunctural translation is
silver, but / , 1986, 66 propose the meaning iron, connecting
pa-ra-ku to Hatt. hapalki. Despite the fact that the morphological and phonetical rela-
tionship of Myc. pa/pa
3
-ra-ku and Hatt. hapalki is quite unclear (clusters like /lkV/,
/rkV/ must be rendered as kV in Linear B, not as ra-kV) Kazanskys idea has been
accepted by some scholars. An alternative and more probable interpretation of Myc.
pa/pa
3
-ra-ku is, however, smaragd, bluish-grey (Hsch.
bluish-grey cloth, Akkad. barraqtu emerald, etc.), see Melena, 1987, 224 ff.
34
On the phonetic shape of the reconstructed WCauc. *I-\V see esp. Starostin,
1997/ 2007, 711712 (the discussion with Chirikba).
35
For meaning shifts in names of metals cf. also Hatt. kinawar copper [34] ~ Grk. -
cinnabar, Hitt. kuwanna(n) copper (ore) ~ Myc. ku-wa-no, Grk.
dark-blue enamel, lapis lazuli, blue copper carbonate.
cate *\V > klu(b). Then the word penetrated (via Hittito-Luwians?) into
Ancient Greek as / the Chalybes (a tribe in north Ana-
tolia, who was famous for the preparation of steel), also as an appellative
hardened iron, steel (A.Pr., Hdt., etc.).
As for Grk. (Myc. ka-ko) copper, this term may independently ori-
ginate from WCauc. *I-\V iron also (as per , 1985/
2007, 304, 49), but its semantically more preferable source seems
WCauc. *I-V copper, bronze, lit. metal + white, which can be
tentatively reconstructed on the basis of Ubykh w-s id..
Eventually one or more of the three WCauc. terms discussed above*I-
\V iron (metal + blue), *I-p\ (red) copper (metal + red),
*I-V (white) copper (metal + white)spread all around Eurasia:
cf. Balto-Slav. *gele- iron, Thai *hlek iron, etc., see ,
1985/ 2007, 304 ( 49), Kun Chang, 1972.
13. hatti in Hitt. hatti-li in Hattian language (adv.); Hattic (adj.)
Exoethnonym Hattians used by the Hittites (as well as the Old Assyrians:
cf. krum Hattu); perhaps a self-designation of Hattians.
SCauc. *[k]wVn[]V man >
NCauc. *kwVnVV (/ *wVnVtV) > Nakh *anat young man, boy; hero,
Av.-And. *kina husband; male.
Yen. *ket man, person > Ket kt (also as self-designation of Kets), Kott.
hit, Arin it, Pump. kit.
Semantically very tempting (cf. especially the Ket ethnonym), but the fricati-
vization SCauc. *k > Hatt. h seems irregular (the same concerns the
simplication of the NT-cluster).
14. her, hir to allocate, assign; to entrust; to hand over, assign; to adminis-
ter
= Hitt. maniyahh-, tapariya-.
SCauc. *VH arm, sleeve >
NCauc. *He (~-a) sleeve > Av.-And. *ko-:al (~ -ol), Lak ka-:a,
Lezgh. *la (~ -l:-).
Yen. *xre arm > Ket i, ii
1
arm, Arin karam-pat elbow.
The connection is possible, if we assume for the Hattic verb the same mean-
ing shift as attested in the Hittite counterpart maniyahh-: Hitt. maniyahh-
is a factitive verb from the unattested nominal stem *mani-, which corre-
sponds to Lat. manus hand, Grk. hand.
15. hu to exclaim, pronounce, also as an enclitic particle of direct speech
= Hitt. halzai- to cry out, -wa(r).
Cf. SCauc. *Har to speak, shout >
NCauc. *HarU to sound, shout > Nakh *a-, Av.-And. *=a-, Tsez.
*=e- (~ -:-), Lezgh. *raa-, WCauc. *V to shout.
STib. *V to speak > Chin. *wn, *wat, *wts to say, speak,
Burm. hu to speak, talk, Kachin h to preach (an irregular onset in
Chin.).
Yen. *huxV- to cry, shout > Ket d
1
, Yug d, Kott. hujei shouting (a d-
prex in KetYug?).
Burush. *ha-n- to call
Basque *eran to say.
Probably an onomatopoeic expressive root with an unclear loss of the nal
cluster *r in Hattic.
Alternatively , 1985, 8, , 1994, 21 and Chirikba, 1996, 422
compare the Hatt. root with WCauc. *qIa- to say, showing labialization
in some daughter languages (AbkhazAbaza a, Adyghe a vs. Kabar-
dian a, Ubykh qa-), which is probably secondary due to contamination
with some other labialized roots (see Abadet.dbf). WCauc. *qIa- lacks
East Cauc. cognates, but can be included into SCauc. *=VxqV
(~ *xqVHV) word (> STib. *k(h)a word, Yen. *qG word). As is
truly noted by proponents of the HatticWCauc. theory (e. g., Chirikba,
1996, 422), the Hatt. hu also functions as an enclitic particle of the direct
speech that strikingly corresponds to the aforementioned AbkhazAbaza
a, which is used both as a verbal root to say, tell and as an enclitic
quotation marker. It is very likely, however, that the AbkhazAbaza en-
clitic -a is the result of a secondary late development in AbkhazAba-
za, since the particle status of this WCauc. root is not supported by
AdygheKabardian and Ubykh data. Typologically such a grammaticali-
zation process to say > a quotative exponent is not rare, cf. Hei-
ne/ Kuteva, 2002, 267 f., so I suppose that we deal with a chance coinci-
dence here.
16. *hun big
?
in hun-zinar a k. of lyre, groes
?
Itar-Instrument
= Hitt.
GI(.D)
INANNA.GAL.
Cf. SCauc. *jonHV > Yen. *n- (~ x-) many ~ STib. *jw all ~ Burush.
*jn all. The comparison with Hattic is possible only if we assume
SCauc. *j- > Hatt. *h-, but synchronic y- is known to Hattic.
Cf. also Yen. *qo ( ~ *-) full, enough (without SCauc. cognates).
Improbably , 1985, 9 (see below sub zinar [118]). Untenably
, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
17. hut to get free, move (intr.)
?
, loskommen, sich bewegen
?

=
?
Hitt. nini(n)k- to set in motion.
18. imallen, imallin this (demonstrative pronoun), also adv. in that
way(?)
= Hitt. ka- this.
The element -llin is unclear, but ima- can be a compound of two SCauc. de-
monstrative stems: SCauc. *i this [> NCauc. *i this ~ STib. * this
~ Burush. *i- that] and SCauc. *mV he; demonstr. stem [> Yen. *wV
he, she ~ NCauc. *mV this, that ~ STib. *mV (demonstrative pro-
noun)]
19. inta, ita, conj. and adv. so, in this way, (eben)so; in dieser Weise
= Hitt. kinian, QTAMMA.
20. *ippi small
?
in ippi-zinar a k. of lyre, kleines
?
Itar-Instrument
= Hitt.
GI(.D)
INANNA.TUR.
, 1985, 13 translates ippi as nger or hand (ippi-zinar nger-
lyre, hand-lyre), comparing ippi with AdygheKabardian a-pa hand,
nger which is not likely phonetically (see sub zinar [118]).
21. ipel evil man
=
!?
Hitt. idalu UN-a.
The anlaut spelling i-p- can merely be a graphical representation of /SP-/.
36

Cf. SCauc. *VV (~ -) bad; to assault >
STib. *(r)ua > Chin. *chrns take by force, usurp (< *t-srns?), Ka-
chin gun
3
to coerce, extort, take by force, Lushai sual bad, naughty,
wicked, sinful ; to criminally assault (a woman); be in trouble to others
through ill health; to sufciently poison (a pool).
Yen. *sel- (~ -r-) bad > Ket , i
1
, Yug sel / sejl
1
.
Note that STib. *ua should point to an old labial consonant. A unique case of
SCauc. SP-cluster?
On the other hand, it is natural to single out the masculine sufx -l from
the Hattic stem: ipe-l.
22. itarrazi-l (dark/ black) earth, soil ; terrestrial, earthly(?), (schwarze)
Erde, Erdboden; der Irdische(?)
= Hitt. daganzipa-, dankui- tagn-.
-l is probably the masculine sufx while the rest of the stem seems to be a
compound of the pattern adjective + substantive, like, e. g., tittah-zilat
throne < great + seat.
Double -rr- should point to an old cluster, therefore one can divide it as itar-
Cazi-l dark earth with an unknown sandhi.
For the second element -Cazi- earth cf. SCauc. *jVmV earth, sand

36
See Kassian/ Yakubovich, 2002 for this orthographic rule in the Hittite cuneiform.
[> NCauc. *jmV earth, sand ~ Yen. *e- (~ x-, --) damp sand ~
Basque *hau ashes]. In this case cf. the same phonetic process r + j >
rr in Hittite.
Soysal, 2004, 365 proposes quite a different analysis: is-ta-araz-il earth
from *araz earth, comparing Hatt. *araz with Proto-Semitic *ars-
earth (Akkad. eretu, Ugar. r, Hebr. ere(, Arab. ar, etc., see
Semet.dbf). As an alternative solution Soysal, 2006, 112 attempts to con-
nect Hatt. is-ta-arazil to Hitt. arzili- tin.
, 1985, 40 analyzes it as ita-razil and compares ita with WCauc.
*(a black (< NCauc. *wnV dark); alternatively he segments it as
itar-azil, comparing itar with NCauc. *VndV (~ -m-) black, dark.
Both solutions do not seem probable.
, 1994, 20, , 2002, 56 and Chirikba, 1996, 414 unpersuasively
single out an element (i)ta-, comparing it with the AbkhazAbaza pre-
verb *sa- on the ground. Probably *sa- originates from the Abkhaz
Abaza verbal stem *s-a- (or *s-ta-, if the Abaza glottalization is secon-
dary), where *s goes back to Common WCauc. *\- to lie < NCauc.
*=w to lie, to put ; to lead, see Caucet.dbf, Abadet.dbf.
23. izzi favorable, good, also in
D
izzitanu god of the Good Day < izzi
good + etan sun; day
?
[5]
= Hitt.
D
UD.SIG
5
.
SCauc. *V(n)V good, big >
NCauc. *V(n)V good > Tsez. *he (~ -:-) well, all right, Lezgh.
*i:V- good.
STib. *a great, big > Tib. he great, Burm. ah to be big (compared to
smth.), Kachin (H) ti-a great.
Basque *ona well, good, benet.
Not quite reliable in view of too general semantics.
, 1985, 80 compares Hatt. izzi with WCauc. *( good (maybe
< NCauc. *m
V sweet).
Untenably , 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc. *-A clean; good).
24. yah sky
= Hitt. nebi.
Cf. Yen. *a-j[a]k (~ x-, -g) thunder > Ket k
1
/ kki
5
/ k
5
, Yug ek
1
,
Kott. ajak, pl. ajakan. The comparison is phonetically acceptable (Yen.
*-g should originate from SCauc. *xQw-claster), but semantically too far.
A more plausible cognate could be Na-Dene (Eyak, Athabaskan) *j sky.
, 1985, 15 compares Hatt. yah sky with WCauc. *(mV)-ra
sun (< NCauc. *wiroq
sun) which is improbable phonetically.

25. yay, ya, ay to give
= Hitt. piya-.
26. kait grain, corn, grain-crop (also deied)
= Hitt. halki-.
Cf. NCauc. *q
Hw corn, wheat (> Tsez. *qeV, Dargwa *q:Ia:,

WCauc. *k:a: (~ -c:-)). The correspondences NCauc. * ~ Hatt. t and
NCauc. *o ~ Hatt. ai, however, seem irregular.
Similarly Chirikba, 1996 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
As fairly noted in Haas/ Thiel, 1976, 23, perhaps Hurr. kade grain, barley
(= Sum. E; also deied:
D
kade-na; see GLH, 133) should not be separ-
ated from this Hattic stem. Diakonoff/ Starostin, 1986, 28 propose a
NCauc. etymology for Hurr. kadeNCauc. *dwi / *dwi corn
which seems convincing. In view of this I tend to suppose that Hatt. kait
grain is a Hurrian loanword.
37

27. karam wine, also in
L
ntu-kkaram cupbearer
A long ago recognized cultural term. The Hattic word has been borrowed
from some West Semitic form going back to WSem. *karm: Ugar. krm
vineyard, Aram. karm vineyard, Arab. karm- vine, grapevine etc.
(see Semet.dbf), further probably to Akkad. karmu heap, mound (Bab.
ruin mound, M/NAss. grain heap, see CDA, 149), Mehri karmaym
mountain, Harsusi kermaym mountain with the external Afro-Asiatic
cognates, for which see Afaset.dbf.
Not to NCauc. *kwrV a k. of vessel, as proposed by , 1985, 18.
28. karkar to rake, scrape
= Hitt. hahhariya- to rake, scrape (derived from hah(ha)r(a)- rake).
Can be a reduplicated stem (kar-kar). In fact karkar is very similar to Av.-
And. *q:Vr:Vthe second element of the Av.-And. compound *\:i:V-
q:Vr:V rake [where the rst *\:i:V goes back to NCauc. *\
VwV
(~ -) rake].
Hitt. hah(ha)r(a)- rake cannot be kept apart from these forms either. Proba-
bly a Wanderwort of unknown origin. , 1985, 61 proposes a
borrowing Proto-Av.-And. > Hitt.
Cf. Ugar. krk, ku-re-ku a k. of instrument, pick
?
(DUL, 455).

37
The migratory way of this term might be longer. Cf. Pre-Greek - roast barley
( barley-roasting [Poll.], / vessel for roasting barley
[Poll., Hsch., Suid.], one who roasts barley [Hsch. ; -, Poll., Phot.],
to roast barley [Hsch.]) or Hsch. . Despite
, 1978, 158 f., obscure Lyc. A - can hardly be related here, cf. Neumann,
2007, 135 f. w. lit. and discussion.
29.
(D)
kaku (deied) gate building, gatehouse
= Hitt. KI.LAM.
For the new translation gate-building (not Moon god, cf. kap moon [15]
above) see Soysal, 2004, 370.
38

30. katakumi witchcraft, sorcery; magical
?

= Hitt. alwanzena-.
An unclear compound?
31. kazza blood red
?
, red
?

=
?
Hitt. iharwekiya-.
32. kazue goblet, cup
A long ago recognized Semitic loanword: Akkad. ksu goblet, cup, Ugar.
ks id. etc. (see AHw, 454; DUL, 459). Cf. also Hurr. (Bogh.) kaz-
(z)i / kai goblet (Catsanicos, 1996, 242 f.), which is tentatively com-
pared with NCauc. *gainV jar, jug by , 1995/ 2007, 632,
but in reality should represent the same areal cultural term (further see
Soysal, 1999, 164165, fn. 7).
33.
L
kiluh courier-spy, Lufer-Kundschafter
= Hitt.
L
N.ZU
L
KA
4
.E.
Resembles WSem. forms with similar semantics: Ugar. l courier, messen-
ger, Hebr. (Bibl.) al light, nimble, rapid (said of messengers); some-
thing speedy, fast riding animal, racer from the Sem. root *ll to be
quick, rapid (see DUL, 700; HALOT). Hence it might be a WSem. loan-
word with the (Hattic?) h-sufx.
, 1994, 22 proposes a typical bringen-Sie-etymology: Abkhaz a-ol--
ra to take off, carry away, which probably contains the root a (-a-
ra) to pull, drag with the frequent preverb l. AbkhazAbaza *qV- to
pull, drag originates from NCauc. *=Hq
V(r) to pull, take out ; to drag,

carry.
34. kinawar copper
= Hitt. URUDU.
Without doubt the Hattic word relates to Grk. cinnabar. A
Wanderwort (red mineral)?
Soysal, 2004, 365 tentatively connects Ancient Greek and Hurr.
kab(a)li copper to this Hattic term, assuming the development knwr >
knpr > kpr. I am not sure that both unmotivated loss of medial -n- and
change l~r can be so easily accepted, but the origin of toponym

38
For the Hattic loanword in Hittite
kakatipa- gatehouse, portal see tip gate [49].

requires some additional comments. The island name Cyprus is
known from the most archaic Greek authors (Hom.+) and perhaps from
Lin. B texts (ku-pi-ri-jo/a, see discussion in Knapp, 2008, 303 ff.). In
Classical and Hellenistic Greek this stem possesses some derivates with
the general meaning of Cyprus: Cyprian,
1. made from the ower of Cyprus; 2. made of copper, of
copper and so on. The similar shift from toponym to metal designation is
attested in Latin: cuprium [aes] > cuprum (probably under the Greek
inuence). This Greek and Latin development Cyprian > copper took
place very late (the beginning of the 1
st
millennium AD?) and cannot
clarify the inner sense of the island name in question.
Two easiest etymological hypotheses about can be proposed:
1. kupr- was a self-designation of the Cyprus natives, whose language is un-
known to us. This stem, however, was unknown in the Near East, where
the name of Cyprus sounded as Alaiya (Alasiya)a toponym/ ethnonym
widely used among Hittite-, Semitic-, Hurrian- and Egyptian-speaking
peoples from the late 3
rd
to the 1
st
millennia BC (Knapp, 1996). Some au-
thors (Neu, 1997, 4 w. prev. lit.) suppose that Alaiya was not an auto-
nym, but an exonym derived from a metal name, and connect Alaiya to
cuneiform ala copper or bronze attested in a Nuzi vocabulary.
39
In
fact, however, Sum. ALA copper, bronze probably does not exist, see
Reiter, 1997, 166 w. lit.
2. kupr- was a word of the Minoan language with whatever meaning used
by the Cretans as an exonym referring to the Cyprians and later adopted
in this function by the Greeks.
At the same timeespecially after the discovery of the Hurrian word kab(a)-
li coppersome authors (e. g., Neu, 1997, see also Reiter, 1997, 295 w.
prev. lit.) made an attempt to interpret as copperland, whose
name continues the aforementioned Hurrian term. I suppose, however,
that the real situation is more complex. There are three similar shapes of
designations of a default metal (copper, bronze or iron) attested in the
Ancient Near East as wandering stems.
1. KPL in the northern area. It is presented in Hurr. kab(a)li copper, Ebla
ga-ba-lum copper (Neu, 1997, 4) and TsezianAvaro-Andian *kibV-l-
a k. of metal: Av.-And. (Andian only) *kibV iron, Tsez. *kbu A
lead, which is well attested both in Tsezian and Andian sub-groups, but
lacks external NCauc. cognates (Caucet.dbf reconstructs its virtual

39
The earliest exploitation of Cypruss copper deposits took place during the second half
of the 3
rd
millennium BC (Knapp, 2008, 76). The earliest dependable evidence for copper
export from Cyprus to Levant as well as to Crete dates back to the early 2
nd
millen-
nium BC (Knapp, 2008, 76 ff., 356) and starting from this time the island was always as-
sociated with copper in the Near East.
NCauc. protoform as *kwiwV (~ --, -b-)).
40

2. ZPR in the southern area: Elam. zabar (ME), zubar (ME) copper (also
bronze?), Sum. ZABAR, ZUBAR (ED IIIb+) bronze, Akkad. siparru
(OAkk.+) bronze, see Hinz/ Koch, 1987, 1273, 1310; ePSD; CAD S,
296 ff. ; Krebernik, 2006, 83.
3. PRZ in the central and northern areas. Luw. parza- iron (ore?) (attested
in derivates; for this stem see Valrio/ Yakubovich, forthc.) and various
Semitic forms with the meaning iron: Akkad. parzillu (OA, OB+), Ugar.
brl, Hebr. and Phoen. brzl, Aram. przl, Amor. /barzillu/, Arab. rzil, ESA
frzn (CAD P, 212 ff. ; DUL, 236; Artzi, 1969). Isolated Modern Svan
bere iron seems continuing this ancient stem. Additionally the follow-
ing Nakh forms must be included into this nest : Chechen and Ingush
borza bronze, Chechen borzanan of bronze (the word is unattested in
the Batsbi language; the virtual Proto-Nakh form could be *borza-n
41
).
The bulk of the Semitic forms was analyzed by Rendsburg, 1982, who, on
the one hand, plausibly adds a number of European attestations (Latin
ferrum iron, if < *fersum, maybe OEng. brs bronze (also brass?) and
some others) and, on the other hand, guesses about the connection of
PRZ-forms with Semitic forms of the shape BRT iron or a metal arte-
fact: Akkad. (OB+) bi/ertu Band, Fessel, Arab. burt- hache; che,
burat- anneau en fer quon passe dans la narine du chameau, et qui tient
lieu du frein, and in the Ethiopian branchGeez brt copper, brass;
brat iron, Tigre brt iron, Amharic brt metal basin, brt iron, Ar-
gobba brd iron, Harari brt iron, Gurage brt, brd iron; see Se-
met.dbf, where these forms are united under Proto-Sem. *bi/urt-. I sup-
pose, however, pace Militarev (Semet.dbf), that we deal with a wandering
stem here, although its geographical distribution is rather suspicious and
probably the Akkad.-Arabic isogloss is unrelated to the African terms (the

40
According to glottochronology, the split of the TsezianAvaro-Andian proto-language
occurred ca. 2100 BC (see g. 2 above). The relationship between Hurr. kabali and Tsez.
Av.-And. *kibV is uncertain: -(a)l-i is a Hurrian sufx, known from some other nominal
stems; in its turn the Tsez.Av.-And. root *kibV forms the oblique stem in -l among the
modern Tsezic and Andian languages (e. g., Bezhta/ Gunzib kobo-li-, Godoberi kubi-la-,
Karata kuba-l-), so the oblique stem *kibV-l- can be reconstructed at the Proto-Tsez.
Av.-And. level. If Hurr. kabali was borrowed < Tsez.Av.-And. *kibV-l-, the foreign
oblique marker can have been interpreted by Hurrians as a native sufx. The opposite
scenario looks similar: Hurr. kabali > Tsez.Av.-And. *kibV-l-, where Hurr. -ali was
reanalyzed as an oblique exponent. The vocalic correspondence between Hurr. and
Tsez.Av.-And. forms remains, however, uncertain: /a/ vs. /i/ which makes the idea of a
direct borrowing somewhat suspicious. Cf. also , 1995/ 2007, 632, who
connects NCauc. *kwiwV (~ --, -b-) and Hurr. kabali as inherited etymological cog-
nates, but I am not sure that it is justied for such a cultural term.
41
The split of the Chechen-Ingush proto-language occurred ca. the early 2
st
millenni-
um AD.
Ethiopian words can probably be a Coptic loan, Takcs, EDE 2, 124).
BIRT-forms with the meaning iron are also attested among various
Cushitic (and Omotic?) subgroups (see Afaset.dbf sub *bir- metal,
Takcs, EDE 2, 123 ff.), somewhere they can be explained as Ethiopian
loans, but somewhere (e. g., in South Cushitic) they are probably derived
by native T-sufxes from the stem bir. The stem bVr (standardly bir) itself
with the meanings metal, copper, bronze iron, silver is attested in
the all African Afro-Asiatic branches (Egyptian, Chadic, Cushitic,
Omotic), see Afaset.dbf sub *bir- metal and Takcs, EDE 2, 123 ff. sub
bj (with a more accurate analysis and discussion). The modern state of
Afro-Asiatic research, however, does not permit to discriminate between
interlingual borrowings and inherited cognates, and I tend to suppose that
bVr (bir) a default metal cannot be projected onto the Proto-Afro-Asiatic
level, but rather is an African wandering root (the factual absence of this
root in the Semitic branch supports such a solution). In any case, Sume-
rian BAR metal seems representing the same term. Back on Semitic
PRZ: Valrio/ Yakubovich, forthc. propose the meaning iron (ore?) for
Luw. parza- and claim that it was the Luwian stem that served as the
source for Akkad. parzillu which further was adopted by other Semitic
languages where we nd PRZL-forms. Luw. parza-, however, remains un-
etymologizable within Luwian or Indo-European (although the l-sufx
can be easily explained within the Luwian morphology) and, secondly, it
is rather unlikely phonetically that Ugaritic, Phoenician and other Semitic
forms originate from the Akkadian word.
Other shapes like KNBR (Hatt. kinawar copper ~ Grk. above) or
KBR (Sum. KA.BAR = /zabar/ a metal/bronze, Reiter, 1997, 294 f.
w. lit.) are more marginal.
None of these sound combinations directly matches Grk. . The only
scenario one can suspect is the borrowing of one of the aforementioned
stems into Minoan language with the meaning copper, where the
word underwent some phonetic changes and later became adopted by the
Greeks as a name of copper-exporting land. There is no any positive evi-
dence, however, supporting such a scenario so far.
35. kitat and
?
kiat or mere tat / at to be(come) arrogant
= Hitt. ullai-.
36. kuka in the compound zi-kuka posterity, descendants (< *zin-kuka
with regular simplication nk > k), where zin [121] means grandchild,
descendant
SCauc. *qwqwV(-V) grain, seed; egg; hail >
NCauc. *qwqwV(-V) seed, grain, egg > Av.-And. *qaqal nut, walnut,
Tsez. *quqV-LV nut, walnut ; small stone, Dargwa *qIaqI grain,
Lezgh. *qoloq egg; fried eggs; testiculus.
STib. *kk grain > Chin. *kk grain, Burm. kauk a k. of rice, Lushai
kok grain.
Yen. *qoK- (~ -) hail > Ket qgdm
5
, Yug xksl
5
/ xksl
5
, Pump. xoxd-
mon.
Probably the meaning of Hatt. kuka was seed.
37. kunkuhu, kukkuhu (also kunkun
?
) to be alive (intr.); to keep alive
(trans.)
= Hitt. huuwant- e-.
Morphologically opaque. Cf. SCauc. *=HixqwV to bear; to be born >
NCauc. *=Hiqw(n) to bear, give birth ~ STib. *Ki(j) (~ -e(j)) bear,
give birth ~ Yen. *kej- (~ q-, g-) to bear; to be born ~ Burush. *-k chil-
dren.
38. kur to stay; to stand
?

= Hitt. ar-.
Cf. SCauc. *HrgwV to stay, leave > NCauc. *=argwV-n to stay ~ STib.
*rak to lay, place ~ Yen. *kV- to stay.
A metathesis in Hattic?
39. kurkupal peg, Pock, Nagel
= Hitt.
(GI)
GAG.
Cf. kurkufenna [40].
40. kurkufenna (also kurkupun?) wooden stand (vel sim.) in rituals
= Hitt.
GI
arimpa-.
From kurkupal peg [39]? If so, the stem contains the sufx -na (-al-na >
-enna).
41. kurtapi foliage
?

=
?
Hitt.
GI
happuriya-.
42. kusim, kuim throne
A long ago recognized Semitic loanword: Akkad. kuss-m, kussiu-m chair,
throne, Ugar. ks seat, throne etc. (see, e. g., DUL, 460). In its turn the
Sem. word has probably been borrowed from Sum. GU.ZA chair, stool,
throne. Note that it is the only Hattic word, which should be treated as a
borrowing from the Akkadian language, not from WSem. dialects, in
view of Hatt. -m, probably reecting the Akkadian mimation.
43. kut soul
= Hitt. ZI.
It is tempting to compare Hatt. kut with the following Yen. stem, assuming
KT > T in Hattic:
Yen. *koqtV (~ g-) the inside; temper, disposition > Ket kqt das Innere;
Gemt, Yug kxt
6
das Innere (Werner, 2002 1, 441, 446).
The etymology was proposed by , 1985, 22. As a matter of fact the
Yen. stem has an atypical shape and should be rather analyzed as *koq-
tV with an unclear dental sufx, therefore the HatticYen. comparison
seems dubious. Further Ivanovs cognates (WCauc. * heart < NCauc.
*jrw heart) are not provable. Chirikba, 1996, 426 follows Ivanov
and adds Abkhaz *g-ta centre, core (*g- heart + -ta place of).
44. kuzan, kuzzan, also huzza hearth, brazier, tete-kuzzan big hearth
= Hitt. haa-, GUNNI.
, 1985, 22, 79 unjustiedly segments the Hattic stem as ku-zan,
proposing some unconvincing WCauc. etymologies for ku- and NCauc.
*jI re for -zan.
45. lianu or elianu implement
?
, utensil
?

= Hitt. UNTE
ME
.
46. lin to drink
?
(vel sim.)
Cf. SCauc. *=V\V to wash (> NCauc. *=V\
Vn to wash, pour; to weep

~ STib. * (~ --) to wash (by pouring water over), to spill ~ Burush.
*-hlt- to wash). The meaning shift to pour > to drink is typologi-
cally possible.
47. ma, also fa, conjunction and; mane, conjunction then
?
, and so
?
,
dann
?
, so da
?

48. mai(u) a valuable cloth, linen cloth
= Hitt. GADA.
49. malhip good, favorable
= Hitt. au, aiyant-, SIG
5
-ant-, SIG
5
-in.
Morphologically opaque.
As was noted by Chirikba, 1996, 428, very similar to WCauc. *ma\V
good, luck. Probably a WCauc. loanword, where the palatalized labial-
ized lateral *\ is rendered by Hatt. lhip, cf. Hatt. hapalki [12] for Hatt.
lki, representing WCauc. *\. The WCauc. form possesses reliable exter-
nal etymology: NCauc. *wnw luck, good.
Untenably , 1994, 20 (Hatt. + Arabic loanword in Adyghe
42
).
50. mar or kamar to slit, slash
= Hitt. ikalla-.
51.
L
mael (or
L
parel) cult performer, chanter, clown
?

= Hitt.
L
ALAN.ZU
9
.
If the rst sign has the phonetic value MA, not PR, the stem is a WSem.
loanword: Ugar. ml cymbal player, Akkad. (RS) milu (a musician,
performer), further cf. Hebr. Bibl. miltajim, Ugar. mltm cymbals
from Sem. ll to clink, tinkle (see DUL, 586; CAD M1, 332; HALOT).
52. milup (also milip
?
, millaw
?
, milluw
?
) or lup
??
bull, ox
= Hitt. GU
4
.
Morphologically opaque. Purely theoretically can be a Semitic loanword, if
one assumes a m-prexed form (unattested elsewhere) of Common Sem.
*alp cattle: Akkad. alpu bull, ox, Ugar. lp (head of) cattle; bullock
etc. (SED 2, #4). Vja. Ivanov (pers. comm. and , 2009, 8) ad-
vocates a Semitic origin of the Hattic term.
53. mi, mis, me, also mit
?
, pi
?
to take (for oneself), imp. mia take
(for yourself )!
= Hitt. -za da- to take (for oneself), dai- (!) to put.
Cf. Yen. *ma() take! (> Ket ma/ ma, Yug ma, Arin ma tribute [the mean-
ing is probably corrupted]); an exceptional case of preserving m- in an
expressive lexeme. The Hattic-Yen. comparison is possible if we suppose
a shortening (the loss of the nal consonant) in the Yen. allegro forms.
43

, 1994, 22 quotes a strange Abkhaz form.
54. mu, also fu mother, lady, mistress (vel sim.)
55. muh and muhal hearth
= Hitt. haa-.
Initial m- should point to a non-inherited word.
Of course, Hatt. muhal is rather similar to Sum. (ED IIIa+) MUALDIM
cook (probably borrowed as Akkad. nuhatimmu cook with serious
phonetic corruption), where, as proposed by Vl. Emelianov (pers. com.),
one can single out the element -dim (< dm to fashion, create),
standardly forming craftsman names like kug.dm gold or silver smith

42
Adyghe mk property, fortune < Arab. mulk ownership, property (, 1977
1, 272).
43
On the other hand, Yen. *ma() take! can be an areal form, cf. ma, me, m take! in
various Mongolic and Turkic languages.
(kug silver), gi.dm wood carver (gi wood), pana.dm bow maker
(pana bow), etc. At the present stage of research, however, the idea of
HatticSumerian lexical contacts is unsupported by other data and cannot
be discussed in earnest.
56. *muna in redupl. muna-muna foundation, base, bed stone
= Hitt. amana-.
57. mu or mua smth. relating to tree, fruit
?

58. nimah and via a contact dissimilation lmah eye(s)
= Hitt. akuwa.
Can hardly be compared with SCauc. *wmqV ( ~ -xq-) eye; witness (>
NCauc. *wmqV witness; true ~ STib. *mjVk eye ~ Yen. *qa- ( ~
--) to be visible ~ Burush. *-moq- face; cheek).
Note that the Hattic onset ni- cannot be explained as the possessive prex le-
/li- (> ni-) his, since the known attestations explicitly contain this
possessive morpheme: li-nimah, ha-le-lmah, etc.
59. nif (and nf ) or nifa, nfa to sit, sitzen; sich setzen
= Hitt. e-.
Chirikba, 1996, 421 proposes a monophonemic comparison with WCauc. *s
to sit which is nor persuasive.
60. ntel shape, form; body, body-frame. The following attestations are
known: le-ntel, zi-ntil(-)
= Hitt. eri-.
NCauc. *nd forehead > Av.-And. *hondV (~ -), Dargwa *ant:a.
Or alternatively to NCauc. *nHV forehead, face > Tsez. *maa fore-
head, Lak niIa face, Lezgh. *n(a) forehead; eyebrow; eyelash,
WCauc. *naa forehead.
The Hattic stem contains the masculine sufx -l. The root may be nte, ente
or (with the reduction of the medial vowel in prexed forms) nite.
Meaning shifts face < > forehead and face < > body(-frame) are well-
attested cross-linguistically.
61. fa (pa, wa
a
) to put, lay, stand
= Hitt. dai-.
62. fa (wa
a
, also pa
?
) podium, pedestal
= Hitt. pau-.
63. *faku in redupl. pakku-paku, wakku-pakku hammer
= Hitt.
GI
NG.GUL.
If one assumes the reduction of the medial vowel and strange simplication
lK > K, Hatt. faku can represent a proto-Wanderwort of unknown origin,
the same as NCauc. *bIlVgwi hammer (> Nakh *barVg, Lak burg, Dar-
gwa *bari, Lezgh *p:ul[k]; irregular correspondences between NCauc.
daughter languages in the cultural word), IE *peleku- axe (> OInd.
para- m. axe, battle-axe [RV+], Grk. two-edged axe, battle-
axe [Hom.+], for Iranian data see 1, 451), and Altaic *plukV
hammer (> Tung. *paluka; Mong. *haluka; Turk. *bAlka, see
Altet.dbf). NB: Sum. BALAK spindle and Akkad. (OB+) pilakku (~ -a-,
-qq-, -gg-) spindle are certainly unrelated here.
Unlikely , 1985, 61, where the Hattic root is compared with
WCauc. * handle (< NCauc. *nV handle).
64. *fal in redupl. wa
a
l-wa
a
l or wa
a
l-wa
a
l-at (verbum dicendi)
=
?
Hitt. mema-.
Onomatopoeic?
65. fala, conjunction and, so, then; fama, conjunction
= Hitt. -(y)a, -ma, nu, namma.
66. *fafah eagle in wapah-ul, wa
a
wa
a
h-ul in eagle-fashion
= Hitt. haranili.
Probably onomatopoeic. Cf. NCauc. *ulGV a bird of prey; big bird >
Nakh *mqqVl kite, Lak waIrq:u magpie, Dargwa *waIrq:- mag-
pie, WCauc. *bIa eagle; kite.
67. fafaya (wa
a
ppaya, wa
a
wa
a
ya, papaiya
?
) father
= Hitt. atta-.
Cf. NCauc. *babajV father, grandfather > Nakh *babV (~ --) grandfa-
ther, Tsez. *babVju father, Lezgh. *babaj father; grandfather,
WCauc. *baba (~ p:) grandfather.
A universal nursery stem PaPa father/ mother. Striking similarity be-
tween NCauc. *babajV and Hatt. fafaya may speak for a contact nature
of the Hattic stem.
68. parnulli a k. of aromatic woody plant or its product
= Hitt.
GI
parnulli-.
69. *fa(i) in
D
wa
a
ul,
D
wa
a
il,
D
wa
a
iul (deied) fecundity, abundance,
plenty
= Hitt. iyatar tametar fecundity and abundance, ? au- good.
Note the masculine sufx -l in the Hattic stem.
, 1985, 44 treats the Hattic root as ul, comparing it with the
WCauc. AbkhazAbaza adjective *p-la fat, thick from the noun
*p- fat (< NCauc. *=HrVj thick, dense, fat with the frequent
WCauc. sufx *p-). Not probable.
70. patae, patae (pattai) cudgel, bludgeon (vel sim.)
71. paun, pun, faun
?
breath
?
; soul
?
; lung
?

=
?
Hitt. ZI.
Unfortunately the meaning of the Hattic stem cannot be established with cer-
tainty. If f(a)un indeed meant breath/ soul / lung, it nds an interesting
parallel in Yen. (Ket) bei
5
lung, which is, however, usually explained
as a late compound of Yen. *beji light + Yen. *se liver.
On the other hand, there are some WCauc. form of a very similar phonetic
shape:
1) WCauc. *psA soul, spirit, which is analyzed as p-sA, where *p- is a
frequent WCauc. prex, while the root *sA goes back to NCauc. *msa
(~ -,-) sky, cloud; soul, breath; god;
2) WCauc. *pA to breathe; to get tired; to die, containing the same pre-
x *p- and the common NCauc. root *sHwV breath, to breathe (Nakh
*sa soul, Av.-And. *s:uh- to get tired, Lak s:i breath, vapour).
Since the Hattic morphological system has no counterparts of the WCauc.
prex *p- (a former class exponent?), one can guess only about the bor-
rowing WCauc. > Hatt. in this case.
See , 1994, 20, and Chirikba, 1996, 424 (Hatt. + WCauc. *psA). Cf.
also Hatt. pu-an to blow on, fan [43].
72. n, fen (pin, pen, wi
i
n, we
e
n) child, son
= Hitt. DUMU.
Cf. SCauc. *pVHV son, daughter (> WCauc. *pa son, STib. *Poj (~ -u-)
to bear; child), from which Yen. *pun daughter, *pub son, and
STib. *PVn (> Tib. dbon grandson, nephew) were derived.
On the other hand, it is possible to see an old Semitic loanword here (as per
Vja. Ivanov, e. g., , 2009, 8): Sem. *bin son (Akkad. bnu,
Ugar. bn etc.), but the borrowing of such a basic term from Semitic is
very unlikely proceeding from general reasons.
Cf. , 1994, 19, and Chirikba, 1996, 424 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
73. *ntu ? in
L
wi
i
ntu-kkaram, pintu-kkaram cupbearer, Weinschenk,
Mundschenk.
= Hitt.
L
SAGI.
A compound of karam wine [27].
74. pip stone
= Hitt. NA
4
.
75. witanu cheese
= Hitt. GA.KIN.AG.
Probably derived from wet, wit to be(come) sour/ bitter [34].
, 1985, 67 quotes enigmatic Proto-East Caucasian *uintV sour
milk without references.
76. pu to do
= Hitt. iya-.
SCauc. *=hwV to do >
NCauc. *=hwV(r) to do > Nakh *=a-, Av.-And. *-ih-, Tsez. *=Vw-, Lak
=a-, Dargwa *0/-i-r-, Lezgh. *aa(r)-, Khin. =ar, WCauc. *w; cf.
Urart. u/or- to make, to work.
STib. *q[i]j (~ -) to make; to divide, distribute > Chin. *waj to
make, do, act, Tib. bgjid to make, to manufacture; to do, to act, Burm.
wij to divide, to distribute.
Yen. *wV- (~ b-) to do, make > Ket b:i
4
, Yug b:hl, Kott. ba-paj-a,
Arin a-pi-te I make.
Phonetically unclear. Note the similarity between WCauc., some STib., Yen.
and Hattic forms.
Cf. , 1985, 4, and Chirikba, 1996, 419 (Hatt. + WCauc. *w).
77. pule, puli, pwu
u
li
?
to become, happen
= Hitt. ki-.
78. pupiet re, Feuer(stelle/ -sttte)
= Hitt. INIM.IZI[] or rather KA.IZI mouth of re = re pit / location: see
Sel / Soysal, forthc.
79. put and putu
?
to be
= Hitt. e-.
Cf. STib. *phw (~ -i-) to appear > Burm. paw to appear, Kachin po
1
to
appear, Kiranti *b(h)(-ks) to be.
A sufxation in Hattic?
80. putu or put
?
to stretch (a sheep, lamb, kid) out (on a at surface for
sacrice)
= Hitt. palzahai-.
81. ah (also tah
?
) bad, evil
= Hitt. idalu-, HUL-lu-.
Untenably , 1994, 20 (Hatt. + an AbkhazAbaza compound).
82. aip (or even aip) to make good
= Hitt. SIG
5
-ahh-.
83. afat (wa
a
t) or mere fat apple-tree or apricot-tree
= Hitt.
GI
HAHUR apple(-tree) or apricot(-tree).
Cf. SCauc. *m a k. of fruit >
NCauc. *m apple; medlar > Nakh *amc (~ --) medlar, Av.-And.
*imi apple, Tsez. *: A apple, Lak hiw apple, Dargwa *hinc ap-
ple, Lezgh. *m apple, Khin. m apple, WCauc. with b-prex
*bVc:V medlar; cf. Hurr. hinz-uri apple/ apricot.
STib. *h(r)iH (~ jh-) > Chin. *,hr Diospyros, persimmon, Burm.
hih the jujube, Zizyphus jujuba.
Burush. *mil / *bil pomegranate.
Basque *mahan grape.
Despite the semantic similarity, the phonetic relationship between the Hattic
stem and the SCauc. proto-form is quite unclear. , 1985, 6
compares Hatt. fat with some modern East Caucasian forms. As a matter
of fact, Ivanovs Avar we apple probably does not exist (the correct
form is e), while Tabasaran wi apple is the result of a late phonetic
development with the labialization of the initial laryngeal < *w
< Proto-Lezgh. *m, and therefore cannot be compared with Hattic fat
in any way.
It seems more probable that afat was derived from the verb wet to be-
(come) sour/ bitter [34], for the prex a- see HWHT, 238. On the other
hand, one can suspect a borrowing from WCauc. *bVc:V medlar here,
but the Hattic a-prex remains unexplained in this case.
Untenably , 1994, 20 (to WCauc. *(a apple).
84.
(D)
aru,
(D)
taru Storm-god (the standard spelling is a-a-ru and ta/da-a-
ru)
= Hitt.
D
IM,
D
U.
It looks strange, but this divine name might be a Semitic loanword: Sem.
*aar > Akkad. ru (OAkk.+) wind (also mythologized or even dei-
ed); air; breath, Hebr. (Bibl.) aar heavy gale, r high wind,
r to be stormy (CAD 2, 133 ff. ; HALOT).
44
Theoretically Hatt. plene
writing can reect WSem. , while the Hatt. uctuation t~ reects a lat-
eral.

44
Deir Alla r heavy rain (HJ, 1191) probably relates to Arab. rr to pour.
An alternative connection to Sem. *awr- bull, ox (Akkad. ru, Ugar. r,
Hebr. r etc., see SED 2, #241), for which cf. Klinger, StBoT 37, 147
fn. 81 and Schwemer, 2001, 126, fn. 871, seems less apt phonetically.
85. haf, ahaf (hap, haw, ahap, ahaw) god
= Hitt. DINGIR(-u-).
, 1985, 37, and Chirikba, 1996, 425 support old Mszros
comparison of the Hatt. plural form fa-haf deities with the Adyghe
Kabardian and Ubykh compounds of WCauc. *wa sky; god + *a
grey; powder: AdygheKabardian *wa-a sky, Ubykh wa-a
thunder and lightning < *heavenly blasting powder (the Ubykh word
does not mean god, see , 1977 2, 89 f.). Certainly unconvinc-
ing.
Differently and untenably , 1994, 19.
86. hezni fox
= Hitt. KA
5
.A.
SCauc. *chwl fox (> NCauc. *chwl (~ -) fox, jackal, STib. *Crio
leopard, Burush. *hal fox) is interesting, but SCauc. *l ~ Hatt. zn is in-
explicable.
87. *ep in redupl. ep-ep footwear, shoes
= Hitt.
KU
E.SIR.
Similar to some Semitic forms with footwear semantics: Syr. p scapus
(caligae); mucro nasi and Arab. abt- chaque ct de la chaussure,
which can goes back to Sem. *ay foot (Akkad. pu foot ~ Soqotri
ab, af foot and other MSA), see SED 1, #269 for the discussion.
On the other hand, Hatt. ep somewhat resembles NCauc. *mVj boot,
shoe (> Nakh *mVj, Av.-And. *mau(jV) (~ -o-), Lezgh. *Vm(a)) and
Osset. mest- soft morocco footwear, , Turk. (Anat.) mest, Georg.
mesi etc. (see 2, 112), a Wanderwort. If the etymology is correct,
the consonant metathesis in Hattic (the same process as in Proto-Lezgh.)
occurred after the regular anlaut denasalization *m- > *p-.
88. ezzit a k. of stone
?
, ein unheilvoller Stein
?

=
?
Hitt. alhari- (a k. of stone?).
89. *(a)ne offering (vel sim.)
Found in compounds fula-ne bread offering and tefu-ne libation. Cf.
also fapu-ne or pu-ne etwas Ntzliches, para-ni ein Gegenstand, der
den Gttern zugeeignet ist, tahafaiu-ni or faiu-ni etwas Ntzliches.
90. ul to let, to let in, lassen, (in ein Gebude) zulassen
= Hitt. tarna-.
, 1985, 45 segments it as -u-l from the hypothetical root *-u-,
comparing Hatt. -u-l with Ubykh ca-w-la to let, release exhaustively,
where ca- is a preverb used with verbs of motion (Vogt, 1963, 104), w is
a frequent verbal root to enter, go (< WCauc. *V to enter < NCauc.
*=or to go, walk, enter), while -la is a regular exhaustive sufx.
Hardly justied.
Untenably , 1994, 22: to the WCauc. verbal root *V to enter
(< NCauc. *=or to go, walk, enter), which is attested in modern lan-
guages with different preverbs.
91. uf (up, uw) ox
= Hitt. GU
4
.NITA.
Resembles some Semitic forms: Akkad. uppu white sheep (OA+, OB+),
Ugar. p white sheep (AHw, 1113; DUL, 787).
92. tahalai[n] liver
45

=
UZU
NG.GIG liver or huiu- raw.
Formally resembles Sem. *il spleen (Ugar. l, Hebr. pBibl. l etc.,
see SED 1, 248).
, 1985, 49 compares the Hattic stem with NCauc. *Hl\V liver
that is not persuasive.

93.
L
tagulrunail tent-man, Zeltmann
= Hitt. L
GI
ZA.LAM.GAR.
94. talt (talwi
i
t) (a wooden part of building), lock
?

= Hitt.
(GI)
huimpa-.
The meaning lock seems to be the best candidate for
(GI)
huimpa- according
to the known Hittite contexts (cf., e. g., KBo 24.45 Vs. 22 further they
spray the temple top to bottom from the huimpa). The Hattic stem should
be analyzed as tal- with a t-sufx. The same root talf- is contained in the
Hattic loanword in Hittite: hattalu- bolt, lock, where the Hattic nominal
prex ha- should be singled out (ha-talu-).
, 1985, 51 compares the Hattic root with NCauc. *daro tree;
conifer or *wle (~ --) stick; beam, cross-beam. Both comparisons
are unprovable.

45
I prefer the traditional translation liver (see, e. g., HEG T, 11), whereas Soysal
(HWHT, 728) interprets it as an adjective raw, fresh.
95.
L
taniawa sceptre-bearer, herald
= Hitt. L
GI
GIDRU.
96. tari horse
?

=
?
ANE.KUR.RA.
Burush. *hardV stallion (see the data in Berger, 1998 3, 98).
The connection is plausible, if one assumes a metathesis of obstruents in Hat-
tic or Burushaski.
This Hattic root can probably be revealed in the Hittite term
L
taripiyala-
charioteer (OS, with the NH variant
L
taripala-, also known as a
Cappadocian PN: taripiala/ taripiali ; see HEG S, 226 f. for the list of
attestations
46
), although the nature of the element (i)pi(ala) is unclear.
97. tataet or mere taet new
= Hitt. newa-, GIBIL.
98. teatanna hit
?
, broken
?

=
?
Hitt. walhant-.
99. tiuz, ziuz rock, stone block
= Hitt.
NA4
piruna-.
Cf. zi mountain.
100. tuhul four pillar construction (an element of house)
= Hitt. 4-a arhuliu.
101. tuntu to bewitch
= Hitt. uddaniya-.
102. tu (tupi, tuwi
i
) fear, fright
= Hitt. naharatt-.
The same stem as tafa fear [53]?
103. tur to hit, strike
= Hitt. walh-.
104.
L
tuhafadun taniawe (ein Angestellter bei Hofe)
= Hitt.
L
GAD.TAR.
Cf.
L
taniawa sceptre-bearer, herald [95].

46
The Luwian verb :tari- with an unknown meaning seems unrelated here.
105.
L
tuttuhiyal (ein Angestellter bei Hofe)
= Hitt.
L
dudduhiyalla-.
106. tuwahi wall
?

=
?
Hitt. kutt-.
107. uk conjunction as, just as, wie (es ist), perhaps also relative pro-
noun what, was
= Hitt. GIM-an, ? kuit.
108. upala cut of cloth
= Hitt.
TG
kurear.
109. ur or uri spring, well
= Hitt. P.
Cf. SCauc. *wir water, lake >
NCauc. *wir lake, pond > Av.-And. *in-VrV lake, pond, Lak baIr
lake, pond, Dargwa *eru- > *er river, Lezgh. *ir lake, pond.
STib. *ri(a)j water > Burm. rij water, Kachin (H) numra water.
Yen. *xur
1
water > Ket , Yug ur, Kott. l, Arin kul, Pump. ul.
Burush. *hurV- wet ; becoming wet, overripe; juice of overripe fruits;
wave, stream, whirlpool.
Although the fate of SCauc. initial *w- (and *-) in Hattic is unknown, for
general reasons one could expect Hatt. hu- in this case (virtual Hatt.
**hVr)cf. Yen. *x-.
On the other hand cf. STib. *[P]r to gush forth, jet (> Chin. *br gush
forth, *prs source, spring, gush forth, Burm. panh to jet, gush
forth, Kachin npun
1
a spring, (H) kpun to spring, well), but the loss
of *P- in Hattic remains unexplained.
Alternatively Chirikba, 1996, 426 compares Hatt. ur with WCauc. *Iar
stream, torrent (AbkhazAbaza *ar, AdygheKabardian *war)
which is phonetically not better, one could expect Hatt. h- here. East
Cauc. cognates of WCauc. *Iar are not clear (Caucet.dbf and
Abadet.dbf lack this WCauc. proto-forms), but one can think about its
connection to NCauc. *HwadVrV river, stream (> Nakh *adurV, Av.-
And. *ador(V), Lak aItara, Dargwa *q:I()art:) with an irregular drop
of the medial consonant in WCauc.
Untenably , 1994, 20 (Hatt. + Abkhaz).
110. urana angular
?
, kantig
?

=
?
Hitt. tatrant-.
111. ure, uri strong, forceful, vigorous
= Hitt. innarawant-.
Resembles Hittite ura/i- great, HLuw. u-ra/i- great, CLuw. ura-nnu- to
make great, ura-zza- great which seems an accidental coincidence.
112. zar sheep
= Hitt. UDU(-u).
Yen. *sr
1
e deer > Ket
4
, Yug s:
h
r, Kott. eli, *ele, *ee,
47
Arin sin,
Pump. slat.
Not quite reliable comparison. Although the meaning shift sheep > deer
seems natural in the case of the Yenisseian culture, it should be noted that
we are not aware of any evidence that reindeer breeding was inherent for
Yenisseian tribes. At least about Kets we know that reindeer breeding was
borrowed by them from the neighboring Selkups and Nenets in the
immediate past (, 1934, 78 ff. ; , 1967, 65 ff.), while
previously the Kets had represented a hunter-gatherer society. Second, if
the Kottish meaning is indeed wild animal, it may reveal another
semantic process in the Yenisseian family.
Cf. Sccet.dbf #697 *sVrV (?), where the Yen. form is tentatively compared
with NCauc. *musVrV goat (wild or domestic). Semantically satisfac-
tory, but the status of the element *mu- is unclear.
Unconvincingly , 1985, 69, who compares Hatt. zar with unclear
Nakh *usti- ram (Chechen sta ram (one and more years), etc.),
which lacks NCauc. parallels.
48

Chirikba, 1996, 426 compares the Hatt. plural form fa-zar with WCauc.
*wasa price; bride price; sheep which is morphologically impossible.
Traditionally WCauc. *wasa price is regarded as an Indo-European
loanword (, 1988/ 2007, 334 f. advocates the contrary direc-
tion of borrowing: WCauc. > IE which is not likely in my opinion).
, 1994, 20 (supported by Chirikba, 1996, 426) unpersuasively com-
pares Hatt. zar with AbkhazAbaza *,- goatling (sg. *,-, collect.
plur. *,a-ra), which originates from WCauc. * (the AdygheKabardian
cognate is *a-j young, small, used only as an element of compounds)
< NCauc. *
uhnV goat. Although the AbkhazAbaza collective plural

47
Castrn, 1858, 213 translates the Kottish words as German Wild (repeated in Werner,
2002 2, 183 and Yenet.dbf: wild animal) which appears an erroneous translation of the
answer of the Russian speaking informant, since the Russ. adjective (wild) is
substantivized in the meaning dear (both wild and domesticated) among many Russian
dialects of Siberia, e. g., in the Russian speech of the modern Kets (Albert Davletshin,
pers. com.).
48
The connection of Nakh *usti- to WCauc. *wasa price; sheep accepted, e. g., in
, 1988/ 2007, 334 f., Starostin, 2009, 99 f., is very doubtful ; later this NCauc.
etymology was rejected in NCED.
sufx *-ra has obvious East Cauc. parallels (Nakh plur. *-r, Av.-And.
plur. *-r-, etc.), the comparison of Hatt. zar with AbkhazAbaza *,a-ra
goatlings seems a bringen-Sie-etymology (see 2.1.2 above).
113. zar or zara to exclaim, cry out
= Hitt. halzai-, kalle-.
, 1994, 21, and Chirikba, 1996, 422 compare Hatt. zar(a) with
WCauc. *(r to chirp, squeak, cheep, peep and AbkhazAbaza
*(ar/ *(r to shout, yell, howl which is theoretically possible, but not
obligatory in view of too general semantics.
114. zari, zari-l, zare-l, mortal, human being
= Hitt. dandukear.
, 1985, 70 compares Hatt. zari with the Proto-Nakh compound
*s-a person, man (< NCauc. *wjo man, male + *Hrw man,
person) which is not persuasive.
115. zel, zil to cry
?
, wail
?

=
?
Hitt. wai-.
116. zi ? (maybe small) in the compound zi-n grandchild, descendant
(see n child, son [72])
117. zilat (perhaps also dilat, tilat, zela, zilas) chair; throne
?

= Hitt.
GI
.A.
Both Ivanovs comparisons (, 1985, 74) are unconvincing:
Kabardian sa-t support, stand, prop (probably from the root sa- bottom;
under (preverb) < WCauc. *\V bottom, lower part ; under (preverb) <
NCauc. *H\n bottom) and enigmatic Proto-East Cauc. *V:V
prince (without references).
118. zinar, zinir a k. of musical instrument, lyre (Itar-instrument);
also as a command Music!
= Hitt.
GI(.D)
INANNA.
Borrowed as Hittite zinar a k. of lyre, Akkad. zannaru (almost exclusively
in OB/ NB lex. lists only) a k. of lyre, Armenian nar harp.
The connection between this term and the more widespread Near Eastern
cultural word kin(n)ar a k. of harp is debatable (cf. Ivanov, 1999;
, 2009, 8 ff. w. lit. ; for kin(n)ar see Franklin, 2006 w. lit.). The
most ancient attestations of kin(n)ar come from West Semitic languages:
Eblaite gi-na-rm = Sum. BALAG, Hebr. (Bibl.) kinnr staff-zither, Old
Aram. knr lyre, Ugar. knr, kinaru harp, lyre, etc. (see HALOT; HJ,
520; DUL, 450 f.). From this source the term was borrowed as Akkad.
(Mari, RS) kinnru a k. of lyre, Hitt.
L
kinar-talla- singer, musician,
Hurr. (Bogh.)
L
kinnaruhuli musician, Egyp. (New Kingdom) knnr
lyre, Grk. (LXX) [] a stringed instrument played with the
hand,
49
Arm. knar a musical instrument played by plucking, possibly
OInd. (very late) kinar a k. of stringed instrument, Middle Tamil
kiaram a k. of lute, and so forth. Of course, it is very likely that Hatt.
zinar continues the same wandering word, but the change ki > zi remains
unexplained within Hattic.
50
In fact, the only neighboring language,
which can be suspected of a similar phonetical process, is Luwian, where
IE * > Anat. * > Luw. z. Hence Hatt. zinar might be recognized as a
Luwian loanword (similarly Ivanov, 1999). Some facts, however, contra-
dict this hypothesis. First, zinar appears to be the only clear Luw. loan-
word in Hattic (for tafarna [52] see above). Second, we do not nd any
traces of virtual Luw. **zinar (as well as **kinar) in the known Luwian
lexicon. Third, the virtual Luw. form **zinar is the only example where
borrowed ki is rendered by Luw. zi.
51

, 1985, 75 (supported by Chirikba, 1996, 427) compares Hatt.
zinar with AdygheKabardian *pc:na non-percussion musical instru-
ment (in general)
52
(Adyghe psna, Kabardian pna accordion; kinds
of stringed, bow and wind instruments (in compounds)), whose internal
structure and WCauc. etymology are unclear. Although this Hatt.
WCauc. comparison is one of the main Ivanovs arguments for Hatt.
WCauc. genetic relationship,
53
it is obvious that genetic relationship can-
not be proven by such cultural terms. One can suppose, however, that
AdygheKabardian *pc:na reects the same Wanderwort with the very
frequent WCauc. prex *p- (a former class marker?) and loss of nal
-r.
54
A contrary direction of borrowing (Proto-WCauc. > Hattic zinar) is
not probable:
a) both AdygheKabardian *pc:na and AdygheKabardian absolutive
case ending *-r lack WCauc. (as well as NCauc.) cognates.
b) the sufx -r is not productive in Hattic, it is found in a couple of
fossilized stems only (hukur to see [13], zehar wood [64], perhaps
tafarna lord [52]).

49
Cf. also Myc. ki-nu-ra player of kinura(?), Franceschetti, 2008, 313316.
50
Despite , 2009, Hattic does not show any evidence for such a palatalization.
51
Maybe except for even more dubious Luw. parza iron ore, for which see sub hapalki
[12] above.
52
For the proto-meaning of *pc:na cf., e. g., Paris/ Batouka 1/ 1, 631 (musical instru-
ment (in general)).
53
But in his recent paper (, 2009, 8 ff.) the scholar adopts a migratory nature of
the AdygheKabardian stem.
54
The nal consonant of Hatt. zinar might have been reinterpreted as the Adyghe
Kabardian absolutive case ending *-r.
Futher , 1985, 9 compares the Hatt. compounds hun-zinar great
?

lyre (see hun [16] above) with the standard Old Adyghe compound
psna-xa a k. of big musical instrument, assuming reverse order of the
elements in the Hattic form, but Adyghe -xa big (< AdygheKabardian
*-xa < WCauc. *a big; strong < NCauc. *HqwV big) can-
not be compared with Hatt. hun in any way. The second known Hattic
compound ippi-zinar small
?
lyre is compared by , 1985, 13
with AdygheKabardian *apa-pc:na a k. of hand musical instrument
((Old) Adyghe apa-psn, Kabardian apa-pna a k. of lyre or accor-
dion), where AdygheKabardian *a- the rst part of AdygheKabar-
dian *a-pa hand, ngergoes back to WCauc. *qIa (~ *q:Ia) hand
(< NCauc. *q
w[]V arm; bosom, armpit)

55
. The comparison of Hatt.
ippi and AdygheKabardian a-pa is witty, but unpersuasive phonetically.
119. zipah a k. of knife
?

=
?
GR.
120. zi-kuka (zipikuka, ziwe
e
kuka) posterity, descendants, Enkel (und)
Urenkel
= Hitt. haa- hanzaa-.
A compound of zin grandchild [121] + kuka seed
?
[36] with the regular
simplication nk > k.
121. zin (zipin, zipen, ziwi
i
n) grandchild, descendant
A compound of zi ? [116] + n child, son [72].
122. zizintu, zizentu posterity
?
, seed
?
, Nachfolger
?
; Samen
?

= Hitt. RIN.ME UZU.GPU Truppen der Krperstrke.
123. zuh clothing, garments
= Hitt. TG.
, 1985, 78 quotes enigmatic NCauc. *oq
ajV clothing, garments

without references.
124. zulufe (
L
zuluwe
e
) table man,
= Hitt. L
GI
BANUR.

55
Pace Caucet.dbf and Abadet.dbf, AdygheKabardian *a-pa hand, nger can hardly
be separated from Ubykh q- hand and the other WCauc. compounds like WCauc.
*\a-V foot, AbkhazAbaza *na- hand. Further to WCauc. *V extremity
(< NCauc. *HaV paw, extremity), despite the irregular development WCauc. * >
AdygheKabardian *p (probably the secondary dissimilative deglottalization **a- a >
*a-pa as in some other similar cases).
6 HatticSino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons
6.1 Auxiliary morphemes with reliable SCauc. cognates
69. -a, imperative (slot 1)
NCauc. *-V, imperative > Nakh *-V, *-0, Av.-And. *-o, Tsez. *-V, Lak -0, -a,
-i, -u, Dargwa *-V, Lezgh. *-V, Khin. -0, -, -i, WCauc. *-0.
Note that WCauc. languages have imperative in -0 as opposed to Hattic and
East Cauc. languages.
70. a-/ i-, plural of the accusative case
NCauc. *-:w, plural stem marker > Nakh *-i plural, Tsez. *-(:) plural
direct stem marker, Lezgh. *- oblique stem plural; cf. Hurr.-Urart. -a
plural sufx.
71. ha-, nominal and verbal (slot 3) morpheme with locative and dative
meaning in, to
NCauc. *-V, ad series > Nakh *-x inessive I, (adj.) comparative, Av.-And.
*- ad series, Tsez. *-V ad series, Khin. - inessive 1 (about).
Alternatively to NCauc. *-GV ad close / in series > Nakh *- terminative
(causative) case; inessive I, (adj.) comparative, Tsez. *-qV ad close/ ver-
tical series, Dargwa *-I (~ --) ad series, Lezgh. *-q:I in lled series,
WCauc. *q:Ia- lative preverb (towards the speaker). Thus , 2002,
55 (Hattic + WCauc.).
Alternatively to WCauc. *xa-, preverb super; inter (thus , 1985, 33;
, 2002, 55; Chirikba, 1996, 413).
72. ka-, nominal and verbal (slot 2) morpheme with locative, ablative and
dative semantics
NCauc. *-k-/ *-g-, some locative series > Nakh *-go ad series, Av.-And. *-g
(= *-k?) elative; super series, Lezgh. *-k lateral series, Khin. -ko-li la-
tive, WCauc. *-/ *- preverb super; ad, close to; cf. Urart. -kai,
-k prelative. Perhaps two original morphemes (*-k- vs. *-g-), but rather
hard to distinguish.
Yen. *-ka, locative case > Ket -ka/ -ga/ -a locative, Yug -kej / -gej loca-
tive (Werner, 2002 1, 402 f.), Kott. -ga dative (Castrn, 1858, 34 ff.).
Yen. *k-, verbal preverb > KetYug k(i)-, Kott. h- ( ., 1995,
168; , 1999, 471 f.). Although synchronically the meanings
of the preverbs in the described Yen. languages cannot be established, the
diachronic comparison between the verbal preverb and the nominal loca-
tive sufx seems reliable.
Chirikba, 1996 and , 2002, 55 propose some alternative WCauc. cog-
nates for the Hatt. morpheme.
73. le- his, possessive proclitic pronoun of the 3
rd
person sing. (the posses-
sor is probably animate masculine, as opposed to the possessive proclitic
pronoun e-/ te- her, its).
WCauc. *l- (Abkhaz-Abaza only), fem. poss. class marker her and fem.
sing. subject.
Yen. *da his, *di her, poss. pronoun of the 3
rd
person sing. ; *-du he,
*-d she, sing. subject (see ., 1995, 148, 153; ,
1999, 348, 462 f.).
, 1985, 29 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
Yen. *d- in the proclitic possessive forms can be explained as *l- with the
regular anlaut development *l- > *d-. The enclitic status of the Yen. sub-
ject markers is obviously secondary.
74. -n, marker of the genitive case. Dative semantics standardly is expressed
by prepositions like ha- etc. + optionally gen. ending -n (for details see
Soysal, 2010)
NCauc. *-nV, genitive > Nakh *-n genitive; adjective and participial sufx;
innitive, Av.-And. *-nV ablative; translative, Lak -n dative I, lative,
innitive, Lezgh. *-n genitive; elative; temporal ; suff. of adjectives and
participles; terminative; ergative, WCauc. *-n ergative and general
indirect case; possessive case; transformative case.
75. fa-, verbal morpheme (slot 7), 1
st
pers. sg. subject I
SCauc. *V I >
NCauc. *nI I (1
st
pers. pronoun) > Lak na, Dargwa *nu (not a very reliable
isogloss).
STib. *- I, we > Chin. *h I, we, *hj my, me, *han
I, we, *h I, me, Tib. a I, we, an we (C), ed I, we, (d)os
I, we, self, a-ma self, own, Burm. a I, Kachin ai
1
I, Lushai ei
self, Lepcha k I, Kiranti */ *g I.
Yen. *b- (*ab-) / *a my (attr.) > Ket p, Yug ap, Kott. m-ino, an-e,
Arin b(i)-; *ba-/ *-a 1
st
person sg. object > Ket b-, Kott. -a (-
, 1999, 357, 461 ff.).
Burush. *a- I, 1
st
p. sg. pronominal prex.
Basque *ni I.
In all likelihood Hattic shows the same development of initial *- as Proto-
Yen. does: *- > *m- > *P-.
76. fa-/ -, plural of the nominative and oblique cases
NCauc. *-bV (~ -i, -e, -a), plural > Nakh *-bi, Av.-And. *-b-, Tsez. *-bV,
Dargwa *-bi, Lezgh. *-b-, Khin. -be-r.
Alternatively Hatt. proclitic fa-/ - may correspond to the Yen. plural marker
*-- (both in nouns and verbs), if one assumes the phonetic development
*- > *m- > *P-.
V. A. Dybo (pers. comm.) proposed to compare Hatt. fa- with Ubykh w-,
nominal proclitic marker of plural, which appears only in combination
with proclitic possessive pronouns: a-c his horse ~ a-w-c (> -c)
his horses, s-t my father ~ sa-w-c (> s-c) my horses, s-t our
father ~ sa-w-c (> s-c) our horses etc. (Vogt, 1963, 175, 189, 223).
Of course, morphosyntactically the Ubykh chain POSS-PL-ROOT is identi-
cal to the Hattic possessive constructions like te-fa-katti its kings
(3SG.POSS-PL-king), but this Ubykh feature seems unparalleled within
WCauc. family and therefore can hardly serve as a reliable comparan-
dum.
, 1967, 173 (followed by Chirikba, 1996, 415) incorrectly com-
pares Hattic fa-/ - with Abkhaz -wa (plural marker in the animate class).
In reality Abkhaz -wa forms the names of races (both in the singular and
plural), see Hewitt, 1979, 149.
56

77. we thou (2
nd
person sg. personal pronoun), u- thy (2
nd
person sg.
possessive pronoun), u-p- your (2
nd
person pl. possessive pronoun),
u-thou (2
nd
person sg. subject)
SCauc. *wV thou >
NCauc. *u thou (2
nd
p. pr.) > Nakh *waj we (incl.), Av.-And. *mi-n
thou (2
nd
p. pr.), Tsez. *m thou (2
nd
p. sing. pronoun), Lak wi- thou
(obl. stem), Lezgh. *uo-n thou (2
nd
p. pr.), Khin. w thou (2
nd
p. pr.),
WCauc. *wA thou (2
nd
p. pr.); cf. Hurr. we thou.
Yen. *aw (/ *u) thou > Ket , Yug u, Kott. au, Arin au, Pump. e.
Burush. *u-n thou.
78. ta-, verbal morpheme with locative semantics in(to) (slot 4)
WCauc. *tV- preverb in; super.
Proposed by , 1985, 33; , 2002, 55; Chirikba, 1996, 413.
79. te-, verbal morpheme (slot 8), optative
NCauc. *-dV conditional, desiderative > Av.-And. *-dV- desiderative; con-
ditional, Tsez. [*-da] conditional, Lezgh. *-da, *da-VnV concessive;
temporal gerund; past conditional ; conditional ; future; desiderative,
WCauc. *-da desiderative; real conditional.

56
As was truly noted by Chirikba, this Abkhaz morpheme goes back to the Common
WCauc root *wV person; people, persons.
6.2 Some auxiliary morphemes with dubious or improbable SCauc.
cognates
I do not list here all Hattic auxiliary morphemes lacking SCauc. cognates. In
particular the list does not include phantom morphemes
57
and morphemes,
whose meaning and function are unknown or were incorrectly understood by
previous etymologists.
125. -(a)h, nominal sufx, probably forming femininum (found in katta-h
queen [17], in two epithets of the Sun-goddess ka-a-paru-ya-h source of
light [33] and leli-ya-h source of light [23], also maybe in the name of god-
dess
D
zintuhi ; further see HWHT, 208, it seems that Soysals -ah
2
is the same
femininum sufx)
, 1985, 37 (followed by Chirikba, 1996, 415) compares it with
WCauc. *(A woman (found in stems like WCauc. *p-(A daughter
etc. ; goes back to NCauc. *qwnV woman) which looks very factitious.
126. -i, locative case
NCauc. *-Hi, dative(?) > Av.-And. *-jV dat. ; dat. anim. ; innitive, Tsez.
*-V(j) erg. ; dat. ; innitive, Lak -j-nu, -ija instrumental ; deverbative
nominal sufx, Dargwa *-Hi ergative; instrumental, Lezgh. *-i (-Vj)
deverbative nominal ; masdar, Khin. -i(j) ergative/ genitive; innitive.
Possible, but not obligatory.
127. la-, unclear nominal morpheme perhaps with the locative meaning
(on, at), frequently stands with the locative morpheme ka-: ka-la-
(HWHT, 228)
NCauc. *\
i below, down (an adverbial stem) > Nakh *a-l(e) down, be-
low, Av.-And. *-\:i locative sufx (series Sub), Tsez. *-, *- down,
below; locative sufx (series Sub), Lak luw, -l- down, below, Dargwa
*-(u)- sub series, Lezgh. *\:i-, *-\: below, down; locative sufx (Sub
series).
Note the similarity between Hatt. ka-la- and Proto-Nakh *a-l(e).
For alternative locative preverbal cognates in WCauc. (Ubykh and/ or Ab-
khazAbaza) see Chirikba, 1996, 414, , 2002, 55. Note that Chirik-
ba and Braun propose their etymologies not for nominal la-, but for ver-

57
An example. Ivanov (, 1985, 34) postulates the Hatt. causative prex ka-,
found in Hatt. hakazuel drinker, toaster (according to Ivanov: ha-ga-zu-el from the root
zu to drink which is not attested elsewhere), and compares it with the AbkhazAbaza
Ubykh causative prex *a-. As a matter of fact, hakazuel drinker, toaster [6] is
derived from the Hatt. noun kazue bowl [32], which in its turn is borrowed from Se-
mitic (Akkad. ksu bowl with reliable Semitic cognates). Phonetically the comparison
of Hatt. k with WCauc. * is unpersuasive also.
bal **li- (uncritically following old Forrers analysis), which does not
exist.
128. fe-, nominal prex with allative/ illative semantics
Chirikba, 1996, 414 compares Hatt. fe- with the Ubykh preverb wa- in(to)
the mass, amidst smth. to smbd., but the Ubykh morpheme has reliable
cognates in AbkhazAbaza *la-/ *l- < WCauc. *a- preverb inter <
NCauc. *-- in lled series which makes the Hatt.WCauc. comparison
phonetically impossible.
, 2002, 56 compares Hatt. fe- with WCauc. *pA nose (< NCauc.
*prV part of face under the nose; nose), which has an additional
meaning front in some WCauc. languages and may function as a preverb
before, in front of. Improbable semantically and morphologically.
129. t-, could be an exponent of the plural(?) direct object in the verbal
wordforms (slot 5), but in reality the status and function of this mor-
pheme is opaque
WCauc. *d-, anim. sing. obj. marker (reconstructed for AbkhazAbaza level
only).
130. ta- ~ a- and te- ~ e-, verbal prohibitive morpheme (slot 9)
NCauc. *j/ *, negative particle >
SCauc. *j/ *, negative particle > Nakh *ca not (used as a separate
word), Av.-And. *-(i, Tsez. *-(, Lezgh. *:V (the basic Proto-NCauc.
particle of the negative of assertion).
Basque *es not (the basic particle of the negative of assertion).
The origin of the second element (-) of the Hatt. morpheme is unclear. The
phonetic correspondence SCauc. *,/ *( ~ Hatt. // seems slightly strange.
131. tu- ~ u-, verbal morpheme, theoretically can be the indirect object re-
exive exponent (for oneself). Slot 6
SCauc. *[]V (~ t-) self >
NCauc. *[] self, oneself (3
rd
4
th
class) > Lak cu self, oneself, Dargwa
*e-/ u- (one)self (reex. pronoun), Lezgh. *-i() self, oneself (re-
exive pronoun), WCauc. *- for oneself (prex of the subject ver-
sion).
STib. *j private, oneself > Chin. *sj private, oneself, Tib. e, e-
dag, a-sdag for oneself only, only, privately.
132. zi-, nominal morpheme with ablative semantics (e. g., from top-
down), za- verbal morpheme (slot 4) with some locative semantics
Cf. WCauc. *\V bottom, lower part ; under (preverb) (> AbkhazAbaza
*(a- under, *(- from down, AdygheKabardian *ca- under, Ubykh
-(a bottom, lower part, etc.), originating from NCauc. *H\n bot-
tom. The comparison was proposed by , 2002, 55 and Chirikba,
1996, 414, but phonetically unacceptable.
7 Contacts with neighboring languages
As is well known, Hattic was a donor of several dozens of cultic, regal and
technical terms into Hittite (see Goedegebuure, 2008, 146 f. w previous lit.) and
into Palaic, but not into known Luwian. On the contrary, not a single doubtless
Anatolian loanwords in Hattic is revealed up to now: the most appropriate
candidate here is Hattic zinar a k. of lyre [118], which theoretically might
have been borrowed from an unattested Central or North Anatolian Luwian dia-
ect. The second candidate the is widely discussed Hattic word tafarna lord (vel
sim.) [52] together with the parallel female title tawananna lady [52], but I
claim that there is no positive evidence that these terms represent inherited
Luwian or Hittite forms.
Besides lexical borrowings one should note two phonetic processes shared
by Hattic and Hittite. The rst Hatt.Hitt. phonetic isogloss is assibilation /ti/ >
/i/, for which see 4.2.2.23 above. The second one is dissimilation /u/ > /um/,
see 4.2.2.1 above.
As opposed to the Indo-European languages of Anatolia, Hurrian shows
rather sparse traces of linguistic contacts with Hattic which is somewhat surpris-
ing. Cf. Hatt. hapalki iron [12] > Hurr. habalgi / abalgi iron; Hatt. hamuruwa
beam, rafter [7] > Akkad. (OB, Nuzi) amr beam, timber (in construction of
house, ship) probably via Hurrian; and maybe Hatt. zipina sour [66] >
?
Hurr.
(Bogh.)
NINDA
zippinni (a k. of pastry used in rites). In the opposite direction:
Hurr. kade grain, barley > Hatt. kait grain, corn [26].
Hattic has a number of borrowings from Semitic languages. It is noteworthy
that West Semitic, not Akkadian loanwords prevail in the list.

An Akkadian or West Semitic loanword:
kazue goblet, cup [32] < Akkad. ksu-m goblet, cup, Ugar. ks id. etc.

An Akkadian loanword:
kusim, kuim throne [42] < Akkad. kuss-m, kussiu-m chair, throne (fur-
ther to Ugar. ks seat, throne etc.), where Hattic -m probably reects
Akkadian mimation.

West Semitic loanwords:
karam wine [27] < WSem. *karm vineyard, vine.
mael cult performer, chanter, clown
?
[51] < Ugar. ml cymbal player,
Ugaritic Akkad. milu (a musician, performer).
?
L
kiluh courier-spy [33] < Ugar. l courier, messenger, Hebr. (Bibl.) al
light, nimble, rapid (said of messengers) with the (Hattic?) h-sufx.
?
(D)
aru,
(D)
taru Storm-god [84] < Hebr. (Bibl.) aar heavy gale, r
high wind, r to be stormy (further to Akkad. ru wind; air;
breath).
? ep footwear [87] < Syr. p scapus (caligae); mucro nasi and Arab.
abt- chaque ct de la chaussure (further probably to Akkad. pu
foot ~ Soqotri ab, af foot).
? tahalai[n] liver
?
[92] < WSem. *il spleen.

Despite Vja. Vs. Ivanov, the Semitic origin of the two following Hattic words
does not seem probable for some reasons: milup bull, ox [52] ~ Sem. *alp
cattle and n child, son [72] ~ Sem. *bin son. A phonetic similarity be-
tween Hatt. am(a) to hear, listen (vel sim.) [48] ~ Sem. *Vma- to hear and
Hatt. uf ox [91] ~ Akkad. uppu white sheep, Ugar. p white sheep in all
likelihood is accidental also.
No good examples of the contrary direction of borrowing (Hattic > Semitic)
are known. Akkad. (MAss.) habalginnu a k. of metal and (OB, Nuzi) amr
beam were borrowed probably via the Hurrian intermediation (see hapalki
iron [12] and hamuruwa beam, rafter [7] above). Akkad. zannaru (almost
exclusively in OB/ NB lex. lists only) a k. of lyre might have been borrowed
not from Hattic, but from some Luwian dialect.
A very important fact is the presence of lexical contacts between Hattic and
the Proto-West Caucasian language. At least two Hattic stems can be assuredly
recognized as WCauc. loanwords:
hapalki iron [12] < WCauc. *I-\V iron or rather *I-p\
copper.
malhip good, favorable [49] < WCauc. *ma\V good, luck.
? pau-n breath
?
[71] < WCauc. *pA to breathe.
? hamuruwa beam, rafter [7] < AbkhazAbaza *q(m)blra cross-
beam.

In one case we must suspect a borrowing of a Hattic term into WCauc. :
zinar a k. of lyre [118] > AdygheKabardian *p-c:na non-percussion
musical instrument (in general).

The fact of HatticWCauc. contacts, which may be supported also by some ar-
chaeological evidence, is rather interesting, since all known WCauc. languages
belong to the syntactic SOV type and the same feature should be reconstructed
for the WCauc. proto-language. Although I generally agree with P. Goedege-
buures (2008) schema of HatticLuwianHittite interferences at the beginning
of the 2
nd
millennium BC (with some remarks), HatticWCauc. contacts add new
options in the sociolinguistic scenarios discussed by Goedegebuure.
58

The similarity between Hatt. muh(al) hearth [55] and Sumerian muhal-dim
cook seems unsupported by additional positive evidence (except for a surpris-
ing isogloss Hatt. aki ~ Sum. AG heart) and should be regarded today as a
chance coincidence.
Ancient Greek dialects possess a number of North Caucasian loanwords, see
, 1985 (some Nikolaevs connections are highly questionable, but
some seem probative). In view of this one should note the Hattic term kinawar
copper [34], whose phonetic similarity with Grk. cinnabar (a
bright red or brownish-red mineral form of mercuric sulphide) can hardly be
fortuitous. Unfortunately kinawar is unetymologizable within Hattic, so it may
be treated as a common HatticGreek wandering word (red mineral) of
unknown origin.
8 Conclusion
8.1 Linguistic afliation
Above I list ca. 70 reliable HatticSino-Caucasian root comparisons and ca. 10
reliable HatticSino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons (note that we
know in sum less than 200 Hattic words whose meaning is established). The
most part of Hattic etymologized lexemes belongs to the basic vocabulary. The
system of HatticSino-Caucasian phonetical correspondences is rather simple
and logical. Thus, according to the general comparative procedure (see Camp-
bell / Poser, 2008, 4; / , 2005, 724) I suppose that the hypo-
thesis of Sino-Caucasian attribution of the Hattic language can be considered
very probable.
The location of the Hattic branch within the Sino-Caucasian tree is a more
difcult question. Two points should be stressed before we start to discuss
genealogical trees.
1) Due to the relict nature of the Yenisseian family (the Proto-Yen.
reconstruction is generally based on the three languages: Ket, Yug and to a
lesser degree Kottish), its proto-vocabulary is relatively small. The current ver-
ion of Yenet.dbf includes ca. 1050 entries as opposed to 2300 entries in the
NCauc. database (Caucet.dbf) and ca. 2800(!) entries in the STib. database
(Stibet.dbf). It means that in the general case the Yen. proto-language must show
a smaller number of lexical isoglosses with Hattic than the NCauc. and STib.
proto-languages do.
2) I assume that some of the aforementioned Sino-Tibetan etymologies of
Hattic lexemes may turn out false in the future, since, rst, the Sino-Tibetan

58
malhip seems the default Hattic word for good, i.e. it belongs to the most basic and
stable part of vocabulary (the Swadesh 100-wordlist). If malhip is really a borrowing <
WCauc. *ma\V good, luck, it suggests that HatticProto-West Caucasian interferences
were much more intensive than we can judge today from the available Hattic data.
reconstruction as it is presented today is somewhat preliminary (work in this
eld is in progress) as opposed to the North Caucasian and Yenisseian ones;
next, the reduction of root structure in Proto-Sino-Tibetan opens an additional
space for external etymologization. A relatively high number of HatticSino-
Tibetan isoglosses (see below) should be explained by these factors.
As mentioned in 4.1, the core lexicostatistical schema of Sino-Caucasian
macrofamily looks as following:

Sino-Caucasian
/ \
Sino-TibetanNa-Dene North Cauc.Yen.
/ \ / \
STib. Na-Dene North Cauc. Yenisseian

The question is whether the Hattic language is closer to the Sino-Tibetan
Na-Dene branch or to the North CaucasianYenisseian one. The root compari-
sons from 5.1 can be summarized in the following statistic chart.

Hatt. ~ NCauc. and STib. and Yen. : 15 etymologies.
alef tongue [1] ~ NCauc. *\npV lip ~ STib. *ep tongue, to lick ~ Yen.
*alVp tongue. The primary meaning of the proto-root was probably to
lick.
anna when [2] ~ NCauc. *h[]nV now ~ STib. *n[] time or place of,
when ~ Yen. *en now.
etan sun [5] ~ NCauc. *=Hu
V-n ( ~ -j
-) to clear up (of weather) ~ STib.

*oj (~ -l) clear (of weather) ~ Yen. *- clear (of weather), *in
bright day ~ Burush. * clear (of sky).
han sea [7] ~ NCauc. *xnI water ~ STib. *w(s) water, moisture ~
Yen. *x (~ -) wave ~ Burushaski *hn-chil water from a wound;
watery (tea, soup) ~ Basque *u-hin wave.
harki- to be(come) wide [9] ~ NCauc. *rq[w] wide ~ STib. *qH
wide, broad ~ Yen. *iGV- wide, broad
hukur to see, look [13] ~ NCauc. *H[o]kV to look, search ~ STib. *ku to
seek, choose, understand ~ Yen. *b-[o]k- to nd
kun to see [21] ~ NCauc. *=agwV to see ~ STib. *kn to glance at ; to
regard ~ Yen. *qo to see.
luizzi-l runner, messenger [26] ~ NCauc. *hilw to run (away) ~ STib.
(Chin. *ho, *h, * to run) ~ Yen. *tut- to ee, hide
fa- I [75] ~ NCauc. *nI I ~ STib. *- I, we ~ Yen. *b- (*ab-) / *a
my (attr.) ~ Burush. *a- I ~ Basque *ni I.
aki- heart [47] ~ NCauc. *jrw heart ~ STib. *r/ *rk breast ~
Yen. *t()ga breast ~ Burush. *dak hope, belief.
te great, big [54] ~ NCauc. (WCauc. *dA big) ~ STib. *tajH big, much ~
Yen. *tj- to grow.
ti to lie; to lay
?
[55] ~ NCauc. *=tV-r to let, leave; to stay ~ STib.
*dhH to put, place ~ Yen. *di(j) to lie down, put down ~ Burush. *-t-
to do, make, set up.
tefu to pour [57] ~ NCauc. *=w to emit, pour; to vomit ~ STib. *w
water, wet ; to scoop ~ Yen. *a-- to pour ~ Burush. *ao to wash.
tu to eat [59] ~ NCauc. *=V
V to drink; to gulp, to eat ~ STib. *haH to

eat ~ Yen. *s- to eat ~ Burush. *i / *i / *u to eat.
tumil rain [62] ~ NCauc. *cjwIlV rainy season ~ STib. (Chin. *hiw
autumn) ~ Yen. *sir
1
- summer ~ Basque *asaro November; autumn.

Hatt. ~ NCauc. and STib. : 15 etymologies.
halu bolt, lock [6] ~ NCauc. *uI/ *Iu lock, bolt ; key ~ STib. *klH
bolt, lock.
hel, hil to grow, ripen [11] ~ NCauc. *=rqw to ripen ~ STib. *gr old,
large
her to hide [12] ~ NCauc. *=igwV to lose; to steal ~ STib. *koj (~ -l) to
hide ~ Basque *gal- to lose.
kai horn [14] ~ NCauc. *lwi forelock, plait ; horn ~ STib. *khaj
horn, a pair of horns ~ Burush. *uy hair.
ku to seize [19] ~ NCauc. *=w to put (together), take ~ STib. *Khu
(~ -ua, -w) take out, extract
(a)ku soldier, escort (vel sim.) [20] ~ NCauc. *Hqw to graze, guard,
preserve ~ STib. *k to help; friend, companion
li year [24] ~ NCauc. *jV year, day ~ STib. *lH year, season
(a)nti to stand; to stay [28] ~ NCauc. *=Vm
Vr to stand (up) ~ STib.

*hioH to be at, sit, stay.
paru bright, shining [33] ~ NCauc. *pr lightning ~ STib. *prH
bright ; morning
wet to be sour/ bitter [34] ~ NCauc. *mVj
w sour ~ STib. *[h]am

salt ~ Burush. *hmil poison.
pezi-l wind [35] ~ NCauc. *mIlwV wind ~ STib. *mt to blow
puluku foliage [39] ~ NCauc. *aplqw burdock; leaf(?) ~ STib. *phak
leaf ~ Burush. *bilgur a k. of weed
take-ha lion [51] ~ NCauc. *nq
V lynx, panther ~ STib. *chi()k leop-

ard.
tafa-r-na lord [52] ~ NCauc. *
ombi god; mercy ~ STib. *m honour,

authority
zuwa-tu wife [68] ~ NCauc. *
wjV woman, female ~ STib. (Chin. *hej

female) ~ Basque *a-o old woman.

Hatt. ~ NCauc. and Yen. : 5 etymologies.
e to put [4] ~ NCauc. *=i to give, compensate; to put ~ Yen. *es- to
put ~ Basque *ecan to lie down, rest (tr.) to put down.
p(a)ra leopard [37] ~ NCauc. *br wolf ~ Yen. *pe()s-tap wolver-
ine ~ Basque *oo wolf.
we thou [77] ~ NCauc. *u thou ~ Yen. *aw (/ *u) thou ~ Burush. *u-n
thou.
taha-ya barber [50] ~ NCauc. *VqV/ *q
VV to scratch, rub ~ Yen.

*[e]()V to shave ~ Burush. *qha to rub.
tera-h leather covering [58] ~ NCauc. *orV skin, shell ~ Yen. *trap-
bread crust.
Hatt. ~ STib. and Yen. : 4 etymologies.
kip to protect [18] ~ STib. *Gp to cover ~ Yen. *qepVn- to close
(door)
fara-ya priest [32] ~ STib. *p(r)IwH to speak ~ Yen. *ba- to pray ~ Bu-
rush. *bar speech, word.
fun mortality [40] ~ STib. *mo to die ~ Yen. *bo dead man.
tuk to step [61] ~ STib. *ek to tread, trample ~ Yen. *q- to run.

Hatt. ~ NCauc. : 6 etymologies.
han to open [8] ~ NCauc. *=a
wVn to open
nimhu- woman [27] ~ NCauc. *nV (~ --) woman, female
fel house [30] ~ NCauc. *bV cattle-shed
ahhu/ tahhu ground, bottom [45] ~ NCauc. *Hu/ *Hu earth,
ground, sand ~ Basque *orho meadow; eld.
am(a) to hear, listen [48] ~ NCauc. *=a(m)sV to be silent, listen
zehar, zihar (building) wood, timber [64] ~ NCauc. *
wV stick, chip;
piece of wood, beam; timber

Hatt. ~ STib. : 16 etymologies.
hel to strew, pour [10] ~ STib. *q(h)r throw (into water), scatter
(a)le to envy (vel sim.) [22] ~ STib. *re to dislike
leli source of light [23] ~ STib. *roH light
lu to be able [25] ~ STib. *lw to be able
nu to come, go [29] ~ STib. *n to tread, trace
far thousand [31] ~ STib. *bhr abundant, numerous
pnu to observe, look [36] ~ STib. *mVn to perceive; to think
fula bread [38] ~ STib. *mor grain
fur country; population [41] ~ STib. *PrV country
pu to devour, swallow [42] ~ STib. *mVt to eat, swallow
pu- to fan (a re or burning materials) [42] ~ STib. *b, bt to blow; to
fan (further to onomatopoeic NCauc. *pHV to blow, blowing ~ Yen.
*pV(j) to blow ~ Burush. *phu to blow).
ai-l / tai-l lord, master [46] ~ STib. *IH to govern; lord
tafa fear [53] ~ STib. *tp fear, to be confused
teh to build [56] ~ STib. *H to work; to build
tuh to take [60] ~ STib. *H to seize (further to NCauc. *=wV to
take, carry ~ Basque *eui to take, hold, seize, grasp).
zipi-na sour [66] ~ STib. *cVp bitter, pungent

Hatt. ~ Yen. : 9 etymologies.
a to come (here) [3] ~ Yen. *- to let come, let enter
ka head [16] ~ Yen. *a-KsV- temple (part of head)
katte king [17] ~ Yen. *kat old (attr.)
fute long (in temporal meaning) [44] ~ Yen. *bot- often
tip gate [49] ~ Yen. *p to cover; to plug; to close
tup root [63] ~ Yen. *t[e]mb-V- root
zik to fall [65] ~ Yen. *d()q- to fall
zi mountain [67] ~ Yen. *s stone ~ Burush. *hi mountain
kap moon [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ -) moon

A high number of exclusive HatticSino-Tibetan isoglosses (16 entries) is note-
worthy, even through some of these Hatt.STib. etymologies do not look obliga-
tory.
59
The situation changes if one tries to analyze Hattic words from the
Swadesh list.
The table below includes the standard Swadesh 100-wordlist (as it is ac-
cepted, e. g., in various publications by S. Starostin, see , 2007) with
10 additional words from S. Yakhontovs 100-wordlist, taken from the second
part of the Swadesh 200-wordlist (see / 2005, 1213 for
detail). Yakhontovs items are marked by the + sign. For the general principles
of the compilation process now see Kassian et al., 2010.

No. ENG Hattic Sino-Caucasian
1. all (omnis)
2. ashes
3. bark
4. belly
5. big, large
te great, big [54] NCauc. (WCauc. *dA big) ~
STib. *tajH big, much ~
Yen. *tj- to grow.
6. bird ati or ti bird [3]

59
Cf., e. g., Hatt. (a)le to envy (vel sim.) [22] ~ STib. *re to dislike or Hatt. leli
source of light [23] ~ STib. *roH light which are formally acceptable, but can hardly
prove some specic relationship.
7. to bite
8. black
9. blood
10. bone
11. breast
12. to burn
(trans.)

13. cloud
14. cold
15. to come
a to come (here) [3] Yen. *- to let come, let
enter

an to come (here
?
) [2]
16. to die
17. dog
18. to drink ? lin to drink
?
(vel sim.) [46]
19. dry
20. ear
21. earth
Cf. ahhu/ tahhu ground [45] NCauc. *Hu/ *Hu
earth, ground, sand ~
Basque *orho meadow;
eld.

Cf. itarrazi-l (dark/ black)
earth, soil ; terrestrial,
earthly(?) [22]

22. to eat
tu to eat [59] NCauc. *=V
V to drink; to
gulp, to eat ~ STib. *haH to
eat ~ Yen. *s- to eat ~ Bu-
rush. *i / *i / *u to eat.

Cf. pu to devour, swallow [42] STib. *mVt to eat, swallow
23. egg
24. eye nimah, lmah eye(s) [58]
25. fat
26. feather
27. re
28. sh
29. to y
30. foot
31. full
32. to give yay to give [25]
33. to go
nu to come, go [29] STib. *n to tread, trace
34. good
malhip good, favorable [49] (a WCauc. loan)
35. green
36. hair
37. hand
38. head
ka head [16] Yen. *a-KsV- temple (part
of head)
39. to hear
am(a) to hear, listen [48] NCauc. *=a(m)sV to be si-
lent, listen
40. heart
aki- heart [47] NCauc. *j-rw heart ~
STib. *r/ *rk breast ~
Yen. *t()ga breast ~ Bu-
rush. *dak hope, belief.
41. horn
kai horn [14] NCauc. *lwi forelock,
plait ; horn ~ STib. *khaj
horn, a pair of horns ~ Bu-
rush. *uy hair.
42. I
fa- I [75] NCauc. *nI I ~ STib. *- I,
we ~ Yen. *b- (*ab-) / *a
my (attr.) ~ Burush. *a- I ~
Basque *ni I.
43. to kill
44. knee
45. to know
46. leaf
puluku foliage [39] NCauc. *aplqw burdock;
leaf(?) ~ STib. *phak leaf ~
Burush. *bilgur a k. of
weed
47. to lie
ti to lie; to lay
?
[55] NCauc. *=tV-r to let, leave;
to stay ~ STib. *dhH to put,
place ~ Yen. *di(j) to lie
down, put down ~ Burush.
*-t- to do, make, set up.
48. liver
? tahalai[n] liver
?
[92] (a Sem. loan??)
49. long
50. louse
51. man (male)
52. man (per-
son)

53. many, a lot
of

54. meat
55. moon
kap moon [15] Yen. *q[e]p (~ -) moon
56. mountain
zi mountain [67] Yen. *s stone ~ Burush.
*hi mountain.
57. mouth
58. nail
59. name
60. neck
61. new tataet or taet new [97]
62. night
63. nose
64. not Cf. the prohibitive morpheme
ta- ~ a-, te- ~ e-

65. one
66. rain
tumil rain [62] NCauc. *cjwIlV rainy sea-
son ~ STib. (Chin. *hiw au-
tumn) ~ Yen. *sir
1
- summer
~ Basque *asaro November;
autumn.
67. red Cf. kazza blood red
?
, red
?
[31]
68. road
69. root
tup root [63] Yen. *t[e]mb-V- root
70. round
71. sand
72. to say Cf. hu to exclaim, pronounce
[15]

73. to see
hukur to see, look [13] NCauc. *H[o]kV to look,
search ~ STib. *ku to seek,
choose, understand ~ Yen.
*b-[o]k- to nd

kun to see [21] NCauc. *=agwV to see ~
STib. *kn to glance at ;
to regard ~ Yen. *qo to see.

Cf. pnu to observe, look [36] STib. *mVn to perceive;
to think
74. seed
75. to sit nif or nifa to sit [59]
76. skin
Cf. tera-h leather covering [58] NCauc. *orV skin, shell ~
Yen. *trap- bread crust.
77. to sleep
78. small, little
79. smoke
80. to stand
(a)nti to stand; to stay [28] NCauc. *=Vm
Vr to stand
(up) ~ STib. *hioH be at,
sit, stay.
81. star
82. stone pip stone [74]
83. sun
etan sun [5] NCauc. *=Hu
V-n ( ~ -j
-) to
clear up (of weather) ~ STib.
*oj (~ -l) clear (of weather)
~ Yen. *- clear (of
weather), *in bright day ~
Burush. * clear (of sky).
84. to swim
85. tail
86. that
87. this imallen, imallin this [18]
88. tongue
alef tongue [1] NCauc. *\npV lip ~ STib.
*ep tongue, to lick ~ Yen.
*alVp tongue.
89. tooth
90. tree
91. two
92. warm
93. water
94. we
95. what
96. white
97. who
98. woman
nimhu- woman [27] NCauc. *nV (~ --)
woman, female (not a default
NCauc. root for woman)
99. yellow
100. you (thou)
we thou [77] NCauc. *u thou ~ Yen.
*aw (/ *u) thou ~ Burush.
*u-n thou.
101. far +
102. heavy +
103. near +
104. salt +
105. short +
106. snake +
107. thin +
108. wind +
pezi-l wind [35] NCauc. *mIlwV wind ~
STib. *mt to blow
109. worm +
110. year +
li- year [24] NCauc. *jV year, day ~
STib. *lH year, season

The exclusive lexical isoglosses between Hattic and the North Caucasian-Yenis-
seian branch and between Hattic and the Sino-Tibetan branch can be sum-
marized as follows:

Hatt. ~ NCauc.Yen.
tera-h leather covering [58] ~ NCauc. *orV skin, shell ~ Yen. *trap-
bread crust.
we thou [77] ~ NCauc. *u thou ~ Yen. *aw (/ *u) thou ~ Burush. *u-n
thou.

Hatt. ~ Yen.
a to come (here) [3] ~ Yen. *- to let come, let enter
ka head [16] ~ Yen. *a-KsV- temple (part of head)
zi mountain [67] ~ Yen. *s stone ~ Burush. *hi mountain
tup root [63] ~ Yen. *t[e]mb-V- root
kap moon [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ -) moon

Hatt. ~ NCauc.
ahhu/ tahhu ground, bottom [45] ~ NCauc. *Hu/ *Hu earth,
ground, sand ~ Basque *orho meadow; eld.
am(a) to hear, listen [48] ~ NCauc. *=a(m)sV to be silent, listen
nimhu- woman [27] ~ NCauc. *nV (~ --) woman, female

Hatt. ~ STib.
pu to devour, swallow [42] ~ STib. *mVt to eat, swallow
nu to come, go [29] ~ STib. *n to tread, trace
pnu to observe, look [36] ~ STib. *mVn to perceive; to think

As one can see, the exclusive Hatt.STib. isoglosses are rather weak. Generally
speaking, Hatt. pu to devour, swallow and pnu to observe, look should be
excluded from the Hattic list of Swadeshs lexemes. In turn, Hatt. nu to come,
go [29] does not coincide semantically with its STib. counterpart.
On the contrary, the Yenisseian and North Caucasian proto-languages possess
a number of reliable cognates of Hattic basic lexemes. The most striking of them
are Hatt. we thou [77] ~ NCauc. *u thou ~ Yen. *aw (/*u) thou ~ Bu-
rush. *u-n thou, Hatt. zi mountain [67] ~ Yen. *s stone ~ Burush. *hi
mountain and Hatt. kap moon [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ -) moon.
I believe that the statistic data above speak for a specic HatticNorth
CaucasianYenisseian relationship, but the supposition of a specic Hattic
North Caucasian relationship is not likely due to a minimal number of exclusive
Hatt.-NCauc. lexical comparisons (6 entries only, see the list above).
In such a situation two trees are possible:

(a) Sino-Caucasian
/ \
STib.Na-Dene North Cauc.Yen.
/ | \
North Cauc. Hattic Yenisseian
(b) Sino-Caucasian
/ \
STib.Na-Dene North Cauc.Yen.
/ \
North Cauc. HatticYen.
/ \
Hattic Yenisseian

The Schema (b) might be more realistic in view of some specic phonetic proc-
esses that Hattic shares with Proto-Yenisseian (see 4.2.2 above for detail):
1) Denasalization of initial m- (*m- > P-).
2) Initial *- > *m- > P-.
3) Fricativization of sibilant affricates in the non-initial position.
4) Etymological ST-clusters > t.
5) Loss and retention of laryngeal phonemes in the same roots.
60

6) Loss of a sonorant in the combinations *l + sibilant affricate, *n/ *m + la-
bial stop, *n/ *m + velar/ uvular stop (common STib.Yen. features).

Of course in some points Hattic (the rst half of the 2
nd
millennium BC) is more
archaic then Proto-Yenisseian (its split : the rst half of the 1
st
millennium BC).
As opposed to Proto-Yenisseian, Hattic shows:
1) Retention of *w.
2) Retention of initial laterals and *n-.
3) Retention of sonorants in the combinations *r/ *l + velar/ uvular, *m +
sibilant affricate.

Some particular cases of semantic development, shared both by Hattic and
Proto-Yenisseian, may also speak in favour of the theory of the common Hattic-
Yenisseian proto-language. Cf. :

60
Loss: anna when [2] ~ Yen. *en < SCauc. *hVnV; pra leopard [37] ~ Yen.
*pe()s-tap < SCauc. *br ; etan sun [5] ~ Yen. *-, *in < SCauc.
*=HVV(-n) ; te big [54] ~ Yen. *tj- < SCauc. *dVHV; fun mortality [40] ~ Yen.
*bo < SCauc. *HmoV; han sea [7] ~ Yen. *x < SCauc. *xnI, and so on.
Retention: harki- wide [9] ~ Yen. *iGV- wide < SCauc. *Vrqw.
A possible exception: ur(i) spring, well [109] ~ Yen. *xur
1
water < SCauc.
*wir water, lake.
alef tongue [1] ~ Yen. *alVp tongue vs. NCauc. *\npV lip.
han sea [7] ~ Yen. *x (~ -) wave vs. NCauc. *xnI water.
fara-ya priest [32] ~ Yen. *ba- to pray vs. STib. *p(r)IwH speak
taha-ya barber [50] ~ Yen. *[e]()V to shave vs. NCauc. *VqV to
scratch, rub.

These examples are opposed to the following etymologies, where Hattic mean-
ings coincide with North Caucasian:
aki- heart [47] ~ NCauc. *jrw heart vs. Yen. *t()ga breast (cf.
STib. *r/ *rk breast). Semantic shift heart < > breast is typolo-
gically rather common. We can suspect here either the development
heart > breast separately in the Yen. and STib. proto-languages or the
development breast > heart separately in the NCauc. proto-language
and Hattic.
tera-h leather covering [58] ~ NCauc. *orV skin, shell vs. Yen. *t-
rap- bread crust. Can be explained as a subsequent semantic speci-
cation in Proto-Yenisseian.
8.2 Geographical problem
8.2.1 Location of the Sino-Caucasian homeland and ways of prehistoric migra-
tions of Sino-Caucasian tribes are uninvestigated questions. The only thing I can
do here is to outline some points of future discussion and propose one of the
possible scenarios of the Sino-Caucasian expansion.
Historically attested areas of the Sino-Caucasian languages are illustrated by
the map (prepared with the help of Yuri Koryakov): g. 5.
For the North Caucasian, Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dene, Basque and Burushaski
families borders of the late XX c. AD are shown. Approximate borders of the
Yenisseian family in the XVII c. AD are given after Pakendorf, 2007, 4
w. prev. lit.
Territorial coverage and high dispersion of the known SCauc. languages al-
low us to suppose that during millennia the Sino-Caucasian tribes were being
gradually forced out of their habitats or assimilated by neighboring peoples.
61

8.2.2 The NCauc. proto-language possesses the richest phonetic system among
known SCauc. (proto-)languages. Sino-Tibetan, Yenisseian, Burushaski, Basque
and Na-Dene show more trivial systems.
62
Such a phonetic simplication should

61
As far as I can judge, their main confrontations occurred with various Nostratic tribes
(the split of the North branch of the Nostratic proto-language dates back to the rst half
of the 11
th
millennium BC, see g. 8 for detail).
62
We cannot argue about the Hurrian and Hattic phonemic inventories due to their sim-
plied cuneiform transmission.
be explained by the inuence of non-SCauc. languages, with which SCauc.
tribes contacted pending their movements. The same considerations may be ap-
plied to morphology. Sino-Tibetan, Yenisseian, Burushaski, and Basque demon-
strate clear morphological relations with neighboring non-SCauc. languages.
These facts could indicate that the NCauc. proto-language had minimal contacts
with non-SCauc. dialects and a relatively short migratory way from the SCauc.
homeland to the modern NCauc. area.
8.2.3 The map of successive stages in the distribution of copper and bronze
artefacts by E. Chernykh (g. 6) demonstrates that in the 7
th
4
th
millennia BC the
way from the Near East to Europe came through West Anatolia into Balkans, but
not through North Caucasus into steppes.
It correlates with the routes of agricultural expansion, which went into
Europe through West Anatolia and into Asia through Iran, but not through North
Caucasus (see, e. g., Diamond/ Bellwood, 2003, Bellwood/ Oxenham, 2008,
17 ff., Bar-Yosef, 2002): g. 7.
As noted in Kohl, 2007, 29 f. : the general spread of the Neolithic food-
producing economy from Anatolia into southeastern Europe is accepted by all
scholars, even those with a penchant for emphasizing autonomous evolutionary
processes.

8.2.4 One of the clues to the reconstruction of the sociolinguistic situation in
prehistoric Near East could be the Maykop archeological culture (Early Bronze
Age).
Maykop-related cultures may be divided into three successive phases:
Chalcolithic Meshoko (45003850 BC), Maykop (that includes the great May-
kop kurgan and related complexes; 38503300 BC) and its successor Novosvo-
bodnaya culture (33002500 BC). For the periodization and dating see Lyonnet,
2007a, 13; Kohl, 2009, 243; similarly in Trifonov, 2007, 170; for details see
, 1994; Kohl, 2007, 73. It is important that according to ,
2009 Northwest Caucasus was uninhabited during Neolith, only in Chalcolithic
time that region was reoccupied by Meshoko people.
The Meshoko culture is rather associated with northern/ northwestern steppe
regions and Balkans (it concerns pottery, some other artefacts and metal, which
was imported from Balkans), see now Lyonnet, 2007b, 135 w. lit. ; Ivanova,
2007, 10 ff. On the other hand, some connections with southern regions can be
traced also: , 2001, 194 claims that Meshoko pottery is close to the
Chalcolithic Eastern Anatolian tradition; cf. also Meshoko lithic tools, made of
obsidian imported from Transcaucasia (, 1994, 189 w. lit.).
F
i
g
.

5
.

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y

a
t
t
e
s
t
e
d

a
r
e
a
s

o
f

t
h
e

S
i
n
o
-
C
a
u
c
a
s
i
a
n

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s


Fig. 6. Distribution of copper and bronze artefacts. I = 7
th
to 6
th
millennium BC;
II = 5
th
to rst half of the 4
th
millennium BC; III = mid-4
th
to rst half of the 3
rd

millennium BC; IV = mid-3
rd
millennium BC to the XVIII / XVII centuries BC;
V = XVI / XV centuries BC to the IX/ VIII centuries BC (from Chernykh 1992, 2).
63

63
A similar map of the exploitation of copper ores and naturally occurring copper metal
in the 11
th
7
th
millennia BC can be found in Roberts et al., 2009, 1014.

Fig. 7. Agricultural homelands and spreads of Neolithic/ Formative cultures,
with approximate radiocarbon dates
(from Diamond/ Bellwood, 2003, Bellwood/ Oxenham, 2008, 17 ff.)

The phenomenon of a sudden emergence of the Maykop culture is more im-
portant to us. The modern cal. C-14 dating moves the Maykop culture from the
3
rd
millennium BC (a traditional dating) to the beginning of the 4
th
millennium
BC, i. e. to the transitional period between late Ubaid and early Uruk times
(Kohl, 2007, 73) or rather to the Early Uruk period.
This dating makes questionable the traditional view, according to which the
Maykop culture originates from the south (i. e. from Anatolia and/ or Mesopota-
mia). Indeed it is obvious that some kind of Maykop pottery is rather close to the
pottery of the Amuq F cultures of southern Anatolia and northern Syria (-
, 1977, 5055; , 1994, 169; Lyonnet, 2007b, 148). The Amuq F
period is now treated as contemporary to Maykop culture: 38503000 BC (Lyon-
net, 2007a, 13; Kohl, 2009, 243). Traditionally Amuq F pottery is derived from
the earlier Tepe Gawra (northern Mesopotamia) ware (Gawra XIIIX,
64
see
, 1977, 5354). But, on the other hand, there is some evidence of
northern/ northwestern sources of the Maykop culture.
Traces of BalkansNorth Caucasus trade routes are known already from
the pre-Maykop phase, i. e. the Meshoko culture (see above).
Early Maykop complexes are located rather in the northwest area, while

64
Gawra XII represents the transitional phase between the late Ubaid and early Uruk
epochs. For the dating see Rothman, 2002, 51: Unfortunately, only one C
14
date exists
for Levels XII to VIII of Gawra, and an attempt to run bone dates failed. Four C
14
dates
were run from the site of Tepe Gawra (). Using the Clark calibration, the samples from
Level XII yielded a date of 3837 + 72 years BC () Aurenche and Hours (), using
another calibration, got dates of 49204450 BC for XII. The new OxCal calibrations
should yield a date of somewhere between 47004400 BC.
the later Novosvobodnaya culture spreads into southeast (, 1994, 171
173).
Kurgan burials are not typical of Near Eastern traditions. Some resem-
bling Maykop tradition burial mounds, belonging to the Leilatepe culture (the
rst half of the 4
th
millennium BC), have been recently discovered in southern
Caucasusnorthwestern Azerbaijan and central Georgia (Kohl, 2009, 242 w.
lit. ; / , 2008, 4143; Akhundov, 2007). Later a number of
Maykop-like kurgans in northwestern Iran (the so-called Se Girdan tumuli ;
probably the second half of the 4
th
millennium BC) allow us to trace the north to
south movement of Maykop-related people before the expansion of the Kura-Ar-
axes culture at the end of the 4
th
millennium BC, see Kohl, 2007, 85; Kohl, 2009,
245 w. lit. (contra , 2000). On the other hand, pre-Maykop kurgans
are known from Central Ciscaucasia, Kuban area, Lower Volga and Lower Don,
some materials of which show clear parallels with Maikop remains (,
1994, 178179; Kohl, 2007, 59).
The sudden emergence of the metal-rich Maykop culture chronologically
correlates with the collapse of the earlier Southeast European hearth of
metallurgical activity or the so-called Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province
(Kohl, 2009, 244; Lyonnet, 2007a, 17; Lyonnet, 2007b, 150).
The so-called problem of gold, see Chernykh, 1992, 142144; Kohl,
2007, 7879 for details. Gold-rich complexes are known from Chalcolithic
Balkans (the second half of the 5
th
millennium BC, Varna necropolis), then from
the Early Bronze Age Maykop culture (38503500 BC), then during the second
half of the 4
th
millennium BC and the Middle Bronze Age they spread into
Transcaucasia, Anatolia and Mesopotamia: Maykop-related Se Girdan kurgans,
Kura-Araxes culture, Hattic Alaca Hyk, Troy IIIII, Tepe Gawra X, Royal
Cemetery at Ur and so on (cf. Avilova, 2009). This may allow us to trace prehis-
toric movements of peoples who used and valued gold.
See Kohl, 2007, 57 ff. (esp. 7586) w. lit. for the general discussion about
possible north(west) roots of the Maykop culture.
65

It is very important to us that for the 4
th
3
rd
millennia BC we should assume
some migrations and/ or trade routes from the Maykop region to the south into
Anatolia, Mesopotamia and so on. See above about post-Maykop kurgans in
northwestern Iran. Lyonnet, 2007b, 150 supposes that some Mesopotamian pot-
tery styles can be borrowed from Maykop (() lapparition de la cramique
grise polie et lisse, ou lintroduction du dcor peign en Msopotamie sont,

65
Note that the traditional argument for the southern origin of the Maykop cultureslow
potters wheel, used by both the Maykop and Novosvobodnaya people (, 1994,
219)does not seem reliable. Indeed slow potters wheel is known, e. g., from the
transitional phase between late Ubaid and early Uruk of Tepe GawraGawra XII
(Rothman, 2002, 54; Charvt, 2002, 59) that is earlier than the Maykop culture. But such
a technology is also attested from the beginning of the Late Tripolye period (Tripolye
C1: 40003300 BC; Kohl, 2007, 7475; Zbenovich, 1996, 230). An alternative solution
is the supposition that it was a local Maykop invention.
eux, trs probablement dorigine caucasienne). As such a mediator between
Syro-Mesopotamian Ubaid-Uruk tradition and the Maykop culture the South
Caucasian the Leilatepe culture can be considered (for the Leilatepe culture see
Museibli, 2007, / , 2008, Akhundov, 2007).
66
Cf. -
, 2000, 259 w. lit. about the stylistic uniformity between Maikop and Late
Uruk applied art. For metallurgical isoglosses see Chernykhs (1992, 72) state-
ment : () the various analogies for the gold ornaments and for some of the
bronze tools, lead us to ancient Mesopotamia, to sites of the late fourth and third
millennia BCUruk, Jemdet Nasrand even as far away as Early Dynastic Ur.
Further see Ivanova, 2007, 18, 22 w. lit. and discussion. An appropriate parti-
cular example of such north to south inuence are paired -shaped bronze ob-
jects, found in some Novosvobodnaya burials from the second half of the 4
th

millennium BC on, which are traditionally interpreted as cheekpieces (psalia),
but in reality they are bull nose rings; later (the 3
rd
2
nd
millennia BC) analogous
-objects are known from the Mesopotamian iconography, where they serve as a
symbol of some deities, whose cults are associated with a bull ; see
., 2009 for details. According to , 1994, 209 similar paired -rings
were found in Hattic Alaca Hyk burials (as is well known, another striking
MaykopAlaca parallel is theriomorphic standards).

8.2.5 Fig. 8 represents the rather preliminary glottochronological trees of three
Eurasian macrofamilies: Afro-Asiatic, Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian (Dene-
Sino-Caucasian, but excluding the Haida language). The trees are based on 50-
wordlists (see com. on g. 2 above for detail). They have been compiled by
G. Starostin as part of the ongoing research on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical
Tree of the worlds languages (within the Evolution of Human Language pro-
ject, supported by the Santa Fe Institute).

66
The South Caucasian Chalcolithic Leilatepe culture is synchronic to the early Mayko-
pe phase (the 1
st
half of the 4
th
millennium BC, see Museibli, 2007, 92 ff. for C-14 dates
of the settlement Beyuk Kesik). Museibli, 2007, 96 attempts to adapt the traditional con-
cept of south to north intrusion for the new chronology: While migrating from Mesopo-
tamia to the north a group of North Ubaid tribes did not stop for a long time in South
Caucasus, but continued their way and with their already transformed chalcolithic culture
settled in North Caucasus. Later Early Bronze Culture (scil. the Maykop culture.A. K.)
appeared on the basis of these chalcolithic traditions. Material culture of Early Bronze
Age was also created under the inuence of these chalcolithic traditions. From my point
of view, such a scenario is not very realistic. An idea that some tribes could create a
Chalcolithic culture with poor copper metallurgy in South Caucasus, then immediately
made a quick march to the North Caucasus, where during some decades they mastered
highly developed bronze metallurgy seems strange. The most striking MaykopLeilatepe
isogloss is kurgan burials to which some particular parallels, also concerning rulership or
religion sphere (like lithic sceptres), can be added. Therefore I suppose that the most
natural scenario is the opposite one: borrowing of some prestigious elements of the May-
kop culture by the Leilatepe people or even the intrusions of the Maykop people into the
Chalcolithic Transcaucasia in the 1
st
half of the 4
th
millenium (what could mean a some-
what vassal status of the Leilatepe region).
The Maykop people can hardly be Semitic speakers (despite, e. g., -
, 1989): (a) there is no evidence that in the late 5
th
/ early 4
th
millennia BC.
Semitic tribes moved so far to the north; (b) metallurgical terminology is not
reconstructed for Proto-Semiticthe same concerns other Afro-Asiatic families,
such as Proto-Berber, Proto-Cushitic, etc. (despite some linguistic investigations
by A. Militarev).
The Maykop people cannot be Indo-Europeans (despite some M. Gimbutas
theories) either, since we are not aware of any Indo-European cultural
dominance in the Anatolian and/ or Mesopotamian regions of Early/ Middle
Bronze Age. Not to mention that the idea of separate migrations of Hittites
(through North Caucasus) and Luwians (through Bosporus), as per, e. g.,
, 1989, into Central Anatolia looks too fantastical from the linguistic
viewpoint.
The Maykop people cannot be identied with the Proto-Kartvelians, since
there are no linguistic traces of close contacts of Kartvelian tribes with Semitic
in prehistoric epochs.
67
The Proto-Kartvelians (the split of the proto-language in
the end of the 4
rd
millennium BC) are rather assuredly associated with the Proto-
Colchidean (Protokolkhskaya) culture (from the end of the 4
th
millennium BC,
Middle Bronze Age), see , 1994.
As has been proposed by various scholars, the Proto-Hurrians (Proto-Hurro-
Urartians) could be identied with the Kura-Araxes (Early Trans-Caucasian)
culture (the middle of the 4
th
[or even earlier] to the middle of the 3
rd
millennia
BC) at least at its late phases.
68
The archaeological data support movements of
the Kura-Araxes people from north to south/ southwest during the late 4
th
to the
middle of the 3
rd
millennia BC (see Kohl, 2006, 22 ff.), the north borders of the
Kura-Araxes culture seem to correspond roughly to the historically attested area
of Hurro-Urartian dialects. On tentative Hurro-Urartian attribution of the Kura-
Araxes culture see, e. g., Diakonoff, 1990, Burney, 1997, Kelly-Buccellati, 2004,
Buccellati / Kelly-Buccellati, 2007 (cf. also much more cautiously Kohl, 2009,
252).
In terms of this I believe that among known proto-languages the only lingu-
istic candidate for the Maykop culture is the North Caucasian linguistic family.
69

67
Cf. Starostin, 2007a, 817 f. for a very short list of Semitic loanwords in Proto-Kart-
velian (some of them penetrated into Kartvelian via the ECauc. or Hurr. intermediation).
68
On the Sino-Caucasian attribution of Hurro-Urartian see com. on g. 4 above.
69
Cf. also Anthony, 2007, 297, who is inclined to the same linguistic attribution of the
Maykop culture.
4
2
4

A
.

K
a
s
s
i
a
n

[
U
F

4
1

Fig. 8. Glottochronological trees of the Sino-Caucasian, Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic macrofamilies (50-item wordlist-based)
8.2.6 The split of the BasqueNCauc. proto-language into the Basque and
NCauc. branches glottochronologically occurred in the rst half of the 7
th
mil-
lennium BC. It is hard to guess about the localization of the homeland of the
BasqueNCauc. proto-language (South Anatolia or Balkans, see 8.2.7 below),
but the rst homeland of the NCauc. proto-language was probably situated in
some part of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province (cf. above, e. g., about
Varna culture). Another localization of the early NCauc. homeland (e. g., Near
Eastern regions) is not very likely due to Occams razor. See ,
1985/ 2007 for the reconstruction of Proto-NCauc. cultural vocabulary. Accord-
ing to these lists the NCauc. proto-language possessed a rather developed agri-
cultural and stock-breeding terminology and probably the richest metallurgical
terminology among other reconstructed proto-languages of comparable time
depth. According to Caucet.dbf and , 1985/ 2007, 302 ff. there are at
least six underived Proto-NCauc. (i. e. attested both in ECauc. and WCauc.
branches) terms for various metals
70
which sharply contrasts, e. g., with the
Proto-IE language, where the only one Narrow IE term *aj-es copper > bronze
> iron is reconstructable,
71
or with a similar situation of Proto-Semitic. There-
fore some Chalcolithic cultures of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province
of the 5
th
millennium BC should be associated with the early phase of the NCauc.
proto-language. As the emergence of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Prov-
ince is connected with the expansion of food-producing economy and copper
metallurgy of northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia into southeastern Europe dur-
ing the late 7
th
6
th
millennia BC (Kohl, 2007, 29 f.), some Anatolian metallurgi-
cal sites of that epoch like atal-Hyk could hypothetically trace the migratory
way of the Proto-NCauc. people from the SCauc. homeland into Balkans.
An important linguistic problem to be discussed here are the contacts be-
tween Proto-Indo-Hittite and Proto-NCauc. , 1988/ 2007, Starostin
2009, offers a solid list of Indo-EuropeanNCauc. lexical parallels (including
some Indo-HittiteNCauc. isoglosses), the most part of which must be explained
as loanwords in IE. As was correctly stated by S. Starostin (1988/ 2007, 356 ff. ;
2009, 125 ff.), the source of these loanwords was not the NCauc. proto-language
per se: rstly, there are no borrowings in the opposite direction (IE > NCauc.),
secondly and more importantly, the source language demonstrates some
innovative phonetic developments as compared with the reconstructed NCauc.

70
*rVcw silver, *lV a bright metal, *rwcwi red copper ; gold, *ri(w)e
brass; gold, *I(w) lead, *VtV(wV) silver ; gold. Note that none of them pos-
sesses Basque cognates. The NCauc. word iron(?) quoted in , 1985/ 2007,
304 originally meant blue, see now Caucet.dbf sub *nH\
wV blue; blue metal >

iron.
71
Other IE quasi-proto-terms either have the clear migratory character or are derived
from color names which can be later independent developments. E. g., IE *Hg-ent-
/ *Harg-ent- silver was probably borrowed from NCauc. *rVcw silver and secon-
darily contaminated with IE *Hg- / *Harg- white, light (see Caucet.dbf, ,
1988/ 2007, 334; , Starostin, 2009, 99).
proto-language (loss of *n in combination with affricates, *l > r in some
positions, etc.). Starostin assumes that these Indo-Hittite stems have been
borrowed from a specic NCauc. dialect after the NCauc. proto-language split.
Such a scenario, however, is not very realistic chronologically: according to
glottochronology the split of Indo-Hittite dates back to ca. 4000 BC, while
NCauc. splits ca. 3800 BC. Therefore I believe that the donor of discussed
loanwords was an extinct member of BasqueNCauc. stock that bordered on the
Indo-Hittite area in the Chalcolithic Carpatho-Balkan region.
72

72
The discussion about the Indo-European homeland is not a purpose of my paper ; see
Mallory, 1997 for an overview of the existing hypotheses. I share the opinion, according
to which the Neolithic/ Chalcolithic homeland of the Proto-Indo-Hittites was situated in
the Carpatho-Balkan region (cf., e. g., Diakonoff, 1985; also , 1994, 1999, 2002,
2006). Gimbutas Pontic-Caspian steppe model (the kurgan theory), placing the IE
homeland to the east of Dniepr, appears precluded due to a signicant number of Proto-
Narrow IE (or even Proto-Indo-Hittite) roots and stems denoting forest, various trees,
hills/ mountains together with numerous agricultural and stockbreeding terms which is
strikingly opposite to the absence of typical steppe vocabulary. Of course, reconstructed
IE cultural vocabulary might be theoretically present in the language of some steppe
people: e. g., a few riverside sites of Sredny Stog community (DnieprDon region, the
rst half of the 5
th
the rst half of the 4
th
millennia BC) could at a stretch satisfy these
conditions, but the absence of proper steppe oral terms or specic terms of mobile
pastoralism make such a supposition unlikely. The non-steppe homeland of the Indo-
Europeans can also be proven by the fact, noted in , 1988/ 2007, 315 f., Sta-
rostin, 2009, 80, that IE *ekwo- horse (which can be not a Narrow IE, but Indo-Hittite
term, see the discussion in EDHIL, 237 ff.) seems to be borrowed from an ancient
language of the NCauc. stock discussed above, cf. its NCauc. descendant *[n]w
(~ -) horse.
A sometimes proposed argument for the kurgan theory is the IEUralic lexical con-
tacts, but these contacts date back to the Indo-Iranian epoch, not earlier (Proto-IEProto-
Ural. isoglosses which belong mostly to the basic vocabulary represent the Nostratic
heritage). Various Anatolian / South Caucasian models reect rather the Nostratic expan-
sion than posterior Indo-Hittite migrations. The main argument for the Anatolian location
of the IE homeland are lexical borrowings between Proto-IE and Proto-Semitic, but in
fact these isoglosses seem a mirage. See, e. g., Dolgopolsky, 1989 w. prev. lit. for the
traditional list of Proto-Semitic loanwords in IE and , 1982a and 1982b for the
heavy criticism of these connections. The most probable Proto-Semitic loanword in IE is
the designation of 7 (Blaek, 1999, 246 ff.), but, rstly, it was a wandering word in that
region (cf. Kartv. *wid- 7, probably Hurr. itta- 7 and Etruscan sem), secondly, I
claim that this numeral penetrated into IE dialects after the split of the IE proto-language
(Kassian, 2009). The second probable candidate is Narrow IE *tar-os aurochs < Sem.
*awr- bull, ox (Akkad. ru, Ugar. r, Hebr. r, Off. Aram. twr bull, ox etc., SED 2,
#241), but the same scenario is likely: the word was borrowed into Proto-Greek from
some Semitic dialect, where Sem. * tended to shift to [t], thereupon spread into the Wes-
tern IE dialectscf. the similar linguistic fate of designations of lion, leopard/ pan-
ther, monkey or elephant / camel, which are wandering words and cannot be recon-
structed at the Proto-IE level. Starostin, 2007b (a draft published post mortem) attempts
to breathe life into the IESemitic contact theory and proposes the solid list of items bor-
rowed from IE into Semitic; I will not discuss it here, but I am sure that these isoglosses
either are chance coincidences or represent the common NostraticAfro-Asiatic heritage.
Basque-like tribes started moving towards Central and West Europe, where
they probably occupied some sizable areas, but were later (during the 4
th
to the
2
nd
millennia BC) superseded and/ or assimilated by various IE tribes. Todays
theories of the Proto-Basque substrate of western IE languages (cf., e. g., Mail-
hammer, forthc. w. lit.) should be revised from methodological positions of
modern comparative linguistics and macro-comparativistics, but I suspect that
the general idea of some BasqueNorth Caucasian substrate in Europe may turn
out to be true.
On the contrary, Proto-NCauc. people made their way from Balkans to the
north, rounded the Black Sea and created the Early Maykop culture, whose dat-
ing (38503300 BC) exactly matches the glottochronological split of the NCauc.
proto-language (ca. 3800 BC). Then (the second half of the 4
th
millennium BC)
Proto-WCauc. and Proto-ECauc. tribes descended to the south, into Anatolia and
Mesopotamia (where we nd some Maykop-inuenced cultures, see above), but
later they have been forced back to their historical area in the North Caucasus or
assimilated by Semitic, Hurrian and other inhabitants of the corresponding re-
gions.
As shown in , 1985/ 2007, 310 f., Proto-NCauc. people knew
horse-breeding, stock-breeding, agriculture, textile and metallurgy that exactly
ts the Maykop culture (see , 1994, 224; Kohl, 2007, 77 f.).
Proto-Kartvelian does not demonstrate reliable lexical traces of contacts with
Proto-NCauc. As noted in Starostin, 2007a, 819, the source language of North
Caucasian borrowed elements in Proto-Kartvelian lexicon resembles rather
Proto-Nakh or Proto-Hurro-Urartian (that corresponds to the later character of
Proto-Colchidean culture).
/ , 2007, 876881 list some interlingual cultural bor-
rowings between NCauc. dialects and Afro-Asiatic languages. It is important
that the overwhelming number of these isoglosses cannot be treated as borrow-
ings between Proto-NCauc. and Proto-Semitic or Proto-Cushitic and so on. On
the contrary, the proposed list illustrates interlingual interferences after the splits
of the main proto-languages. Therefore these contacts must date back to the sec-
ond half of the 4
th
3
rd
millennia BC which chronologically ts the ECauc. and
WCauc. (scil. Maykop-related people) intrusion into Anatolia and Mesopotamia
very well.
73

From the archaeological viewpoint, M. Gimbutas mounted warriors from the
steppes, who sweep away Chalcolithic Old Europe, also appear a mythsee the ex-
tended discussion in Kohl, 2007, 51, 126144. About the west to east expansion of the
Tripolye culture and its consecutive occupation of the steppe regions during the 5
th
4
th

millennia BC see Manzura, 2005.
I want to stress that if we follow the model of the steppe homeland of the Proto-Indo-
Europeans (which seems still mainstream among Indo-Europeanists), it will not contra-
dict the theory of the Proto-North CaucasianProto-Indo-European contacts within the
Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province.
73
Eight connections labeled as Proto-AfrasianProto-North Caucasian isoglosses by
A. Militarev / G. Starostin (/ , 2007, 879 f.) could reect not the
Proto-Afroas.Proto-NCauc. contacts (which is impossible chronologically), but the
As is noted in 2.2.3 above, the ECauc. stock of the NCauc. family demon-
strates the shift from prexal verbal morphology to sufxal systems, as opposed
to the more archaic West Caucasian stock, which retains verbal prexation as a
basic morphological pattern. This process of morphological rebuilding should be
explained by contacts with the Proto-Hurrians (probably the Kura-Araxes cul-
ture, 4
th
3
rd
millennia BC, which interfered with the Late Maykop, i. e. Novos-
vobodnaya culture), who demonstrate the same shift from Proto-Sino-Caucasian
prexation to sufxation.
During the late 3
rd
2
nd
millennia BC. ECauc. and WCauc. dialects were do-
nors of some loanwords into Hattic (see above), Hittite (, 1985
74
) and
even in Ancient Greek (, 1985).
75

8.2.7 One of the possible scenario of the Sino-Caucasian (Dene-Sino-Cauca-
sian) expansion can be illustrated by the following maps (g. 914). For conven-
ience I place the Sino-Caucasian homeland into the Syrian region, but I am not
aware of any reliable arguments pro or contra such a localization. There are,
however, some considerations according to which we cannot move Sino-Cau-
casian homeland too far away from the Fertile Crescent :
a) Glottochronological splits of the main linguistic macro-family, whose
homelands can be suspected of being located in the Near EastAfro-Asiatic
(the late 11
th
millennium BC after the break-up of Omotic), Nostratic (the early
14
th
millennium BC with subsequent splits of the two main branches in the 12
th

and 11
th
millennia BC respectively) and Sino-Caucasian (the middle of the 11
th

millennium BC, see g. 8 above for detail),coincide with the transition to the
Neolithic in Levant area, i. e. with the transition to sedentism and food-
producing economy (cal. C-14 dating of the Early Natuan phase: 12 450
11 000 BC, Guerrero et al., 2008 w. lit.). See Diamond/ Bellwood, 2003 and vari-

Proto-Afras.Proto-SCauc. interferences.
74
Some Nikolaevs connections are highly questionable, but some seem probative.
O. Mudrak (pers. comm.) proposes a number of additional plausible Proto-Nakh etymo-
logies for the Hittite cultural vocabulary like, e. g., Hitt. muh(ha)rai eshy part of sacri-
cial animals < Nakh *mo, obl. base *maar- fat (n.), Hitt. mari (From the
mou[th(?) ] evil saliva [] evil m. []) < Nakh *mar snot, and so on.
75
For general reasons, the Kaska tribes which started to bother the Hittites in the middle
of the 2
nd
millennium BC should be considered as North Caucasians (scil. West Cauca-
sians?). Unfortunately, no reliable archaeological records of Kaska in the Late Bronze
Age are revealed so far, this fact has led J. Yakar (2008) to the supposition that Kaska
were semi-nomadic communities. It is interesting that some semantic developments in
the Proto-WCauc. basic vocabulary can illustrate such a cultural shift towards a (mobile)
pastoralism. The WCauc. verb for to drink (of humans) *zA goes back to NCauc.
*=m to milk ; the WCauc. verb for to eat (of humans) *fV goes back to NCauc.
*fV to graze, feed ; WCauc. *-V human extremity (attested in compounds only:
*a-V foot, AbkhazAbaza *na-, Ubykh q- hand, AdygheKabardian *a-pa
hand, nger) originates from NCauc. *HaV paw. Alternatively cf. Singer, 2007,
who supposes that Kaska were the remnants of the indigenous Hattic population.
ous authors in Bocquet-Appel / Bar-Yosef, 2008 for general effect of Neolithic
demographic transition and subsequent language diversity.
b) A. Militarev/ G. Starostin (/ , 2007, 879 f.) propose
eight cultural lexical borrowings between Proto-Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Sino-
Caucasian (the title Proto-AfrasianProto-North Caucasian isoglosses in
their paper is a misprint).
c) As noted above (8.2.6), Anatolian metallurgical sites of the late 7
th
6
th

millennia BC (atal-Hyk and others) could hypothetically trace the migratory
way of Proto-NCauc. people from the Sino-Caucasian Near Eastern homeland
into Balkans.

Phase 1. The break-up of the Sino-TibetanNa-Dene branch (the middle of the
11
th
millennium BC; the Haida language is excluded).

Fig. 9. The Sino-Tibetan and Na-Dene migratory ways.
Phase 2. The break-up of the North CaucasianBasque and YenisseianBuru-
shaski branches (the second half of the 9
th
millennium BC).

Fig. 10. The split between the North CaucasianBasque
and YenisseianBurushaski branches.
Phase 3. The split of the Yenisseian-Burushaski branch. I tentatively include
Hurro-Urartian and Hattic languages into the YenisseianBurushaski stock, al-
though the formal lexicostatistic evidence remains insufcient so far (see 4.1
and 8.1 above for detail). The Proto-Hurrians start moving towards the Caspian
Sea, where later they create the Kura-Araxes culture (the rst half of the 4
th
3
rd

millennia BC). Theoretically some earlier (late Neolithic) cultures of that region
can be identied with the Proto-Hurrians also. The Proto-Hattians dislocate into
East Anatolia (cf. the Hattic Alaca Hyk royal tombs of the 3
rd
millennium BC),
while the Proto-Burushaski-Yenisseians go their way to the east towards the Hi-
malayas. According to glottochronology the BurushaskiYenisseian proto-lan-
guage splits at the middle of the 7
th
millennium BC, hence Karasuk culture (Late
Bronze Age; ca. 1500800 BC) certainly cannot be identied with the Bu-
rushaskiYenisseian proto-language per se (cf. van Driem, 2001, 1186 ff.), but
could represent the Yenisseian proto-language, which split in the middle of the
1
st
millennium BC (see the balanced discussion about Karasuk culture in
Makarov/ Batashev, 2004).
76
Janhunen, 1998, 204 proposes the Yenisseian

76
Some authors object to the Yenisseian attribution of the Karasuk culture. E. g.,
Legrand, 2006, 858: It shows that this transformation [from the Andronovo culture into
the Karasuk culture.A. K.] did not result from the arrival of a new culture group, but
from changes in the local economy and way of life that occurred in the particular geo-
graphic and climatic context of the Minusinsk Basin. Cf. also , 2000, where the
Karasuk culture is connected to the Proto-Tocharians (but Klejns Fatyanovo-Karasuk
attribution of the Tashtyk culture (Minusinsk Basin, the rst half of the 1
st

millennium AD) that seems doubtful ; the Tashtyk culture rather represents early
Turkic migrations into the region of Scythian Tagar culture.
77
For that late epoch
it is more natural to connect Yenisseians to the forest valik pottery (banded,
-, -, -), known
from the Middle Yenisei to the Minusinsk Basin during the 1
st
millennium AD;
see / , 2009, 67, 7683 w. lit.
78

Fig. 11. The split of the YenisseianBurushaski branch
(including Hurro-Urartian and Hattic).
The Hattian, Hurro-Urartian, Burushaski and Yenisseian migratory ways. Scenario 1.

conception seems rather dubious, however).
77
As far as I can judge from the data of Han and Tang chroniclers, the so-called Yenisei
Kirghiz, with which the Tashtyk culture is traditionally associated, were Turkic in lan-
guage, see Ligeti, 1950 (for Yenisei Kirghiz kaa iron(??) see now ., 2007, 97)
78
Note that, according to / , 2009, the Yenisseian valik pottery arises
under the inuence of the corresponding Hun style.
An alternative hypothetical scenario is separate migrations of Proto-Burushaski
and Proto-Yenisseian people.

Fig. 12. The Hattian, Hurro-Urartian, Yenisseian and Burushaski migratory ways.
Scenario 2.
Phase 4. The Proto-Basques and Proto-North Caucasians separate out (the rst
half of the 7
th
millennium BC). The Proto-Basques move into Europe.

Fig. 13. The split of the North CaucasianBasque branch (scenario 1)
and the migratory way of the Proto-Basques.
An alternative scenario is to locate the Proto-North CaucasianBasque home-
land in the Balkans. In the rst half of the 7
th
millennium the Proto-Basques start
moving into Europe, whereas Proto-North Caucasians stay in the Balkans (Car-
patho-Balkan Metallurgical Province of the 5
th
millennium BC), but later go their
way towards the North Caucasus. The North Caucasian proto-language splits
into the West Caucasian and East Caucasian branches in the rst half of the 4
th

millennium BC that coincides with the North Caucasian Maykop culture.

Fig. 14. The split of the North CaucasianBasque branch (scenario 2)
and the migratory way of the Proto-Basques and Proto-North Caucasians.

9 Phonetic symbols. Language name abbreviations. References
9.1 Phonetic symbols (selectively)
palatalized consonant
1) a prosodic feature of the Proto-NCauc. fricatives and affricates (see NCED,

90 f. ; SCC, 3 ff. for detail); 2) interdental fricative (in Semitic)
/ ejective consonant
: tense or geminated consonant
voiceless laryngeal (glottal) stop
voiceless pharyngeal stop
voiced pharyngeal fricative
c voiceless hissing affricate (the same as )
voiceless hushing affricate
g the same as (in Sumerian)
G voiced uvular stop/ affricate
voiced velar fricative
h 1) voiceless glottal fricative; 2) a velar of post-velar fricative (in cuneiform lan-
guages; the simplied transcription of traditional )
voiceless pharyngeal fricative (in Semitic; the same as )
voiced glottal fricative
voiceless pharyngeal fricative
H unidentied laryngeal (used in reconstructions)
I after any vowel or consonant signies pharyngealization (in NCauc.)
j palatal resonant
a lateral resonant (different from plain l ; used in reconstructions)
L voiced lateral fricative
voiced lateral affricate
voiceless lateral fricative
voiceless lateral affricate
velar nasal resonant
q voiceless uvular stop/ affricate
voiced uvular fricative
1) voiceless hushing fricative; 2) voiceless hissing fricative (in the Hattic, Hittite
and Hurrian cuneiform; the same as s)
voiceless lateral fricative (in Semitic)
voiceless hissing affricate (the same as c)
voiceless interdental fricative
x voiceless velar fricative
voiceless uvular fricative
z 1) voiced hissing fricative; 2) hissing affricate (in the Hattic, Hittite and Hurrian
cuneiform; the same as c/ and )
voiced hissing affricate
voiced hushing affricate
9.2 Language name abbreviations
Afroas. (Proto-)Afro-Asiatic
Akkad. Akkadian
Amor. Amorite
Arab. Arabic
Arm. Armenian
Aram. Aramaic
Av.-And. (Proto-)Avaro-Andian
Bab. Babylonian
Burm. Burmese
Burush. Burushaski
Chin. Chinese
CLuw. Cuneiform Luwian
ECauc. (Proto-)East Caucasian
Egyp. Egyptian
Elam. Elamic
ESA Epigraphic South Arabian
Grk. Ancient Greek
Hatt. Hattic
Hebr. Hebrew
Hitt. Hittite
HLuw. Hieroglyphic Luwian
Hurr. Hurrian
IE Indo-European
Kartv. (Proto-)Kartvelian
Khin. Khinalug
Kott. Kottish
Lezgh. (Proto-)Lezghian
Luw. Luwian
Lyc. A Lycian A
MAss. Middle Assyrian
MSA Modern South Arabian
Myc. Mycenaean Greek
NAss. New Assyrian
NCauc. (Proto-)North Caucasian
OEng. Old English
OInd. Old Indian
Phoen. Phoenician
Russ. Russian
SCauc. (Proto-)Sino-Caucasian
Sem. (Proto-)Semitic
Slav. Slavic
STib. (Proto-)Sino-Tibetan
Sum. Sumerian
Tib. Tibetan
Tsez. (Proto-)Tsezian
Ugar. Ugaritic
Urart. Urartian
WCauc. (Proto-)West Caucasian
WSem. (Proto-)North-West Semitic
Yen. Yenisseian

9.3 References
Abadet.dbf: West Caucasian (AbkhazAdyghe) etymological database by
S. Starostin (included in NCED). Available online at Tower of Babel Project.
Afaset.dbf: Afroasiatic etymological database by A. Militarev and O. Stolbova.
Available online at Tower of Babel Project.
Akhundov, T., 2007: Sites de migrants venus du Proche-Orient en Transcauca-
sie. In B. Lyonnet (ed.): Les cultures du Caucase (VI
e
III
e
millnaires avant
notre re). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris. Pp. 95122.
Altet.dbf: Altaic etymological database (= EDAL). Available online at Tower of
Babel Project.
Ancillotti, A., 1975: Un antico nome del ferro nel Vicino Oriente. Acme,
28/ 12, 2748.
Anthony, D. W., 2007: The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. How Bronze-Age
Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Artzi, P., 1969: On the Cuneiform Background of the Northwest-Semitic Form
of the Word brl, b(a)rz(e)l, Iron. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28/ 4,
268270.
Avilova, L. I., 2009: Models of metal production in the Near East (Chalcolithic
Middle Bronze Age). Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia
37/ 3, 5058.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2002: The Natuan Culture and the Early Neolithic: Social and
Economic Trends in Southwestern Asia. In P. Bellwood / C. Renfrew (eds.):
Examining the Farming. Language Dispersal Hypothesis. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Pp. 113126.
Basqet.dbf: Basque etymological database by John Bengtson. Available online
at Tower of Babel Project.
Beekes, R. S. P., 2007: Pre-Greek. The Pre-Greek loans in Greek. 3
rd
version,
Jan. 2007. Unpubl. MS, available online at www.ieed.nl.
Bellwood, P. / Oxenham, M., 2008: The Expansions of Farming Societies and
the Role of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. J.-P. Bocquet-Appel /
O. Bar-Yosef (eds.): The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Conse-
quences. Springer. Pp. 1334.
Benedict, P. K., 1972: Sino-Tibetan. A Conspectus. Cambridge.
Bengtson, J., 2008: Materials for a Comparative Grammar of the Dene-Cauca-
sian (Sino-Caucasian) Languages. In Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3.
Orientalia et Classica: -
. . XIX. Moscow: RSUH. Pp. 45118.
Berger, H., 1998: Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager. 3 vol. Wiesba-
den.
Blaek, V., 1999: Numerals: Comparative-etymological analyses of numerals
systems and their implications. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. / Bar-Yosef, O., (eds.), 2008: The Neolithic Demographic
Transition and its Consequences. Springer.
Bryce, T., 2005: The kingdom of the Hittite. Oxford.
Buccellati, G. / Kelly-Buccellati, M., 2007: Urkesh and the Question of the Hur-
rian Homeland. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences
175/ 2, 141151.
Burney, Ch., 1997: Hurrians and Indo-Europeans in their historical and archaeo-
logical context. Al-Radan 18, 175193.
Buruet.dbf: Burushaski etymological database by S. Starostin (based on H. Ber-
gers data). Available online at Tower of Babel Project.
Campbell, L. / Poser, W. J., 2008: Language Classication: History and Method.
Cambridge University Press.
Castrn, M. A., 1858: Castrns Versuch einer jenissei-ostjakischen und kot-
tischen Sprachlehre / Herausgegeben von A. Schiefner. St. Peterburg.
Catsanicos, J., 1996: Lapport de la bilingue de Hattusa la lexicologie hourrite.
In Mari, bla et les hourrites. Amurru 1, 197296.
Caucet.dbf: North Caucasian etymological database by S. Nikolayev and S. Sta-
rostin (= NCED). Available online at Tower of Babel Project.
Charvt, P., 2002: Mesopotamia Before History. Routledge.
Chernykh, E. N., 1992: Ancient metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age.
Cambridge.
Chirikba, V. A., 1996: Common West Caucasian. The Reconstruction of its Pho-
nological System and Parts of its Lexicon and Morphology (Research School
CNWS. School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies). Leiden.
1996a: A dictionary of Common Abkhaz. Leiden.
forthc. a: Reconstructing Proto-West Caucasian: From North Caucasian to
West Caucasian via Chinese? (to appear in a forthcoming Gedenkschrift).
forthc. b: Reconstructing proto-syntax: The case of West Caucasian. In
F. Floricic (ed.): Essais de typologie et de linguistique gnrale. Mlanges
offerts Denis Creissels. Forthcoming.
Diakonoff, I. M., 1985: On the original home of the speakers of Indo-European.
JIES 13, 92174.
1990: Language contacts in the Caucasus and the Near East. In T. L. Markey
/ J. A. C. Greppin (eds.): When Worlds Collide. Indo-Europeans and Pre-
Indo-Europeans. Ann Arbor. Pp. 5365.
Diakonoff, I. M. / Starostin, S. A., 1986: Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian
Language. Mnchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft, N. F. 12.
Mnchen.
Diamond, J. / Bellwood, P., 2003: Farmers and Their Languages: The First Ex-
pansion. Science 300, 25 April 2003, 597603.
Dolgopolsky, A., 1989: Cultural contacts of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-
Indo-Iranian with neighbouring languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 8/ 1
2, 336.
Fhnrich, H., 1980: Zur genealogischen Einordnung der hattischen und kassiti-
schen Sprache. Georgica 3, 7375.
Forrer, E., 1921: Ausbeute aus den Boghazki-Inschriften. MDOG 61, 2039.
1922: Die Inschriften und Sprachen des Hatti-Reiches. ZDMG 76, 174269.
Franceschetti, A., 2008: Musici e strumenti musicali alle corti micenee. In Atti
del XII Colloquio Internazionale di Micenologia. Roma, 2025 febbraio
2006. Vol. 1. Pisa/ Roma. Pp. 309321.
Franklin, J. C., 2006: The Wisdom of the Lyre: Soundings in Ancient Greece,
Cyprus and the Near East. In E. Hickmann / A. A. Both / R. Eichmann (eds.):
Musikarchologie im Kontext : Archologische Befunde, historische Zusam-
menhnge, soziokulturelle Beziehungen. Vortrge des 4. Symposiums der In-
ternationalen Studiengruppe Musikarchologie im Kloster Michaelstein,
19.26. September 2004. Rahden (Westfallen). Pp. 379397.
Gabeskiria, ., 1998: Hattiler, Hatti ve Hitit dilleri zerine baz dnceler. In
S. Alp / A. Sel (eds.): Acts of the III
rd
International Congress of Hittitology.
orum, September 1622, 1996. Ankara. Pp. 223231
Garelli, P., 1963: Les assyriens en Cappadoce. Paris, 1963.
Girbal, Chr., 1986: Beitrge zur Grammatik des Hattischen. Europische Hoch-
schulschriften. Reihe 21, Linguistik 50. Frankfurt am Main / Bern / New
York.
Goedegebuure, P., 2008: Central Anatolian languages and language communi-
ties in the Colony period. The Luwian substrate of Hattian and the indepen-
dent Hittites. PIHANS 11, 137180.
2010: The alignment of Hattian. An active language with an ergative base. In
Proceedings of the 53
e
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, July 2007,
vol. 1, part 2. Babel und Bibel 4. Eisenbrauns. Pp. 949981.
Guerrero, E. / Najiand, S. / Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., 2008: The signal of the Neo-
lithic demographic transition in the Levant. In J.-P. Bocquet-Appel / O. Bar-
Yosef (eds.): The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences.
Springer. Pp. 5780
Haas, V. / Thiel, H.-J. (eds.), 1976: Das hurritologische Archiv (Corpus der
hurri(ti)schen Sprachdenkmler) des Altorientalischen Seminars der Frein
Universitt Berlin. Berlin.
Hawkins, J. D., 2005: Commentaries on the Readings. In S. Herbordt : Die Prin-
zen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus
dem Niantepe-Archiv in Hattusa. BoHa 19. Mainz. S. 248303.
Heine, B. / Kuteva, T., 2002: World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge.
Hewitt, B. G., in collaboration with Khiba, Z. K., 1979: Abkhaz. Amsterdam.
Hinz, W. / Koch, H., 1987: Elamisches Wrterbuch. Berlin.
Holton, G., 2000: The Phonology and Morphology of the Tanacross Athabaskan
Language. PhD, University of California.
Ivanov, Vyach. Vs., 1999: An ancient name for the lyre. In Vyach. Vs. Ivanov /
B. Vine (eds.). UCLA Indo-European Studies 1.
Ivanova, M., 2007: The chronology of the Maikop culture in the North Cauca-
sus: Changing perspectives. Aramazd. Armenian Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 2, 739.
Janhunen, J., 1998: Ethnicity and language in prehistoric Northeast Asia. In
R. Blench / M. Spriggs (eds.): Archaeology and Language II. London: Rout-
ledge. Pp. 195208.
Kassian, A., 2009: Anatolian *meyu- 4, four and its cognates. Journal of Lan-
guage Relationship 2, 6578.
2010: Review of A. Fournet / A. R. Bomhard, The Indo-European Elements
in Hurrian. Journal of Language Relationship 4, 199206.
Kassian, A. / Yakubovich, I., 2002: The Reexes of IE Initial Clusters in Hittite.
In V. Shevoroshkin / P. Sidwell (eds.): Anatolian Languages. Canberra. AHL
Studies in the Science and History of Language 6. Pp. 1048.
Kassian, A. / Starostin, G. / Dybo, A. / Chernov, V., 2010: The Swadesh wordlist.
An attempt at semantic specication. Journal of Language Relationship 4,
4689.
Kelly-Buccellati, M., 2004: Andirons at Urkesh: New evidence for the Hurrian
identity of the Early Trans-Caucasian culture? In A. Sagona (ed.): A view
from the highlands. Archaeological studies in honour of Charles Burney.
Louvain: Peeters. Pp. 6789.
Klimov, G. A., 1998: Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages.
Walter de Gruyter.
Knapp, A. B. (ed.), 1996: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the
First Millennia BC. Altamont.
2008: Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus. Identity, Insularity, and Connec-
tivity. Oxford.
Kohl, P. L., 2006: The early integration of the Eurasian steppes with the Ancient
Near East : Movements and transformations in the Caucasus and Central
Asia. In D. L. Peterson / L. M. Popova / A. T. Smith (eds.): Beyond the
steppe and the sown. Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Confer-
ence on Eurasian Archaeology. Brill. Pp. 339.
2007: The making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge.
2009: Origins, homelands and migrations. Situating the Kura-Araxes Early
Transcaucasian culture within the history of Bronze Age Eurasia. Tel Aviv
36 , 241265.
Krebernik, M., 2006: Philologische Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Bezie-
hungen im berblick. Babel und Bibel 3, 59100.
Kun Chang, 1972: Sino-Tibetan iron: *qhleks. Journal of the American Orien-
tal Society 92/ 3, 436446.
Legrand, S., 2006: The emergence of the Karasuk culture. Antiquity 80, 843
879.
Ligeti, L., 1950: Mots de civilisation de Haute Asie en transcription chinoise.
Acta Orientalia Hungarica 1/ 1, 141188.
Luwians 2003: Melchert, H. C. (ed.). The Luwians. Brill.
Lyonnet, B., 2007a: Introduction. In B. Lyonnet (ed.): Les cultures du Caucase
(VI
e
III
e
millnaires avant notre re). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient.
Paris. Pp. 1120.
2007b: La culture de Makop, la Transcaucasie, lAnatolie orientale et le
Proche-Orient : relations et chronologie. In B. Lyonnet (ed.): Les cultures du
Caucase (VI
e
III
e
millnaires avant notre re). Leurs relations avec le
Proche-Orient. Paris. Pp. 133162.
Mailhammer, R., forthc. : The prehistory of European languages. In B. Kortmann
/ J. van der Auwera (eds.): Field of Linguistics 2: Europe. Berlin / New
York: Mouton de Gruyter, forthcoming.
Makarov, N. P. / Batashev, M. S., 2004: Cultural origins of the taiga-dwelling
peoples of the Middle Yenisei. In E. J. Vajda (ed.): Languages and Prehistory
of Central Siberia (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 262). John Benjamin
Publishing Company. Pp. 235248.
Mallory, J., 1997: The homelands of the Indo-Europeans. In R. Blench /
M. Spriggs (eds.): Archaeology and Language, vol. 1. London: Routledge.
Pp. 93121.
Manzura, I., 2005: Steps to the steppe. Or, how the North Pontic region was
colonised. Oxford journal of archaeology 24/ 4, 313338.
Martirosyan, H. K., 2010: Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited
Lexicon. Brill.
Melchert, H. C., 2003a: Prehistory. In Luwians 2003. Pp. 826.
2003b: Language. In Luwians 2003. Pp. 170210.
Melena, J. L., 1987: On the untransliterated syllabograms *56 and *22. In
P. H. Ilievski / L. Crepajac (eds.): Tractata Mycenaea. Proceedings of the
Eighth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Held in Ohrid (15
20 September 1985). Skopje. Pp. 203232.
Museibli, N., 2007: Chalcolithic settlement Beyuk Kesik. Baku.
Neu, E., 1997: Zur Herkunft des Inselnamens Kypros. Glotta 73, 19951996, 1
7.
Neumann, G., 2007: Glossar des Lykischen. berarbeitet und zum Druck ge-
bracht von J. Tischler. Wiesbaden.
Orel, Vl., 2003: A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Brill.
Pakendorf, B., 2007: Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic
and genetic perspectives. LOT.
Paris, C., 1989: West Circassian (Adyghe: Abzakh dialect). In B. G. Hewitt
(ed.): The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West
Caucasian Languages. Delmar, N.Y. : Caravan Books.
Paris, C. / Batouka, N., 19882005: Dictionnaire abzakh (tcherkesse occidental).
Vol. 12. Louvain: Peeters.
Patri, S., 2009: La perception des consonnes hittites dans les langues trangres
au XIII
e
sicle. ZA 99, 87126.
Peiros, I. I. / Starostin, S. A., 1996: A Comparative Vocabulary of Five Sino-Ti-
betan Languages. 6 vols. Melbourne.
Reiter, K., 1997: Die Metalle im Alten Orient. AOAT 249. Mnster.
Rendsburg, G. A., 1982: Semitic przl / brzl / brl iron. Scripta Mediterranea.
Bulletin of the Society for Mediterranean Studies, Toronto, Canada 3, 5471.
Rieken, E. / Yakubovich, I., 2010: The New Values of Luwian Signs L 319 and
L 172. In I. Singer (ed.): Luwian and Hittite Studies presented to J. David
Hawkins on the occasion of his 70
th
birthday. Tel Aviv University. Pp. 199
219.
Roberts, B. W. / Thornton, C. P. / Pigott, V. C., 2009: Development of metallur-
gy in Eurasia. Antiquity 83, 10121022.
Rothman, M. S., 2002: Tepe Gawra. The evolution of a small, prehistoric center
in northern Iraq. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology.
Sccet.dbf: Sino-Caucasian etymological database by S. Starostin. Available
online at Tower of Babel Project.
Schmidt, K. H., 1962: Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der sdkau-
kasischen Grundsprache. Wiesbaden.
Schwemer, D., 2001: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens
im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den
schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden.
Semet.dbf: Semitic etymological database by A. Militarev. Available online at
Tower of Babel Project.
Singer, I., 2007: Who where the Kaka? Phasis. Greek and Roman Studies 10
(II), 166181.
Soysal, O., 1989: Der Apfel mge die Zhne nehmen! Or NS 58, 171192.
1999: Review of J. Klinger. StBoT 37. Kratylos 44, 161167.
2004: Review of H.-S. Schuster, Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen II. BiOr
61/ 34, 355377.
2004a: The Angry Priests in a Hattian-Hittite Narrative. JANER 4/ 1, 7598.
2005: On the origin of the royal title tabarna/ labarna. Anatolica 31, 189
209.
2006: Das hethitische Wort fr Zinn. Historische Sprachforschung
119, 109116.
2010: Zum Namen der Gttin Katahzipuri mit besonderer Bercksichtigung
des Kasussystems des Hattischen. In Proceedings of the 53
e
Rencontre As-
syriologique Internationale, July 2007, vol. 1, part 2. Babel und Bibel 4.
Eisenbrauns. Pp. 10411058.
Starostin, G. S., 2010: Preliminary lexicostatistics as a basis for language
classication: A new approach. Journal of Language Relationship 3, 79116.
Starostin, S. A., 1989/ 1999: Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatis-
tics. In Historical Linguistics and Lexicostatistics. Melbourne, 1999. Pp. 3
50. Reprinted in Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, Oxford, 2000. Pp. 223259 [available online at
www.nostratic.ru]. In Russian: -
. In
. . : , 1989. . 339. Reprinted in ,
2007. Pp. 407447.
1997/ 2007: A Review of V. A. Chirikbas Common West Caucasian [Chi-
rikba, 1996]. In , 2007. . 682744. [First publ. : Mother Tongue,
vol. 3, 1997. Pp. 185243.]
2007a: Indo-European among other language families: Problems of dating,
contacts and genetic relationships. In , 2007, 806820.
2007b: Indo-European glottochronology and homeland. In 2007,
821826.
2009: Indo-EuropeanNorth Caucasian isoglosses. Mother Tongue 14, 77
135. [First. publ.: 1988/ 2007.]
Stibet.dbf: Sino-Tibetan etymological database by S. Starostin (= Peiros/ Staros-
tin, 1996, but with serious improvement). Available online at Tower of Babel
Project.
Sel, A. / Soysal, O., forthc. : The Hattian-Hittite Foundation Rituals from Orta-
ky. Part II.
Takcs, G., EDE: Etymological dictionary of Egyptian. Brill, 1999.
Taracha, P., 1988: Zu den syntaktischen Verknpfungen im Hattischen. AoF 15,
5968.
Tower of Babel Project : Etymological database project The Tower of Babel,
headed by S. A. Starostin. In afliation with the Evolution of Human Lan-
guages (EHL) Project at the Santa Fe Institute. Available online: http://
starling.rinet.ru/.
Trifonov, V., 2007: Die Majkop-Kultur und die ersten Wagen in der sdrussi-
schen Steppe. In Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im
Vorderen Orient und Europa. Mainz am Rheim. Pp. 167176.
Valrio, M., 2007: Diktaian master: A Minoan predecessor of Diktaian Zeus in
Linear A? Kadmos 46, 314.
Valrio, M. / Yakubovich, I., forthc. : Semitic word for Iron as Anatolian loan-
word. (To appear in a forthcoming Festschrift.)
van Driem, G., 2001: Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook
of the greater Himalayan region. 2 vols. Brill.
Vogt, H., 1963: Dictionnaire de la langue oubykh. Oslo.
von Mszros, J., 1934: Die Pkhy-Sprache. The Oriental Institute of the Uni-
versity of Chicago. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 9. Chicago.
Werner, H., 2002: Vergleichendes Wrterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. 3 vols.
Wiesbaden.
Yakar, J., 2008: The archaeology of the Kaka. In A. Archi / R. Francia (eds.):
VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 59 settembre 2005.
SMEA 50. Roma. Pp. 817827.
Yakubovich, I., 2002: Labyrinth for Tyrants. In A. S. Kassian / A. V. Sideltsev
(eds.): Studia Linguarum 3 (Memoriae A. A. Korolv dicata). Moscow.
Pp. 93116.
2008: Hittite-Luvian bilingualism and the development of Anatolian hiero-
glyphs. In N. N. Kazansky (ed.): Acta linguistica petropolitana. Transactions
of the Institute for linguistic studies. Vol. IV, part 1. Colloquia classica et in-
dogermanica IV. Saint Petersburg. Pp. 936.
2009: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language. Leiden.
2009a: The Luvian enemy. Kadmos 47/ 12, 119.
Yenet.dbf: Yenisseian etymological database by S. Starostin (= ,
1995 and Werner, 2002 with additions and corrections). Available online at
Tower of Babel Project.
Yildirim, T. / Zimmermann, T., 2006: News from the Hatti HeartlandThe
Early Bronze Age Necropoleis of Kalnkaya, Resulolu, and Anatolian Me-
talworking Advances in the late 3
rd
Millennium BC. Antiquity 309. Available
at : http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/zimmerman/.
Zbenovich, V. G., 1996: The Tripolye Culture: Centenary of Research. Journal
of World Prehistory 10/ 2, 199241.
Zimmermann, T., 2009: Frhmetallzeitliche Eliten zwischen Ostgis und Tau-
rusgebirge im 3. Jahrtausend v.Chr. Versuch einer kritischen Bestandsauf-
nahme. In M. Egg / D. Quast (eds.): Aufstieg und Untergang. Zwischenbi-
lanz des Forschungsschwerpunktes Studien zu Genese und Struktur von Eli-
ten in vor- und frhgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften. Mainz. Pp. 132.

, . ., 19581995: -
. .
, . ., 1967: . - . -
.
, . ., 1977: .
1, 3956.
, . ., 1979:
- . 3, 2637.
1983: .
, . In . . :
. . . 152180.
, . / , ., 2008: --
IV . .. .
, ., 1994: - (Hattian and Abasgo-Kerke-
tian). Rocznik Orientalistyczny 49, 1523.
2002: -
- . In P. Taracha (ed.): Silva Anatolica. Anatolian studies
presented to the Maciej Popko on the occasion of his 65
th
birthday. Warsaw.
Pp. 5556.
, . . / , . ., 2005: - -
. 2- . .
, ., 1934: . .
, . ., 1960: -
- . In -
. . . . . . . Pp.
7377.
, . ., 1961: ()
. 1, 57159.
, . ., 2007: .
. . .
, . ., 1994: .
. I. In
. : ,
.
1999: .
. II. In -
. : , -
.
2002: .
. III. In
. : ,
.
2006: .
. IV. In .
. .
, . ., 1967: . .
1982a: . I.
, 3, 330.
1982b: . II.
, 4, 1125.
, . ., 1978: :
38. 1976, 153162.
1985: . In
. . . (.): . . . 2659.
2009: .
[Journal of Language Relationship] 1, 112.
, . . / , . ., 1986: -
. - . .
, . . / , . . / , . ., 2009: -
( ) 2009 .
. In
: .
,
. . IV.
1416 2009 . : . [Antiquity: Historical knowledge
and specic nature of sources. Moscow, Institute of Oriental Studies].
Pp. 4952.
, . . (.), 1957: - . .
, . ., 2010: . In : -
. . . 168184.
, . ., 2000: . Stratum plus 2,
178187.
, . . / , . ., 2009: --
. .
, . ., 1994: . In . . / . .
(.): . -
. : . . 6774.
, . . / , . ., 2007: --
[Corrected and updated by A. Militarev / G.
Starostin]. In , 2007. Pp. 256264, 876881.
, . ., 1994: . In . . / . . -
(.): .
. : . . 158225.
, . ., 1985: -
. In . . . (.): . -
. . 6073.
, . ., 1999: .
. In . . / . . -
(.): Studia Linguarum 2. . . 304480.
, . ., 1989: . : --
. -.
, . ., 1995:
. In (Studia Ketica).
. 4. . . 122175.
, . ., 1982/ 2007:
. In , 2007. . 147246. [First publ. :
. , 1982. . 144237]
1985/ 2007:
. In , 2007. . 289311 [First publ. : .
. . . . ., 1985. . 7494. In English: The Cultural
Vocabulary in the Common North Caucasian Lexical Stock. In Russian Ori-
ental Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Pp. 211245.]
1988/ 2007: - . In -
, 2007. . 312358 [First publ. : : -
. , 1988. . 112163; English translation = Starostin, 2009]
1995: . In
(Studia Ketica). . 4. . . 176315.
1995/ 2007: . In ,
2007. . 629630. [First publ.: . . 213(2).
, 1995. . 133136]
2007: [Works in Linguistics]. .
, . . / , . ., 1968: (-
). In . . -
. . 229246.
, . ., 2000: - -
. In . 100- -
. -. . 244264.
2001: - . In -
. . . . 190194.
2009: - ? In . .
(.): -
- . -.
. 8493.
, . ., 1968: . In -
. . . . 262276.
, ., 1960:
- . In XXV -
. . .
, . ., 1977: ()
. 2 . .
, . . (.), 1975: - . .
, . ., 2009: Labyrinthos: -nth- -
. In 4 [Aspects of Comparative
Linguistics 4]. . . . . : - . (Orien-
talia et Classica: .
. XXVIII.) . 98111.
Abbreviations
AHw W. von Soden: Akkadisches Handwrterbuch. Wiesbaden, 1965
1981.
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago. Chicago, 1956.
CDA J. Black / A. George / N. Postgate: A Concise Dictionary of Akka-
dian. 2
nd
ed. Wiesbaden, 2000.
CHD The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. Chicago, 1980.
DUL G. del Olmo Lete / J. Sanmartn: A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Lan-
guage in the Alphabetic Tradition. Leiden/ Boston, 2003.
EDAL S. A. Starostin 7 A. V. Dybo / O. A. Mudrak: Etymological Dictio-
nary of the Altaic Languages. Brill, 2003. Available online at
Tower of Babel Project (http://starling.rinet.ru/) as Altet.dbf.
EDHIL A. Kloekhorst : Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited
Lexicon. Leiden, 2008.
ePSD Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project (http://psd.
museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html).
GLH E. Laroche: Glossaire de la langue hourrite. Paris, 1980.
HALOT L. Koehler / W. Baumgartner: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon
of the Old Testament. Revised by W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm.
Volumes 15 combined in one electronic edition. Leiden / New
York, 19942000.
HED J. Puhvel : Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1. Berlin / New
York / Amsterdam, 1984.
HEG J. Tischler: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck,
1977.
HHB2 H.-S. Schuster: Die Hattisch-Hethitischen Bilinguen. II. Textbear-
beitungen. Teile 23. Leiden, 2002.
HJ J. Hoftijzer / K. Jongeling: Ditionary of the North-West Semitic
Inscriptions. Leiden / New York / Kln, 1995.
HWHT O. Soysal : Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textberlieferung
Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1/74. Leiden, 2004.
NCED S. L. Nikolayev / S. A. Starostin: A North Caucasian Etymological
Dictionary. Moscow, 1994 [reprinted: 3 vols. Ann Arbor: Caravan
Books, 2007]. Available online at Tower of Babel Project (http://
starling.rinet.ru/) as Caucet.dbf.
SCC S. A. Starostin: Sino-Caucasian. Unfinished MS, the middle of the
2000s. Available online at Tower of Babel Project (http://starling.
rinet.ru/).
SED A. Militarev / L. Kogan: Semitic Etymological Dictionary. AOAT
278. Vol. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Vol. 2: Animal Names.
Mnster, 2000, 2005.
StBoT 37 J. Klinger: Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen
Kultschicht. StBoT37. Wiesbaden, 1996.

[Etymological
dictionary of the Slavic languages]. . . . . . 1.
, 1974.

Kassian 2010 Hattic-SCauc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kassian 2010 Hattic-SCauc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sonderdruck aus

]ombi superpower > tafa-r-na lord, tawa-nanna lady [52]

wVn to open ~ han to open [8]

wV stick; timber ~ zeha-r, ziha-r wood [64]

]ombi superpower > tafa-r-na lord, tawa-nanna lady [52]

wV stick; timber > zeha-r, ziha-r wood [64]

wVn to open ~ han to open [8]

wV stick; timber ~ zeha-r, ziha-r wood [64]

wVn to open ~ han to open [8]

]ombi superpower > tafa-r-na lord, tawa-nanna lady [52]

wVn to open ~ Hatt. han to open [8]

V ~ STib. *ha-H ~ Yen. *s- ~

-) to clear up (of weather) > Av.-And. *=V(:Vn-

wVn to open > Av.-And. *=aVn; Tsez. *=[]:-.

HapE hat, cap (Av.-And., Tsez., Lak, Dargwa,

Vr to stand, stand up > Nakh *-tt-, Av.-And. *=i(:- /

V (~ --) house ~ STib.

w sour > Nakh *musi-n sour, Tsez. *aa-lu sour,

VV to scratch, rub > Av.-And. *:V- to scrape, Tsez.

w comb) which is not persuasive either

V lynx, panther > Nakh *(q ounce, snow leopard, Av.-

]ombi superpower >

n) which is impossible phonetically. Doubtfully

r to work, serve, ofce, *,

V to drink; to gulp, to eat > Av.-And. *(:a- to drink, Tsez.

wV stick, chip; piece of wood, beam; timber > Tsez. *(i:

wjV (~ -I-) woman, female > Nakh *psuw wife; princess,

sun) which is improbable phonetically.

Hw corn, wheat (> Tsez. *qeV, Dargwa *q:Ia:,

V(r) to pull, take out ; to drag,

kakatipa- gatehouse, portal see tip gate [49].

Vn to wash, pour; to weep

uhnV goat. Although the AbkhazAbaza collective plural

w[]V arm; bosom, armpit)

ajV clothing, garments

-) to clear up (of weather) ~ STib.

V to drink; to gulp, to eat ~ STib. *haH to

Vr to stand (up) ~ STib.

w sour ~ STib. *[h]am

V lynx, panther ~ STib. *chi()k leop-

ombi god; mercy ~ STib. *m honour,

wjV woman, female ~ STib. (Chin. *hej

VV to scratch, rub ~ Yen.

wV blue; blue metal >

1) a prosodic feature of the Proto-NCauc. fricatives and affricates (see NCED,

You might also like

V ~ STib. ha-H ~ Yen. s- ~

wVn to open > Av.-And. =aVn; Tsez. =[]:-.

Vr to stand, stand up > Nakh -tt-, Av.-And. =i(:- /

w sour > Nakh musi-n sour, Tsez. aa-lu sour,

Hw corn, wheat (> Tsez. qeV, Dargwa q:Ia:,