Sonderdruck aus

UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN

Internationales Jahrbuch
für die
Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas



Herausgegeben von
Manfried Dietrich • Oswald Loretz





Band 41
2009







Ugarit-Verlag Münster
2010




















Anschriften der Herausgeber:
M. Dietrich / O. Loretz, Schlaunstr. 2, 48143 Münster
Manuskripte sind an einen der Herausgeber zu senden.
Für unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewähr übernommen werden.
Die Herausgeber sind nicht verpflichtet,
unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen.
Manuskripte für die einzelnen Jahresbände werden jeweils
bis zum 31. 12. des vorausgehenden Jahres erbeten.

© 2010 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster
(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, Göttingen
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 w©w 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 38–40) und die
Unterscheidung zwischen dbb I, dbb II, dbb III................................................ 47
Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald
Ugaritisch ©nn „(Komposit-)Bogenschütze“, qšt „Kompositbogen“,
„Bogen“ und q‰®t / ƒÝ „Pfeil“. Beobachtungen zu KTU 1.17 VI 13–14.
18b–25a .............................................................................................................. 51
Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald
Präventiv-Beschwörung gegen Schlangen, Skorpione und Hexerei
zum Schutz des Präfekten Urt‘nu (KTU 1.178 = RS 92.2014) ........................ 65
Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald
Urbild und Abbild in der Schlangenbeschwörung KTU
3
1.100.
Epigraphie, Kolometrie, Redaktion und Ritual .............................................75
Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald
Die keilalphabetischen Briefe aus Ugarit (I). KTU 2.72, 2.76, 2.86, 2.87,
2.88, 2.89 und 2.90........................................................................................... 109
Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald
‰md I „Paar“ und ‰md II „Axt, Doppelaxt“ nach KTU 4.169; 4.363;
4.136; 1.65 ..................................................................................................165
Faist, Betina I. / Justel, Josué-Javier / Vita, Juan-Pablo
Bibliografía de los estudios de Emar (4) .....................................................181
iv Inhalt [UF 41
Galil, Gershon
The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa / Ne˜a®im.
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. Tropper’s
Kleines Wörterbuch des Ugaritischen (2008)................................................. 263
Halayqa, Issam K. H.
Two Middle Bronze Age Scarabs from Jabal El-Tawaƒin
(Southern Hebron).......................................................................................303
Kassian, A.
Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language .........................................................309
Keetman, Jan
Die Triade der Laterale und ihre Veränderungen
in den älteren semitischen Sprachen............................................................449
Matoïan, Valérie / Vita, Juan-Pablo
Les textiles à 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).
État des études et perspectives de la recherche ...........................................509
Murphy, Kelly J.
Myth, Reality, and the Goddess Anat. Anat’s Violence and
Independence in the Ba®al 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
kwšrwt in Psalm 68: 7, Again. A (Small) Test Case in Relating Ugarit to
the Hebrew Bible.........................................................................................631
Sturm, Thomas Fr.
Rabb°tum – ein Ort der Textilmanufaktur für den aA Fernhandel
von Assyrien nach Zentralanatolien (ca. 1930–1730 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 DÉMARE-LAFONT / A. LEMAIRE (Hrsg.): Trois millénaires de
formulaires juridiques (Oswald Loretz) ......................................................690
Manfried DIETRICH / Walter MAYER: Der hurritische Brief des Dušratta
von M÷tt°nni an Amen`otep III. Text – Grammatik – Kopie. Englische
Übersetzung 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
Valérie MATOÏAN (Hrsg.): Le Mobilier du Palais Royal d’Ougarit
(Alexander Ahrens) .....................................................................................694
Maciej POPKO: Arinna. Eine heilige Stadt der Hethiter (Manfred Hutter).......697
Carole ROCHE (Hrsg.): D’Ougarit à Jérusalem. Recueil d’études épigra-
phiques et archéologiques offert à 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 Müller) .....................................................................708
W. H. VAN SOLDT (Hrsg.): Society and Administration in Ancient Ugarit.
Papers read at a symposium in Leiden, 13–14 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
Abkürzungsverzeichnis.....................................................................719
Indizes
A Stellen .........................................................................................................735
B Wörter .........................................................................................................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 Hattic–WCauc. 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 Oğuz 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 author’s 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.dbf—see the list of references) unless otherwise mentioned. I adopt S. Starostin’s
reconstruction of the Proto-West Caucasian phonological system which is somewhat
different from Chirikba’s one (see Starostin, 1997/ 2007 for the final discussion). Some
Adyghe–Kabardian and Ubykh forms are quoted from Карданов, 1957; Шагиров,
1977; Шаов, 1975; Vogt, 1963—standardly 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 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons...............................................340
5.1 Roots with reliable SCauc. cognates ..............................................340
5.2 Loans, dubia, and roots without etymology....................................368
6 Hattic–Sino-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 affiliation .......................................................................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. 1650–1200 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 first half of the 2
nd
millennia BC.
The map reflects only known linguistic units
–––––––––––––––––––––––
2
The Alaca Höyük royal tombs as well as the corresponding sites in the “Hatti Heart-
land” of the 3
rd
millennium BC—Kalınkaya, Resuloğlu and others, see, e. g., Zimmer-
mann, 2009, Yildirim/ Zimmermann, 2006—require Hattic attribution. It is not clear to
me on what evidence some scholars (e. g., Bryce, 2005, 14) attribute the Alaca Höyük
tombs to the Hittito-Luwians. We know that the Hattians had institution of kingship, de-
veloped pantheon and were metal-workers—it fits the Alaca Höyük 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 Höyük tombs in the second half of the 3
rd
mil-
lennium BC, although Ü. Yalçin in “New investigations on the royal tomb of Alacahö-
yük” (paper presented on May 27 at the “Meeting on the Results of Archaeometry”—ses-
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 24–28, 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).
312 A. Kassian [UF 41
The modern state of research in the Hattic language is reflected 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 Касьян, 2010.
1.1 Hattic vocalism
i

u
e (?)



a
Signs of the E-series can reflect 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

ʦ č/ θ
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 signifi-
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 difficulties in transferring their graphical method onto
Hattic texts.
/f/ is postulated for the ligatures wa
a
, we
e
, wi
i
, wu
u
, wu
ú
, pu
u
, wi

, 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-
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 313
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.
/ʦ/ is expressed by the signs of Z-series.
/s/ is written by the signs of Š-series. Sporadical usage of S-signs (OS+) may
reflect the second sibilant (e. g., /š/), but the available data are too scant.
In some morphemes (both root and auxiliary) we see a free alternation of T-
and Š-signs. I postulate something like /č/ for these cases, but, e. g., interdental
fricative /θ/ is, of course, an equivalent solution here.
/h/—velar or post-velar (e. g., laryngeal) fricative, expressed by the Ḫ-signs.
In Akkadian Ḫ-series reflects a phoneme, which originates from the Semitic
voiceless uvular fricative *χ; 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, še/ te
ai?
up (uf?)
if(a)
fa/ fi
aš/ iš
√ šu/ 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
taš/
šaš/
teš/
šeš
ta/ te fa
u, un
a?
ai, e, i
tu/ šu h, k,
m, n
p, š, t,
w(a),
wa
a

ta, za,
še, te,
tu
h(a),
haš,
kaš,
zaš?,
pi, wa
k(a),
zi
f(a) √ u
e
a
ma, fa,
pi
(=fi?),
aš/ at

314 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 verified and partly modified 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 (fig. 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 world’s
languages (within the “Evolution of Human Language” project, supported by the
Santa Fe Institute). The tree on fig. 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 (fig. 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., Fähnrich, 1980 tries to show
the specific relationship between Hattic and Cassite or Hurrian, but I must accede to Soy-
sal’s criticism of Fähnrich’s 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)
316 A. Kassian [UF 41
For the first time the structural similarity between Hattic and West Caucasian
languages was noted by E. Forrer (1921, 25; 1922, 229). Later J. von Mészáros
(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 (Дунаевская, 1960; Дунаевская, 1961, 134 f.—gram-
matical features), I. Diakonoff (Дьяконов, 1967, 172 ff.—Hattic affixes),
Vl. Ardzinba (Ардзинба, 1979—grammatical features), Vjač. Ivanov (in a num-
ber of publications; see Иванов, 1985 for the summed up list of Hattic roots and
auxiliary morphemes with WCauc. cognates), Viach. Chirikba (Chirikba, 1996,
406—Hattic roots and affixes, structural features), and Jan Braun (Браун,
1994—Hattic roots; Браун, 2002—Hattic local prefixes). It must be noted that
after the outdated von Mészáros’ list of cognates it was Ivanov, who for the first
time made an attempt to prove the West Caucasian hypothesis by a scientific ap-
proach. Despite the fact that I do not agree with the West Caucasian attribution
of Hattic, Ivanov’s publications definitely got the problem of Hattic etymology
off the ground and serve as a good start point for subsequent studies.
The following difficulties 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 prefix with
ablative semantics, e. g., ‘from top-down’) with Abkhaz–Abaza *(a- ‘under’,
*(ǝ- ‘from down’. As a matter of fact Abkhaz–Abaza *(a-/ *(ǝ- has doubtless
cognates in the other WCauc. languages: Adyghe–Kabardian *ca- ‘under’,
Ubykh -(a ‘bottom, lower part’, etc., so we must reconstruct WCauc. *\V ‘bot-
tom, lower part ; under (preverb)’ here (< NCauc. *H\ŏnŭ ‘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 first Indo-Europeanists of the XVIII c. used to pro-
pose etymological comparisons like follows (e. g., Russian–German): pri-nes-i
‘bring!’ (2 sg.) ~ bringen Sie or u-bi-l ‘he has killed’ ~ übel and so on. Un-
fortunately some of the authors mentioned above get caught in the same pitfall.
An example. The Hattic well-attested lexeme š(a)haf ‘god’ has a regular
plural form fa-šhaf ‘deities’. Von Mészáros, 1934, 32, Иванов, 1985, № 37 and
Chirikba, 1996, 425 compare fa-šhaf with the Adyghe–Kabardian and Ubykh
compounds of WCauc. *wa ‘sky; god’ + *šʷəχʷa ‘grey; powder’: Adyghe–Ka-
bardian *wa-šχʷa ‘sky’ (< ‘grey sky’), Ubykh wa-šχʷa ‘thunder and lightning’
6

–––––––––––––––––––––––
6
Not ‘god’, see Шагиров, 1977 2, 89 f.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 317
(< ‘heavenly blasting powder’). Such a comparison can hardly be accepted.
2.1.3 There is an old comparison of Slav. *medv-ědь ‘bear’ (< ‘one who
eats honey’) and OInd. madhv-ád- ‘Süßes 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 tatpuruṣa madhv-ád- 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 *tǝ-χǝ ‘to take from inside’, where *tǝ is a standard locative pre-
verb and *χǝ means ‘to take’ (< WCauc. *xǝ ‘to take’). This comparison is not
reliable, since Hattic is almost 3000 years distant from the split of the Common
Abkhaz–Abaza proto-language (see fig. 3 above) and we know that local prever-
bation is a living and productive model of forming verbal stems in the modern
Abkhaz–Abaza 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. Дьяконов, 1967, 173 compares Hatt. fa-/ fi- (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 Браун, 1994, 20 compares Hatt. malhip ‘good,
favorable’ with Adyghe mǝλkʷ ‘property, fortune’, which in fact is a recent
Arabic loanword (Arab. mulk ‘ownership, property’, see Шагиров, 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 prefixation 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. affixes.
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 Решетников, 1999 for the Proto-Yenisseian verbal reconstruction,
318 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 Hattic–WCauc. connection in this case. On the contrary,
we must suppose that polysynthetic verbal morphosyntax with prefixation 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 finds its counterparts in WCauc. languages. On the contrary, the authors
mentioned above operate with individual affixal comparisons and fail to
reconstruct hypothetical Proto-Hattic–WCauc. sets of grammatical morphemes.
9

An appreciable part of Hattic–WCauc. affixal 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 Hattic–WCauc. affixal 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 Hattic–WCauc. isoglosses
in these cases.
An example. The Hattic genitive marker -n is standardly compared with
WCauc. *-nə (ergative and general indirect case; possessive case; transforma-
tive case). As a matter of fact WCauc. *-nə goes back to the Common NCauc.
genitive suffix *-nV: Nakh *-n (genitive; adjective and participial suffix; infini-
tive), Av.-And. *-nV (ablative; translative), Lak -n (dative I, lative, infinitive),
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., Чикобава, 1960 for the rests of the verbal prefixal 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 Chirikba’s syntactical theory is based.
9
Chirikba, 1996, 412 ff. and Браун, 2002 make attempts to etymologize the system of
Hattic local prefixes integratedly. In reality the only reliable exclusive Hatt.–WCauc. iso-
gloss in their lists is the Hatt. verbal local prefix 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 *Łʷa- on phonetical grounds. The morpheme šta- is found
only in the totally opaque compound ištarrazil ‘earth’ [22’] ; the same concerns the mor-
pheme kil, which has been arbitrarily singled out from kiluh ‘runner-spy’ [33’] by
J. Braun.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 319
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 prefixation see above, 2.2.3.
e) Unmarked nominal plural forms which are sometimes attested in Hattic
texts is the same case as verbal polysynthetism—it 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 Castrén, 1858,
16 ff., Топоров/ Цивьян, 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 Hattic–WCauc. 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, C—an
obstruent consonant or a combination of consonants, R—a 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 Цивьян, 1968).
320 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 Vjač. Ivanov’s and J. Braun’s etymologies (e. g., Иванов, 1985, № 11, 20, 22,
50, 58, and so on; Браун, 1994), but it is clear that it is the way to nowhere.
2.3.3 Finally we can compare Hattic roots with compounds or inflected
forms from the modern WCauc. dialects. Of course, with such approach we
immediately get caught in bringen-Sie- or madhvad-pitfalls, for which see
2.1.2–2.1.3 above.
An example. Иванов, 1985, № 45 compares Hatt. šul ‘to let, to let in’ with
Ubykh ca-wǝ-la ‘to let, release exhaustively’, where ca- is a preverb used with
verbs of motion (Vogt, 1963, 104), wǝ is a frequent verbal root ‘to enter, go’
(< WCauc. *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ < NCauc. *=orƛŬ ‘to go, walk, enter’), while -la is a
regular exhaustive suffix.
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 Hattic–WCauc. relationship.
An example. Браун, 1994, 19 compares Hatt. root zuwa- in suffixed zuwa-tu
‘wife’ with WCauc. *pə-zV ‘female; bitch’ (Abkhaz–Abaza *pəsə, Adyghe–
Kabardian *bzə, Ubykh bza, with the frequent Proto-WCauc. prefix *pǝ-). In
reality WCauc. *-zV is not an isolated form, but goes back to NCauc. *¢

wŏjV
(~ -I-) ‘woman, female’ (further to SCauc. *¢wðjV (~ sṭ-, ~ -I-) ‘female’), and
the direct Hattic–NCauc. or Hattic–SCauc. 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 Hattic–WCauc. 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.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 321
3 Previously proposed Kartvelian attribution
Girbal, 1986, 160–163 proposes four Hattic–Kartvelian root etymologies, two of
them are striking: Hatt. tumil ‘rain’ ~ Kartv. *¢wim- ‘to rain’ and Hatt. šam(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 šam(a) possess reliable SCauc. cognates. Gabeskiria,
1998 attempted to add some new Kartvelian cognates of Hattic lexemes, but
without much success—for the criticism of Gabeskiria’s 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. *č ~ Hatt. t~š (/č/?), SCauc. *ƛ ~
Hatt. l, SCauc. *k ~ Hatt. k and so on);
b) some special types of phonetic developments (e. g., consonant cluster
simplification) 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 first time the genetic relationship between three proto-families—North
Caucasian, Yenisseian and Sino-Tibetan—was partially substantiated on the
ground of regular phonetic correspondences in Старостин, 1982/ 2007. Some
other papers by the same author, dedicated to the Sino-Caucasian problem, can
be found in Старостин, 2007 (both in Russian and English). For the preliminary
comparative phonetics of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily see SCC (this work
was not finished and therefore remains unpublished). The highly preliminary
Sino-Caucasian etymological dictionary is available as Sccet.dbf.
As in the case of the NCauc. family (fig. 2) the following preliminary Sino-
Caucasian tree is based on 50-wordlists (see com. on fig. 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 world’s languages (within
the “Evolution of Human Language” project, supported by the Santa Fe Insti-
322 A. Kassian [UF 41
tute): fig. 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 final 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. family—Caucet.dbf, which has been published as NCED (w. lit.). STib.
family—Stibet.dbf, based on Peiros/ Starostin, 1996 (w. lit.), but seriously im-
proved. Yen. family—Старостин, 1982/ 2007 and Yenet.dbf, based on Старос-
тин, 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 finish SCC—in 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 fig. 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 specific relationship
between the Hurro-Urartian and Yen.–Burush. stocks. See Kassian, 2010 for some
details. The Na-Dene branch on fig. 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)
324 A. Kassian [UF 41
4.2.1 Vocalism (a very preliminary schema)
SCauc. NCauc. STib. Yen. Burush. Hattic
*i i, e e, i (ɨ) i i
*e e, i a, ǝ a, e (ä), ǝ a, e
i / e,
(ae, a)
*ä ä a, i, e e (ä), ǝ i, a, e a, (i / e)
*ɨ ɨ, ǝ ɨ, i i, ɨ i i / e
*ǝ ǝ, ɨ a, ǝ, e a, ǝ, o o, a a, i / e
*a a e, a, ǝ
a (ɔ), e (ä),
ǝ
a, e (i) a, (u)
*u o, u u, o o (ɔ), u u, o
*o o, u ǝ, a u, ǝ, o a, o (u)
u
Consonant cluster simplifications may cause a preceding vowel change:
SCauc. *\ānpV ‘tongue; lip; to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1]
SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14]
Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63]

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

SCauc. NCauc. STib. Yen. Burush. Hattic
*p p ph, -p p ph-, p
*ṗ ṗ, 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 (µ) w/ 0 0-, w/ 0 b-, 0(u)
w-, -u-, -f-,
(-m-)
*t t th, -t d th
*ṭ ṭ t, -t d t, ṭ (ḍ)
*d d t, th, -t t t, ṭ (ḍ)
t, z (_i)
*n n n d-, n n n
*r r r ʔ- / t-, r, r
1
d-, r š-, -r-, (-l-)
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 325
SCauc. NCauc. STib. Yen. Burush. Hattic
*c c ch/ s, -t s s
*¢ ( C, -t c, s ś- ~ ṣ-, s
t-, z- (_i / e), z-,
-š-
*ʒ ʒ ch, ʒh ʒ, s s
*s s s ( / ch), -0 s, d-(Vʔ) d-, s š-
*z z ʒ ,
*ć ć ć, ,h, -t ǯ-, s s/ ś, ć/ (, -ź
*¢ ( ć, ,h, ś, -t s, c ć(h), ,/ ʒ

, -ź
t-, -t-, -z- (_i)
*j , ć, -t ǯ-, s
12
,- / ʒ

-, s/ ś( / ṣ)
*ś ś s ( / ch), -0 s, d-(Vʔ) d-, ś/ ṣ(V)
*ź ? ź ǯ
*č č ć, ,h č-( / ǯ-), s ś/ ṣ, ć/ (, -ź
*¢ ( ć, ,h č, ǯ ś/ ṣ, ć/ (, -ź
š-~t-, t-, z- (_i),
-š-
*ǯ ǯ ć, , ǯ ć/ (, , št
*š š ś-, -0 s, d-(Vʔ) s/ ś/ ṣ š
*ŕ r rj
1
, r ŕ d-, r
*ń n ń-, ŋ ń, n n
*j j j j, 0 j, 0 -0-
*ƛ ƛ r(..L), -k j-, χ lt-, lt / l
*\ \
ƛ, l, r(..L),
-k/ -ŋ
j-, l, ĺ lt-, lt / l
*Ł Ł ƛ, l, -k r, r
1
lt-, lt / l
l
*λ λ l, ƛ j-, l, ĺ lt- (lṭ-), ld
*ł ł l-, -ł, -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.
326 A. Kassian [UF 41
SCauc. NCauc. STib. Yen. Burush. Hattic
*k k k-, -k g, -k- k(h)
*ḳ ḳ kh, gh, -k g-, -k, -g- k
k
*g g k-, -k k g
*x x χ-, -0 x, χ ~ G h h
*ɣ ɣ g q ~ χ
*ŋ n ŋ b-, ŋ 0-, ŋ f-, n
*q q
qh-, G-, x-,
ɣ- ; -k/ -ŋ
q-, q/ G q(h), ɣ
*q q Gh-, q; -k, -ŋ q-, q/ G q(h), ɣ
k
*G G
q, qh-,
[G(h)-], k/ -ŋ
x-/χ-, q/G q(h), ɣ
*χ χ χ, ɣ, qhʷ-, -0 χ, x h h
*ʁ ʁ G-, q-, , -j / -w χ, G 0/ ɣ
*ʔ ʔ
0 (ʔ) ; ʔw >
ʔʷ- ~ ɣ-
ʔ-, j ; ʔw >
h/ x
0/ h/ j
*ʡ ʡ 0; ʡw > χ(ʷ)-
ʔ-, j, 0; ʡw >
h/x
0/ h/ j
*ʕ ʕ 0; ʕw > ʔʷ- ʔ ; ʔw > h/x 0/ h/ j
*h h
0; hw > ʔʷ
(/ ɣ-, w-)
ʔ-, j ; hw >
h/ x
0/ h/ j 0
*ɦ ɦ
0; ɦw > j-,
w- (/ʔʷ-)
ʔ-, j, χ
14
0/h/j h, (0)
*ħ ħ 0; ħw > ?
ʔ-, j ; ħw >
h/ x
0/ h/ j (0)
*xm ? f m w-
*xŋ ? x ŋ
*ŋw m ŋ b-, ŋ ˙m-, -n/ -m
*xŋw f ŋ b-, ŋ h-
–––––––––––––––––––––––
14
Updated cell.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 327
SCauc. NCauc. STib. Yen. Burush. Hattic
*xg g k~q, -ŋ, -k q, x, χ g k, h
*xk χ k-,-k q-, q/ G (ʔχ) h-,-q-,-ɣ
*xḳ ḳ
k-, kh- ~ gh-
~ qh-, -k
q, G, χ qh, ɣ, -q k, h
*xq q k, g, -k q, χ, x
15
qh, ɣ, -q h
*xqw qw k, g, -k x, g k, g k
*xq q gh, (k) q, χ, x qh, ɣ h
*xqw qw k, kh x, g k, g k
*xG G, (ʁ) g, kh q, χ, x qh, ɣ, q
*xG*w Gw ghw, kw k k, g
*sd ʒ c(h) t c (~ ch, (h)
*st c ch/ s, -t(s), -s t c
*sṭ ( ch/ s t c ( ~ () t
*śd ʒ ś ~ ,h ? ch
*śt c ć ? ?
*śṭ ( ć, Ćh t ?
*šd ǯ ć t ć(h), ,
*št č , t ? t-, -z- (_i)
*šṭ ( ? t ćh


4.2.2.1 Labials
SCauc. *p, *ṗ, *b merge in Hatt. f / p/ w—in all likelihood more than one pho-
neme, but can hardly be distinguished due to the imperfect and inconsistent
cuneiform transcription:
SCauc. *\ānpV ‘tongue; lip; to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1]
SCauc. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ > kip ‘to protect’ [18]
SCauc. *[p]ārē ‘lightning; brilliance’ > paru ‘bright’ [33]
SCauc. *ʕapālxqwE ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39]
SCauc. *[p]ūHV ‘to blow’ (STib. *bŭt) > puš-an ‘to blow on’ [43]
–––––––––––––––––––––––
15
Updated cell.
328 A. Kassian [UF 41
SCauc. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak, pray’ > fara-ya ‘priest’ [32]
NCauc. *bēŁV ‘cattle-shed’ ~ fael ‘house’ [30]
STib. *bhăr ‘abundant, numerous’ ~ far ‘thousand’ [31]
SCauc. *bħĕr¢Í ‘a k. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37]
SCauc. *[¢

]ombi ‘superpower’ > tafa-r-na ‘lord’, tawa-nanna ‘lady’ [52]
Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63]
Yen. *bot- ‘often’ ~ fute ‘long (in temporal meaning)’ [44]
Yen. *ǯīp ‘to cover; to plug; to close’ ~ štip ‘gate’ [49]
STib. *Pr-Vŋ ‘country’ ~ fur ‘country; population’ [41]
STib. *tĕp (~ d-) ‘fear, to be confused’ ~ tafa ‘fear’ [53]
STib. *cVp (~ ć-) ‘bitter, pungent’ ~ zipi-na ‘sour’ [66]
Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ ~ kap ‘moon’ [15]

The situation with Hatt. f / p/ w resembles the Yenisseian reflexes of SCauc. labial
stops, for which see Старостин, 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’ ~ šam(a) ‘to hear’ [48]

Labial m > n before a dental consonant is without doubt a late (synchronic?)
process in Hattic:
SCauc. *=Vm¢V(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. *ɦmVj¢wV ‘sour, salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34]
SCauc. *mIlćwV ‘to blow; wind’ > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35]
STib. *mVn ‘to perceive; to think’ ~ pnu ‘to look’ [36]
STib. *mor ‘grain’ ~ fula ‘bread’ [38]
SCauc. *HmoŋV ‘to die, dead’ > fun(a) ‘mortality’ [40]
STib. *mVt ‘to eat, swallow’ ~ puš ‘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.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 329
ma/ fa ‘and’ [47’], mai(u) ‘a valuable cloth’ [48’], malhip ‘good, favorable’
[49’], mar or kamar ‘to slit, slash’ [50’], maššel or paršel ‘cult performer,
chanter, clown
?
’ [51’], milup or lup
??
‘bull, ox’ [52’], miš ‘to take (for oneself)’
[53’], mu/ fu ‘mother, lady, mistress (vel sim.)’ [54’], muh(al) ‘hearth’ [55’],
muna-muna ‘foundation, base, bed stone’ [56’], muš ‘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\ʷV ‘good, luck’ (with lhip for the
palatalized labialized lateral *\ʷ); maššel ‘cult performer, chanter, clown
?
’ [51’]
< WSem. mṣl (māṣilu) ‘cymbal player’.
An interesting case is Hatt. miš ‘to take (for oneself)’ [53’], belonging to the
basic vocabulary. Its SCauc. cognate may be Yen. *ma(ʔ) ‘take!’ (the compari-
son is possible if we suppose the loss of the final consonant in Yen. allegro
forms)—an exceptional case of preserving m- in Proto-Yen.
On the other hand, Hattic possesses a few grammatical prefixes 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 prefixes 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. *čVwV ‘to pour; wet’ > tefu ‘to pour’ [57]
STib. *lòw ‘to be able’ ~ lu ‘to be able’ [25]
SCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to take’ > ku ‘to seize’ [19]

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

4.2.2.2 Dentals
SCauc. *t, *ṭ, *d were merged in Hatt. t (~ tt). Cf. :
SCauc. *=ătV ‘to put, leave’ > ti ‘to lie, put’ [55]
SCauc. *dVHV ‘to grow; big’ > te ‘big’ [54]

330 A. Kassian [UF 41
Also with an unidentified dental :
STib. *tĕp (~ d-) ‘fear, to be confused’ ~ tafa ‘fear’ [53]
Yen. *kaʔt (~ g-, -c) ‘old (attr.)’ ~ katte ‘king’ [17]
Yen. *bot- ‘often’ ~ fute ‘long’ in temporal meaning [44]
Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63]

An important case is Hatt. z for SCauc. dental stop:
Yen. *də(ʔ)q- (~ *dək-) ‘to fall’ ~ zik (< *tik) ‘to fall’ [65]

It seems that /ti/ became /ʦi/ (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/ > /ʦi/ is
observed in the reflexes of SCauc. affricates, which standardly yield the stop
phoneme /t/, but affricate /ʦ/ before /i/, see 4.2.2.3 below. Together with the dis-
similation /u/ > /um/ this process of assibilation finds its direct parallel in the
Proto-Hittite historical phonology.

SCauc. nasal *n is a stable phoneme:
SCauc. *hVnV ‘now’ > anna ‘when’ [2]
SCauc. *=HVǯV(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > eštan ‘sun’ [5]
SCauc. *xänɦI (-ŭ) ‘water; wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7]
NCauc. *=aχ

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. *nŭ ‘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. *λɨnɦV ‘woman, female’ > *limhu-t > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27]

SCauc. non-initial *-r- standardly yields Hatt. r:
SCauc. *ɦVrqwĔ ‘wide’ > harki- ‘wide’ [9]
STib. *bhăr ‘abundant, numerous’ ~ far ‘thousand’ [31]
SCauc. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak, pray’ > fara-ya ‘priest’ [32]
SCauc. *[p]ārē ‘lightning; brilliance’ > paru ‘bright’ [33]
SCauc. *bħĕr¢Í ‘a k. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37]
STib. *Pr-Vŋ ‘country’ ~ fur ‘country; population’ [41]
SCauc. *štɦorV ‘crust, incrustation, skin, shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’
[58]

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 331
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-reflexes in most attested languages (Старос-
тин, 1982/ 2007, 156).

Initial r- is strongly prohibited for Hattic root and auxiliary morphemes (an ex-
ception is the fossilized r-suffix, etymologically singled out in some nominal
and verbal stems). I suppose that SCauc. *r- > Hattic š-.
SCauc. *rĕḳwÍ ‘breast, heart’ > šaki- ‘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
Reflexes of SCauc. voiceless alveolar (*c, *() and palatal (*č, *() affricates are
similar: Hattic stop or affricate in the initial position and Hattic sibilant -š- in
other positions. This process of fricativization in the medial and final position
runs parallel with Proto-Yen., cf., e. g., SCauc. *č > Yen. *č-, *s.

SCauc. voiceless alveolar affricates *c, *( yield Hatt. t- in the initial position and
Hatt. -š- in other positions.
Initially:
SCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62]
SCauc. *=V¢V ‘to eat, drink’ > tu ‘to eat’ [59]

Non-initially:
SCauc. *=ĕ¢Ắ ‘to put’ > eš (~ et?) ‘to put’ [4]
SCauc. *bħĕr¢Í ‘a k. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37]
STib. *mVt ‘to eat, swallow’ ~ puš ‘to devour’ [42]
SCauc. *[p]ūHV ‘to blow’ (STib. *bŭt) > puš-an ‘to blow on’ [43]

Some roots show Hattic z, which is in all likelihood a secondary “Hittite” assibi-
lation /ti/ > /ʦi/, see 4.2.2.2 above:
NCauc. *¢

wēχV ‘stick; timber’ ~ zeha-r, ziha-r ‘wood’ [64]
STib. *cVp (~ ć-) ‘bitter, pungent’ ~ zipi-na ‘sour’ [66]

In one case Hatt. z-reflex of SCauc. *( remains without explanation. Despite this
irregularity the comparison can hardly be rejected:
SCauc. *¢wðjV (~ sṭ-, ~ -I-) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68]
332 A. Kassian [UF 41
The SCauc. voiceless palatal affricates *č, *( yield Hatt. t~š (/č/) or t- in the ini-
tial position and Hatt. -š- in other positions. Of course Hattic t- may cover /č/
here, since it is possible that spelling variants with š- are merely unattested for
some morphemes.
Initially:
SCauc. *čäłHu ‘earth, sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45]
STib. *ćIH ‘to govern; lord’ ~ šai-l ~ tai-l ‘lord’ [46]
SCauc. *čVxqV ‘to scratch, scrape; to shave’ > taha-ya ‘barber’ [50]
SCauc. *čVwV ‘to pour; wet’ > tefu ‘to pour’ [57]
SCauc. *=ắčwV (STib. *ĆŏH) ‘to take’ > tuh ‘to take’ [60]
STib. *ćòH ‘to work; to build’ ~ teh ‘to build’ [56]
SCauc. *ČVQV ‘to step, run’ > tuk ‘to step’ [61]

Non-initially:
SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14]
Yen. *ʔēč- (< SCauc. *() ‘to let come, let enter’ ~ aš ‘to come (here)’ [3]

In one case a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/ is observed:
SCauc. *¢ɨšV (~ č-) ‘stone, mountain’ > *tiš > ziš ‘mountain’ [67]

SCauc. voiced palatal affricate *ǯ > Hatt. št in both initial and medial positions:
SCauc. *=HVǯV(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > eštan ‘sun’ [5]
Yen. *ǯīp ‘to cover; to plug; to close’ ~ štip ‘gate’ [49]

As opposed to the aforementioned affricative phonemes, the SCauc. post-alveo-
lar voiceless affricates *ć, *( yield Hatt. t in all positions:
SCauc. *=Vm¢V(r) ‘to stand, stay’ > *(a)mti > (a)nti ‘to stand’ [28]
SCauc. *ɦmVj¢wV ‘sour, salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34]
SCauc. *[¢

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

In one case we see a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/ :
SCauc. *mIlćwV ‘to blow; wind’ > *peti-l > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35]

4.2.2.4 Other front consonants
SCauc. *s, *š are retained as Hatt. š (/s/):
NCauc. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent, listen’ ~ šam(a) ‘to hear’ [48]
SCauc. *¢ɨšV (~ č-) ‘stone, mountain’ > ziš ‘mountain’ [67]
NCauc. *-š:w, plural stem marker ~ aš-/ iš-, plural of the accusative case [70]
Yen. *ʔa-KsV- (~ x-) ‘temple (part of head)’ ~ kaš ‘head’ [16]

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 333
SCauc. *j was lost in the intervocalic position:
SCauc. *¢wðjV (~ sṭ-, ~ -I-) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68]

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

SCauc. *ƛăjV ‘time, year, season’ > liš ‘year’ [24]
SCauc. *\ānpV ‘tongue; lip; to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1]
NCauc. *bēŁV ‘cattle-shed’ ~ fael ‘house’ [30]
STib. *lòw ‘to be able’ ~ lu ‘to be able’ [25]
STib. *rołH ‘light’ ~ leli ‘light’ [23]

One case of the occasional distant assimilation must be noted:
NCauc. *λɨnɦV ‘woman, female’ > *limhu-t > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27]

SCauc. *l > Hatt. l :
SCauc. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > luizzi-l ‘runner’ [26]
SCauc. *ʕapālxqwE ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39]
SCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62]
STib. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water), scatter’ ~ hel ‘to strew’ [10]
STib. *re ‘to dislike’ ~ le ‘to envy’ [22]
STib. *mor ‘grain’ ~ fula ‘bread’ [38]

SCauc. *ł yields Hatt. l as well as r. Cf. similar situation in Proto-Yen., where
SCauc. *ł > Yen. *l ~ *r
1
~ *r with unknown distribution.
SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwVłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose, hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12]
? SCauc. *χVłHé ‘arm, sleeve’ > her, hir ‘to allocate, assign; to entrust ; to
hand over, assign; to administer’ [14’]
SCauc. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock, bolt’ > *halu ‘bolt, lock’ [6]
STib. *rołH ‘light’ ~ leli ‘light’ [23]

4.2.2.6 Velar and uvular consonants
SCauc. velar and uvular voiceless stops *k, *ḳ, *q, *q merge in Hatt. k.
Velar stops:
SCauc. *HōkV ‘to look, search’ > hukur ‘to see’ [13]
SCauc. *rĕḳwÍ ‘breast, heart’ > šaki- ‘heart’ [47]
SCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ‘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\ʷV ‘good, luck’ ; Hatt. hapalki ‘iron’ [12’] < WCauc. *«Iʷə-\ʷV ‘iron’ or rather
*«Iʷə-pə\ə ‘copper’.
334 A. Kassian [UF 41
Yen. *ʔa-KsV- (~ x-) ‘temple (part of head)’ ~ kaš ‘head’ [16]
Yen. *kaʔt (~ g-, -c) ‘old (attr.)’ ~ katte ‘king’ [17]

Uvular stops:
SCauc. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ > kip ‘to protect’ [18]
SCauc. *sṭänqV ‘panther, leopard’ > take-ha ‘lion’ [51]
SCauc. *ɦVrqwĔ ‘wide’ > harki- ‘wide’ [9]
STib. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water), scatter’ ~ hel ‘to strew’ [10]
SCauc. *ČVQV ‘to step, run’ > tuk ‘to step’ [61]
Yen. *də(ʔ)q- (~ *dək-) ‘to fall’ ~ zik ‘to fall’ [65]
Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ ~ kap ‘moon’ [15]

SCauc. velar and uvular voiceless fricatives *x, *χ yield Hatt. h:
SCauc. *xänɦI (-ŭ) ‘water; wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7]
NCauc. *¢

wēχV ‘stick; timber’ > zeha-r, ziha-r ‘wood’ [64]
NCauc. *=aχ

wVn ‘to open’ ~ han ‘to open’ [8]

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

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

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

SCauc. *ɦ standardly yields Hatt. h:
SCauc. *ɦVrqwĔ ‘wide’ > harki- ‘wide’ [9]
NCauc. *λɨnɦV ‘woman, female’ > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27]

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

The only example of SCauc. *ħ is:
SCauc. *bħĕr¢Í ‘a k. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37]

An example for SCauc. *ħw > 0 could be:
SCauc. *ħwir¡ ‘water, lake’ > ur(i) ‘spring, well’ [109’], if the comparison is
correct.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 335
SCauc. *H (an unidentified laryngeal) > Hatt. h:
SCauc. *HōkV ‘to look, search’ > hukur ‘to see’ [13]
SCauc. *čäłHu ‘earth, sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45]
STib. *ćòH ‘to work; to build’ ~ teh ‘to build’ [56]
SCauc. *=ắčwV (STib. *ĆŏH) ‘to take’ > tuh ‘to take’ [60]

SCauc. *H (an unidentified laryngeal) > Hatt. 0:
SCauc. *=HVǯV(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > eštan ‘sun’ [5]
SCauc. *dVHV ‘to grow; big’ > te ‘big’ [54]
STib. *ćIH ‘to govern; lord’ ~ šai-l ~ tai-l ‘lord’ [46]
SCauc. *HmoŋV ‘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 reflexes which coincide with their non-labial-
ized counterparts:
SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14]
SCauc. *ɦmVj¢wV ‘sour, salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34]
SCauc. *mIlćwV ‘to blow; wind’ > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35]
NCauc. *¢

wēχV ‘stick; timber’ ~ zeha-r, ziha-r ‘wood’ [64]
SCauc. *¢wðjV (~ sṭ-, ~ -I-) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68]
SCauc. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ >

luizzi-l ‘runner’ [26]
NCauc. *-š:w, plural stem marker ~ aš-/ iš-, plural of the accusative case [70]

The same with velars/ uvulars:
SCauc. *rĕḳwÍ ‘breast, heart’ > šaki- ‘heart’ [47]
SCauc. *ɦVrqwĔ ‘wide’ > harki- ‘wide’ [9]
NCauc. *=aχ

wVn ‘to open’ ~ han ‘to open’ [8]
STib. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water), scatter’ ~ hel ‘to strew’ [10]
SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwVłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose, hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12]

In a few cases Hattic shows unmotivated u-vocalism:
SCauc. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look, see’ > kun ‘to see’ [21]
SCauc. *HŭxqwĂ ‘to preserve, guard’ > (a)ku ‘escort’ [20]
SCauc. *ʕapālxqwE ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39]
Of course one can try to explain it by the influence of an old labialized conso-
nant. As a matter of fact five examples above, where labialized velars/ uvulars
completely lose their labial element without vowel change, speak against such a
supposition.

336 A. Kassian [UF 41
4.2.2.9 xK(w)-clusters
SCauc. clusters of the type *xK(w) (where K—velar/ uvular) yield Hatt. k or h
without evident rule of distribution.

SCauc. *xgw > Hatt. h, k:
SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwVłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose, hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12]
SCauc. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look, see’ > kun ‘to see’ [21]

SCauc. *xḳ > Hatt. h, k:
SCauc. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock, bolt’ > *halu ‘bolt, lock’ [6]
SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14]

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

SCauc. *xqw > Hatt. k:
SCauc. *HŭxqwĂ ‘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:
SCauc. *ʕapālxqwE ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39]

4.2.2.10 ST-clusters
SCauc. clusters of the ST-type yield Hatt. t, that coincides with the Proto-Yen.
reflex (SCauc. *ST > Yen. *t).
SCauc. *sṭ :
SCauc. *sṭänqV ‘panther, leopard’ > take-ha ‘lion’ [51]

SCauc. *št :
SCauc. *štɦorV ‘crust, incrustation, skin, shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’
[58]

SCauc. *štw (with a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/):
SCauc. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > *luiti-l > luizzi-l ‘runner’ [26]

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 337
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.):
SCauc. *mIlćwV ‘to blow; wind’ > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35]
SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14]

For r in combination with *( see comm. on p(a)raš ‘leopard’ [37] (< SCauc.
*bħĕr¢Í ‘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).
SCauc. *ʕapālxqwE ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39]
SCauc. *ɦVrqwĔ ‘wide’ > harki- ‘wide’ [9]

In combination with *ɦ SCauc. *l is retained:
SCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62]

But SCauc. *ł is lost in combination with some unidentified laryngeal :
SCauc. *čäłHu ‘earth, sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45]
Such a development is paralleled by STib., where SCauc. *łɦ, *łħ > *ɦ, *ħ >
STib. *0 (SCC, 19, 191). Note that Yen. has regular *r/ r
1
< SCauc. *lH/ łH
(SCC, 84).

4.2.2.12 NC-clusters
SCauc. nasal drops in combination with labial :
SCauc. *\ānpV ‘tongue; lip; to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1]
SCauc. *[¢

]ombi ‘superpower’ > tafa-r-na ‘lord’, tawa-nanna ‘lady’ [52]
Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63]
Such a simplification is standard for all SCauc. branches except NCauc., but
there is a significant 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 :
SCauc. *=Vm¢V(r) ‘to stand, stay’ > *(a)mti > (a)nti ‘to stand’ [28]
Note that the retention of the nasal in such a position is not typical of SCauc.
languages.

338 A. Kassian [UF 41
In combination with guttural the nasal drops (a standard development in SCauc.
branches except NCauc.):
SCauc. *sṭänqV ‘panther, leopard’ > take-ha ‘lion’ [51]

In combination with *ɦ Hattic retains the SCauc. nasal :
SCauc. *xänɦI (-ŭ) ‘water; wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7]
NCauc. *λɨnɦV ‘woman, female’ > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27]

4.2.2.13 Clusters with laryngeals
In the initial and final positions Hattic loses laryngeals in clusters:
SCauc. *ɦmVj¢wV ‘sour, salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34]
SCauc. *štɦorV ‘crust, incrustation, skin, shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’
[58]
SCauc. *bħĕr¢Í ‘a k. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37]
SCauc. *HmoŋV ‘to die, dead’ > fun ‘mortality’ [40]
SCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62]
SCauc. *xänɦI (-ŭ) ‘water; wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7]

In the medial position laryngeals can be retained:
NCauc. *λɨnɦV ‘woman, female’ > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27]
SCauc. *čäłHu ‘earth, sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45]
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 final vowel drop). Cf. the follow-
ing selective examples.

CVCV:
SCauc. *rĕḳwÍ ‘breast, heart’ > šaki- ‘heart’ [47].
SCauc. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock, bolt’ > *halu ‘bolt, lock’ [6]
SCauc. *[p]ārē ‘lightning; brilliance’ > paru ‘bright’ [33]
SCauc. *štɦorV ‘crust, incrustation, skin, shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’
[58]

CVC:
SCauc. *xänɦI (-ŭ) ‘water; wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7]
SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14]

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 339
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 Starostin’s 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 final vowel may have been lost (as in the case
of nominal roots the rules of a final vowel drop are not clear).

SCauc. CVCV > Hatt. CVCV:
SCauc. *HōkV ‘to look, search’ > NCauc. *H[o]kV ~ STib. *ku ~ Yen. *b-
[o]k- ~ Hatt. huku-r ‘to see’ [13]
SCauc. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak, pray’ > STib. *p(r)IwH ~ Yen. *baŕ- ~ Burush.
*bar ~ Hatt. fara-ya ‘priest’ [32]
SCauc. *čVxqV ‘to scratch, scrape; to shave’ > NCauc. *čVqV ~ Yen.
*ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ~ Hatt. taha-ya ‘barber’ [50]
SCauc. *čVwV ‘to pour; wet’ > NCauc. *=ǟwčĂ ~ STib. *ćəw ~ Burush.
*ṣao ~ Hatt. tefu ‘to pour’ [57]

SCauc. CVCV > Hatt. CVC:
SCauc. *xq(w)VrV ‘old, ripe’ > NCauc. *=ĭrqwĂ ‘to ripen’ ~ STib. *grĭ
‘old, large’ ~ Hatt. hel ‘to grow, ripen’ [11]
SCauc. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ > STib. *Gāp ~ Yen. *qepVn- ~ Hatt. kip ‘to pro-
tect’ [18]
SCauc. *ČVQV ‘to step, run’ > STib. *ćek ~ Yen. *čɔʔq- ~ Hatt. tuk ‘to
step’ [61]

340 A. Kassian [UF 41
SCauc. =V-CVR > Hatt. CVR:
NCauc. *=aχ

wVn ‘to open’ ~ Hatt. han ‘to open’ [8]
SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwVłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose, hide’ > NCauc. *=igwVł ~
STib. *koj (~ -l) ~ Basque *gal- ~ Hatt. her ‘to hide’ [12]
SCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to take’ > NCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ~ STib. *Khu ~ Hatt. ku ‘to
seize’ ‘to seize’ [19]
SCauc. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look, see’ > NCauc. *=agwV ~ STib. *kʷēn ~ Yen.
*qo ~ Hatt. kun ‘to see’ [21]

SCauc. VCV > Hatt. VCV:
SCauc. *=Vm¢V(r) ‘to stand, stay’ > NCauc. *=Vm¢

Vr ~ STib. *ćhi-oH ~
Hatt. (a)nti ‘to stand, stay’ [28]

SCauc. VCV > Hatt. VC:
SCauc. *=ĕ¢Ắ ‘to put’ > NCauc. *=i¢Ă ~ Yen. *ʔes- ~ Basque *ecan ~ Hatt.
eš ‘to put’ [4]

SCauc. =V-CV > Hatt. CV:
SCauc. *=ătV ‘to put, leave’ > NCauc. *=ătV-r ~ STib. *dhăH ~ Yen. *di(j)
~ Hatt. ti ‘to lie, put’ [55]
SCauc. *=V¢V ‘to eat, drink’ > NCauc. *=V¢

V ~ STib. *ʒha-H ~ Yen. *sī- ~
Burush. *śi / *ṣi / *ṣu ~ Hatt. tu ‘to eat’ [59]
5 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons
Entries are arranged in the following alphabetic order: a, e/ i, h, k, l, m, n, f/ p/ w,
š/ 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. *\ānpV ‘tongue; lip; to lick’ >
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 341
NCauc. *\ānpV ‘lip’ > Tsez. *\ipu (~ -ɨ-, - ̃ -), Lezgh. *\amp- (~ ḳ-).
STib. *ƛep ‘tongue, to lick’ > Tib. gźab ‘to lick’, Kachin (H) šiŋ-lep
‘tongue’.
Yen. *ʔalVp (~ -ĺ-, -r
1
-, -b) ‘tongue’ > Kott. alup, Arin áĺap, elep.
→ Yen. *ʔa- (a former class-prefix?) exactly matches the Hattic onset. The Hat-
tic meaning corresponds to Yen. and STib. as opposed to NCauc.
Similarly Иванов, 1985, № 1 (Hatt. + Yen.). Untenably Браун, 1994, 21
(Hatt. + WCauc. *(a)č:ʷV ‘word, speech; to say; to swear’).
2. anna ‘when’, ‘sobald, als’
= Hitt. mān.
√ SCauc. *hVnV ‘now’ >
NCauc. *h[ä]nV ‘now’ > Nakh *hin-ca/ *hin-ʒa ‘now’, Tsez. *hin-čV ‘to-
day’, Dargwa *han- ‘now’, Lezgh. *hin- ‘now’, WCauc. *nə- ‘today’; cf.
Hurr. henni, Urart. hini ‘now’.
STib. *n[ǝ] ‘time or place of, when’ > Chin. 而 *nə particle by verbalizing,
‘as, and yet, and’ (?), Tib. na ‘year(?); stage of life, age; when’, Kachin
(H) na, čəna ‘to extend in time’, na loc. or abl. suffix, Lushai niaʔ ‘at the
time of; when’, -na ‘the place of or where, instrument of or for’.
Yen. *ʔen ‘now’ > Ket ēn, Yug en. The Ablaut form *ʔan- in compounds >
Yug an-es
5,6
‘morning’ (an- + ‘God, sky’), an-bɔksɨ
5
‘tomorrow’ = Ket
anɔkś
5,6
‘tomorrow’ (an- + *pVk- ‘morning’); apparently the basic mean-
ing of an- in the compounds listed is ‘when’, not ‘now’. *ʔen-ŋa > Kott.
eaŋa ‘now’, Arin iŋni ‘today’.
→ Double nn in the Hattic form may point to an old cluster. If so, Yen. *ʔen-ŋa
appears the closest parallel (*ŋ > n seems regular for Hattic), despite se-
mantic difference and vocalic alternation.
Иванов, 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 aná- ‘here (là); then, at that time (alors)’
(Vogt, 1963, 85), Abkhaz aná ‘there’, ani ‘that’, infix -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[ä]nV ‘now’.
3. aš ‘to come (here)’, imp. aša ‘komm (herein)!’
= Hitt. ehu.
√ Yen. *ʔēč- ‘to let come, let enter’ > Ket ɛ:te, Yug -ɛ:hl.
→ An exclusive Hattic–Yenisseian isogloss, although the vocalic correspon-
dence is not very clear. Yen. *-č- should go back to SCauc. *(.
342 A. Kassian [UF 41
Браун, 1994, 21: to WCauc. *ća (~ *č-) ‘to go, walk’ < NCauc. *=āčĂn ‘to
go, to lead’ < SCauc. *=āčAŋ- ‘to pull, lead’ (NCauc. + STib. *ćăŋ ‘to
bring, arrange’ + Yen. *čāŋ- ‘to pull, drag’). The loss of *-n in Hattic is
unclear in this case.
4. eš, iš (and maybe et, it) ‘to put’
= Hitt. dai-.
√ SCauc. *=ĕ¢Ắ ‘to put’ >
NCauc. *=i¢Ă ‘to give, compensate; to put’ > Av.-And. *=i(- ‘to compen-
sate, reimburse’, Lezgh. *ʔi(a- ‘to give’, WCauc. *(V ‘to lay eggs; to put
(with preverbs)’.
Yen. *ʔes- ‘to put’ > Ket ɛśa
6
, Yug ɛsiɛ-saŋ
6
, Kott. śi-ćei.
Basque *ecan ‘to lie down, rest (tr.), to put down’.
→ The Hattic meaning corresponds to Yen., WCauc. and Basque attestations.
5. eštan, aštan ‘sun, Sun-goddess; day
?

= Hitt.
D
UTU.
√ SCauc. *=HVǯV(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ >
NCauc. *=Huǯ

V-n ( ~ -j

-) ‘to clear up (of weather)’ > Av.-And. *=V(:Vn-
(~ -(:-), Lezgh. *ʡo(:Vn-; cf. Hurr. hešmi ‘clear, bright’.
STib. *Ćoj (~ -l) ‘clear (of weather)’ > Chin. 霽 *ćojs ‘clearing sky’, Burm.
ćajh ‘to stop, as raining or sound; to clear, as weather’.
Yen. *ʔēǯ- ‘clear, quiet (of weather)’ > Ket ɛt
4
/ ɛŕ
4
, Yug ɛ:hl. Perhaps with an
initial reduction *ǯin ‘bright day’ in Ket dīń ‘bright day’, qä-diń ‘holi-
day’, Yug χέ!īn ‘holiday’ etc.
Burush. *¢āŋ, *¢ān, *jaŋ ‘clear (of sky); half-clear (of sky); to stop (of
rain)’.
→ Note the vocalic correspondence in the first syllable between Hattic and Yen.,
as opposed to NCauc.
Incorrectly Иванов, 1985, № 11: to NCauc. *ʡămsa (~ -ə, -ɨ) ‘sky, cloud;
soul, breath; god’ < SCauc. *ʡắmsɨ ‘soul, breath; god, sky’.
6. *halu in redupl. halu-halu ‘wooden bolt, lock’, ‘засов’
= Hitt. hattalwaš GIŠ-ru.
√ SCauc. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock, bolt’ >
NCauc. *ḳułI/ *łIḳu ‘lock, bolt ; key’ > Av.-And. *ḳulV, Lak ḳula, Lezgh.
*ḳul (~ -o-), WCauc. *ləḳʷə.
STib. *kălH ‘bolt, lock’ > Chin. 楗 *garʔ ‘door bar, bolt’, Lushai kalʔ ‘to be
locked or fasten’.
→ The comparison is reliable if the SCauc. onset was *xḳ-. Note that the Hattic
vowel of the first syllable corresponds to the STib. forms, not to the
NCauc. ones.
Similarly Иванов, 1985, № 17 (Hatt. + NCauc.).
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 343
7. han ‘sea’
= Hitt. aruna-.
√ SCauc. *xänɦI (-ŭ) >
NCauc. *xänɦI ‘water’ > Nakh *χi, Av.-And. *λ:inʔi, Tsez. *λ:i, Lak š:in,
Dargwa *xin, Lezgh. *λ:än:, Khin. xu.
STib. *χĭw(s) ‘water, moisture’ > Tib. hus ‘moisture, humidity’, Kachin
khoʔ
2
‘to spill’, Lushai huʔ ‘wet’, Kiranti *kù ‘water’.
Yen. *xäń (~ ʔ-) ‘wave’ > Ket āńbɔk
1
, Kott. en, *ēn.
Burushaski *hán-chil ‘water from a wound; watery (tea, soup)’.
Basque *u-hain ‘wave’.
→ Phonetically Hattic exactly matches the Yen. forms.
8. han ‘to open’
= Hitt. haš- ‘to open’, and da- ‘to take’(?!).
√ NCauc. *=aχ

wVn ‘to open’ > Av.-And. *=aχʷVn; Tsez. *=[ã]ʁ:-.
9. harki-mah ‘to be(come) wide’
= Hitt. palhi- eš-.
√ SCauc. *ɦVrqwĔ ‘wide’ >
NCauc. *ɦărq[w]Ĕ ‘wide’ > Av.-And. *qa-b-, Tsez. *qeq-, Lak u-t:a-, Dar-
gwa *-aʕu-, Lezgh. *hIarqɨ-, WCauc. *bə«(ʷ)V.
STib. *qʷāŋH ‘wide, broad’ > Chin. 廣 *kʷāŋʔ ‘wide, broad, large’, Kachin
(ə)wuŋ
2
-waŋ
2
, ‘to be wide, ample’, Lushai vāŋ ‘to be broad, wide’, etc.
Yen. *χiG-Vĺ (~ *χiχ-Vĺ) ‘wide, broad’ > Ket qīĺ, Yug xe:ĺ / xejĺ
3
, Kott. hīgal.
→ Yen. shows the ĺ-suffix.
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. išhuwai-.
√ STib. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water), scatter’ > Chin. 澣 g

ʷārʔ (~ w-?) ‘to
wash’, Tib. skjur-ba ‘to throw, throw into water, cast’, Lushai vorʔ ‘to
scatter, throw up, toss’.
→ STib. *q(h)ʷ- originates from SCauc. *qw, Gw-, χw-, ʁw- and so on (SCC,
89–93), while *-r- < SCauc. *-l- and *-r-.
11. hel, hil ‘to grow, ripen’
= Hitt. mai-.
√ SCauc. *xq(w)VrV ‘old, ripe’ >
NCauc. *=ĭrqwĂ ‘to ripen’ > Av.-And. *=iq-, Tsez. *=iq-, Lak =ija-, Dar-
gwa *=iqur-, Lezgh. *ʔi(r)qʷV, WCauc. *ṭəʁʷa- (~ -Gʷ-).
STib. *grĭ ‘old, large’ > Chin. 耆 *grij ‘old’, 祁 *grij ‘great, large’, Tib. bgre
344 A. Kassian [UF 41
‘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
reflexes 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. *=ígwVł (*gwVłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose, hide’ >
NCauc. *=igwVł ‘to lose, get lost ; to steal’ > Av.-And. *golV (~ -a-) ‘thief’,
Tsez. *gʷVl- ‘thief’, Lezgh. *ʔik:ʷäl- ‘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 məkoi
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. *ł ~ Hatt. r,
cf. SCauc. *ł > Yen. *r/ r
1
with unknown rules of distribution.
The Hattic meaning is closer to STib., rather than to NCauc.
Иванов, 1985, № 7 compares Hatt. her(t
?
) with an isolated WCauc. form:
Ubykh qarda- ‘être assis, caché’ (Vogt, 1963, 164).
13. hukur ‘to see, look, notice’
= Hitt. auš-.
√ SCauc. *HōkV ‘to look, search’ >
NCauc. *H[o]kV ‘to look, search’ > Tsez. *hak- (~ ħ-), Lak uI=či-, Lezgh.
*ʔakV-/ *ʔokV-.
STib. *ku (~ g-) ‘to seek, choose, understand’ > Chin. 求 *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 find’ > Ket bʌ:ɣə
4
, bʌɣ
4
, Yug bʌ:hk, Kott. bapukŋ.
→ The (verbal) suffix -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-suffix. 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 look’—an iso-
lated Georg. root, which theoretically may be related to Kartv. qur- ‘ear;
to hear’, see Schmidt, 1962, 141.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 345
14. kaiš ‘horn (anatomic
18
)’
= Hitt. SI.
√ SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ >
NCauc. *ḳəlčwi ‘forelock, plait ; horn’ > Nakh *ḳu( ‘forelock, tuft of hair;
mountain top’, Av.-And. *ḳʷi( (~ *ḳi(ʷ) ‘forelock’, Lezgh. *ḳalč/ *kalč
‘horn; plait, woman’s hair’.
STib. *khaj ‘horn, a pair of horns’ > Chin. 觭 khaj ‘one horn turning up and
one down’, Lushai ki ‘horn’.
Burush. *ɣuy ‘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
SÎN.
√ Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ > Ket qīp, pl. qi:ń
3
, Yug xep, pl. xejfɨn
1
.
→ For the meaning of the Hattic term see HHB2, 173, 412 f., 416 ff., 464
fn. 948 and Soysal, 2004, 364.
An important Hattic–Yen. isogloss. The second Yenisseian word for ‘moon’
is *(ʔV)suj (Kott., Arin, Pump.), which probably possesses an external
etymology (SCauc. *wòŋ¢ŏ ‘moon’), whereas *q[e]p (~ χ-) seems an in-
ner Yenisseian innovation.
16. kaš, kiš ‘head’, ‘Kopf, Haupt’
= Hitt. haršan-, SAG.DU
√ Yen. *ʔaKsV- (~ x-) ‘temple (part of head)’ > Kott. axšei, further see
Yenet.dbf #11 and Старостин, 1995, 180 with possible Ket–Yug cognates
and the general discussion.
→ An exclusive Hattic–Yen. isogloss.
Yen. *ʔa- appears to be a fossilized class prefix, causing a secondary reduc-
tion of the root vowel, as, e. g., in Yen. *saq- ~ *ʔa-sq- ‘guilty’ (< SCauc.
*cVrqV).
An alternative, semantically more persuasive etymology is SCauc. *¢VqV
‘head’ (NCauc. [only WCauc. *SqIa ‘head’] ~ Yen. *c[ɨ]ʔG- ‘head’ ~ Bu-
rush. *-ćáɣanes ‘back of head’), if one assumes a consonant metathesis
in the Hattic root. Cf. Sum. SAG̃ ‘head’ (an unclear coincidence?).
17. katte ‘king’, katta-h ‘queen’
= Hitt. LUGAL, MUNUS.LUGAL.
√ Yen. *kaʔt (~ g-, -c) ‘old (attr.)’ > Ket kaʔt, pl. kateŋ
5
, Yug kaʔt, pl. kateŋ
5
.
→ An exclusive Hattic–Yen. isogloss. Hattic shows a very common semantic
–––––––––––––––––––––––
18
O. Soysal, pers. comm.
346 A. Kassian [UF 41
shift ‘old’ > ‘elder’.
Chirikba, 1996, 424 compares Hatt. katte with Abkhaz–Abaza compound
*qa-da ‘chief (adj.)’, whose elements are unclear.
18. kip ‘to protect’
= Hitt. pahš-.
√ SCauc. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ (reconstructed as *qHápE in Sccet.dbf)>
STib. *Gāp ‘to cover’ > Chin. 蓋 *kāts (< *kāps) ‘to cover, conceal ; a cover
(of a car)’, *gāp ‘to thatch, to cover’, Tib. bkab ‘to cover’, gab ‘to hide’,
Kachin məgap
2
‘to cover’, Lushai hup (huʔ) ‘to cover, put over’, Lepcha
kap ‘to cover over, to envelop, to wrap round as garment’, Kiranti *ʔkop
‘cover’.
Yen. *qepVn- (~ χ-) ‘to close (door)’ > Ket qeńgej
6
, Yug di-χέfɨnābdi ʔ ‘ich
mache es zu’, imper. χέfɨne.
→ 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. *ɦĭxŋwV ‘to graze; guard’ > NCauc. *ɦĭfV ‘to guard, to
graze’ ~ STib. *ŋ[u]a ‘gamester, guard’. Interesting, but phonetically un-
satisfactory (k ~ *ɦ).
19. ku ‘to seize’
= Hitt. epp-.
√ SCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to put ; to take’ >
NCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to put (together), take; to lie, fall’ > Nakh *=ēḳ- ‘to fall
down; crumble’, Av.-And. *=Vḳ-/ *ḳV-b- ‘to put together; to lie; to fall
down; to take, collect’, Tsez. *=oḳʷ- B ‘to fall ; to gather, to (be) put to-
gether’, Lak l-i=(i- ‘to put in; establish’, Dargwa *=aḳ-/ *=iḳ- ‘to put’,
Lezgh. *ʔeḳʷɨ- ‘to steal, conceal ; to hide; to choose; to put’, Khin. l-ɨ=ḳ-
‘to hide, conceal’, WCauc. *ḳə ‘to catch, hold, grab’; cf. Hurr.-Urart.
*ḳew- ‘to put’.
STib. *Khu (~ -ua, -əw) ‘to take out, extract’ > Chin. 逑 *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:ʷ-, Tsez. *=oχ:-, Dargwa *=ujk:-, Lezgh. *ʔiqɨ-,
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 347
WCauc. *q:Iʷa (~qʷ-, qʷ-)), but this comparison does not explain the Hat-
tic u-vocalism.
Иванов, 1985, № 23, and Chirikba, 1996, 421 (Hattic + WCauc. *q:Iʷa).
Браун, 1994, 21 (Hatt. + WCauc. *ḳə).
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. *HŭxqwĂ ‘to preserve, guard’ >
NCauc. *HŭqwĂ ‘to graze, guard, preserve’ > Tsez. *=oχ- (~ -ʁ:-) ‘to graze,
feed’, Lezgh. *ʔoχIʷɨ ‘to guard, preserve’, WCauc. *χIʷV ‘to graze (intr.
and trans.)’.
STib. *kŭ ‘to help; friend, companion’ > Chin. 仇 *gu ‘mate, companion’, 救
*kus ‘to help, save, relieve’, Burm. ku ‘help’, Kachin khuʔ
2
‘to become
friends’, (H) məkhu friend, ləkhu ‘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. auš-.
√ SCauc. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look, see’ >
NCauc. *=agwV ‘to see’ > Nakh *gu-/ *=ag-, Av.-And. *-Vg-, Tsez.
*=[e]gʷ- A, Lak k:ʷa=k:ʷa-, Dargwa *gʷ-/ *=irg(ʷ)-, Lezgh. *ʔak:ʷä-.
STib. *kʷēn (~ gʷ-) ‘to glance at ; to regard’ > Chin. 睊 *kʷēn ‘to glance at’,
Lushai khon ‘to regard, pay attention to’.
Yen. *qo (~ χ-) ‘to see’ > Ket d-ba-ŋ-sɔ-ʁɔ, Yug di-ba-ŋ-s-ɔ, Pump. ja-xa-ldi
‘I see’.
→ Morphologically the Hattic form is close to the STib. attestations.
Иванов, 1985, № 21 compares Hatt. kun with unclear Adyghe–Kabardian
*ʁʷə- (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. aršaniya- ‘to be angry (at); to envy’.
√ STib. *re ‘to dislike’ > Kachin nri
4
‘to be annoyed, displeased’, (H) gəri ‘to
regard as undesirable’, Lushai hreʔ ‘to dislike, object to’.
→ A Hattic–STib. 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. *rołH ‘light’ > Chin. 孌 *ronʔ ‘to be beautiful, handsome’, Tib. khrol-
khrol ‘bright, shining’, khrol-po ‘sparkling, glistening, dazzling’, Burm.
348 A. Kassian [UF 41
hrwanh ‘to be clear, bright, shining’.
→ Apparently the Hattic stem contains the suffix -ya, which forms nomina
agentis, and female suffix -ah [125’]. The same suffixal chain -ya-ah is
seen in the quasi-synonymous kašparuyah ‘source of light’ [33] (= Hitt.
lalukkima-)—another epithet of the Sun-goddess. Alternatively it is
possible to single out the morpheme yah here: thus Иванов, 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. *Łùli ‘skin,
colour’ (> NCauc. *Łŏli ‘colour; to paint’, Yen. *ʔoʔĺ ‘hull, suffusion’,
Basque *lar¯u ‘skin’) which seems lame semantically.
24. liš, leš ‘year’
= Hitt. MU(.KAM).
√ SCauc. *ƛăjV ‘time, year, season’ >
NCauc. *ƛăjV ‘year, day’ > Av.-And. *ƛaji- (*ƛaHi-) ‘year; in the daytime;
today’, WCauc. *\V ‘year; day’.
STib. *lòH ‘year, season’ > Chin. 祀 *lhəʔ ‘sacrificial cycle, year’, Tib. lo
‘year’, Kachin khra
1
‘time, season’, Kiranti *l[o] ‘time’.
→ The element -š is apparently a suffix known from some other Hattic nominal
stems.
25. lu ‘to be able’, ‘imstande sein; können
?

= Hitt. -za tarh-.
√ STib. *lòw ‘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 *lù ‘to feel, be affected, pre-
sent, be experienceable’.
→ An exclusive Hattic–STib. isogloss.
Sccet.dbf #705 adds here Chin. 喻 *los ‘to understand; to instruct, enlighten’
(if not to STib. *jòw ‘to understand, consider’) and unites this STib. stem
with NCauc. *ʔolʁwA ‘to think’. Apparently two different proto-roots, ‘to
think’ and ‘to be able’, merged in some languages.
26.

luizzi-l ‘runner, messenger’, ‘скороход’
= Hitt.

KAŠ
4
.E.
√ SCauc. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ >
NCauc. *hilčwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > Tsez. *=[ũ]č- ‘to run (away)’, Lak liI=ča-
‘to run’, Lezgh. *hišʷä- ‘to run (away)’, Khin. čä=p- ‘to run away’,
WCauc. *c:ʷa ‘to run; to walk uncertainly’.
STib. > Chin. *ćhoʔ, *ćhōʔ ‘to run, drive’, 走 *ćōʔ ‘to run, make run, gallop’.
Yen. *tut- ‘to flee, hide’ > Ket tutɨŋ
5
/ tutiŋ
5
.
→ The Hattic stem shows the well-attested “masculine” suffix -l.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 349
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-š ‘woman’
√ NCauc. *λɨnɦV (~ -λ-) ‘woman, female’ > Dargwa *x:unul ‘woman’,
Lezgh. *λ:ɨn:(ol) ‘woman; female’.
→ -t(u)/ -š(u) is a “female” suffix. Although Hattic shows assimilated n- for ex-
pected **l-, the comparison seems reliable. Note Hatt. -m- for *-n- before
labialized h.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 19 (Hatt. + WCauc. *pə-χ´ʷA-śʷə ‘woman’, where
*pə- is a fossilized class prefix and -śʷə is a diminutive suffix).
28. (a)nti ‘to stand; to stay’
= Hitt. ar-.
√ SCauc. *=Vm¢V(r) ‘to stand, stay’ >
NCauc. *=Vm¢

Vr ‘to stand, stand up’ > Nakh *-ātt-, Av.-And. *=i(:- /
*ħi(r)(:-, Tsez. *=arč- / *=eč-, Lak =iza-n, Dargwa *=ic:Vr- / =ilc:-,
Lezgh. *ʔec:ʷär-.
STib. *ćhioH (~ jh-) ‘to be at, sit, stay’ > Chin. 在 *,hoʔ ‘to be at, in, on’,
Tib. gźes ‘to sit, stay, wait’.
→ Hatt. *mt > nt seems regular.
Иванов, 1985, № 29 compares Hatt. (a)nti with the isolated Ubykh nt°á
‘door’ which is certainly less probable.
29. nu ‘to come, go (intr.); to bring
?
(trans.)’
= Hitt. pai-, uwa-.
√ STib. *nŭ ‘to tread, trace’ (> Chin. 蹂 *ṉu, *ṉuʔ, *ṉus ‘to tread, trample’,
Kachin kənu
4
‘a pattern of carving or embroidery’, Lushai hnu ‘to print, a
mark’).
→ Браун, 1994, 21, and Chirikba, 1996, 421 compare Hatt. nu with Abkhaz–
Abaza *nə-qʷa- ‘to walk, move’ (a preverb + root *qʷa ‘to walk’ <
NCauc. *=HuqŬn ‘to go, come’) which is not persuasive either phoneti-
cally or morphologically.
Not better Иванов, 1985, № 58: to Ubykh bayna-wǝ ‘to move off/ away’,
containing an unclear element bayna and the root wǝ ‘to enter, go’
(< WCauc. *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ < NCauc. *=orƛŬ ‘to go, walk, enter’).
30. fael, fel, fil (wa
a
el, we
e
l, wi
i
l, also pail
?
, pel
?
, pil
?
) ‘house’, perhaps also
verbal ‘to dwell’, ‘(be)hausen’
= Hitt. É(-ir).
√ NCauc. *bēŁV ‘cattle-shed’ > Av.-And. *bi\:i ‘cattle-shed’, Tsez. *buƛu A
(~ -ə) ‘cattle-shed; pub’, Lak p:al ‘cattle-shed’, Dargwa *bik: ‘cattle
herd’.
350 A. Kassian [UF 41
→ The comparison is reliable both phonetically and semantically. The connec-
tion to SCauc. *bðl\V ‘house’ (> NCauc. *bŭl\

V (~ -ɨ-) ‘house’ ~ STib.
*[b]ōk ‘dwelling’ ~ Burush. *baltí ‘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 reflexes are STib. *k and Yen. *ĺ, SCC, 81 ff.).
Иванов, 1985, № 62 analyzes the Hattic stem as fe-l and compares it with
WCauc. *«Iʷəna ‘house’ (< NCauc. *GwinʡV (~ -ħ-, -ʕ-) ‘village;
house’) which is certainly unjustified.
31. far (par, wa
a
r) ‘thousand’
= Hitt. LĪM.
√ STib. *bhăr ‘abundant, numerous’ > Chin. 繁 *bar ‘abundant’, 蕃 *bar ‘to
be prosperous, rich, numerous’, Tib. dpar ‘glory, splendour; wealth,
abundance; welfare, happiness’, Lushai bar ‘very, much’.
→ An interesting Hattic–STib. isogloss.
32. fara-ya (paraya, parayu, perayu, wa
a
rai, wa
a
rayu) ‘priest’
= Hitt.

SANGA.
√ SCauc. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak, pray’ >
STib. *p(r)IwH ‘to speak’ > Chin. 報 *pūʔs ‘to respond, announce’, Burm.
prawh ‘to speak’, Lushai pau ‘speech, word’, Kiranti *brə(-n/-t) ‘speech,
word’.
Yen. *baŕ- (~ -r
1
-) ‘to pray’ > Ket baĺbɛt
6
, baĺvɛt
6
, Yug barbɛl
5
(lit. ‘to make
a prayer’); Ket baĺbe-ś
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 kašparuyah (ka-aš-paru-ya-h) ‘source of light’
or ‘luminous’. An epithet of the Sun-goddess
= Hitt. lalukkima- ‘source of light’.
√ SCauc. *[p]ārē ‘lightning; brilliance’ >
NCauc. *pārē ‘lightning’ > Av.-And. *piri ‘lightning’, Tsez. *pɨr ‘lightning;
thunder’, Lak par ‘lightning; lustre’, Dargwa *paIr ‘lightning’, Lezgh.
*par/ *rap ‘lightning’. Also in a compound with *(ăjí ‘fire’: *(ăjí-pārē
‘lightning’ (Av.-And., Lak, Lezgh.).
STib. *prɨăŋH ‘bright ; morning’ > Chin. 炳 *praŋʔ ‘bright, clear’, Burm.
prauŋ ‘to be brilliant, blazing, glorious’.
→ In all likelihood one should analyze the Hattic stem as follows: ka-aš-paru-
ya-h. Prefixes ka-aš- are not rare in nominal stems, although their mean-
ing and function remain vague. The suffix -ya forms nomina agentis (like
para-ya ‘priest’, taha-ya ‘barber’), while -(a)h is a female suffix [125’].
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 351
The same suffixal 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 / fit) ‘to be(come) sour/ bitter’
= Hitt. šammalešš-, šammalliya-.
√ SCauc. *ɦ¢wVjmV/ *ɦmVj¢wV ‘sour, salty’ >
NCauc. *ɦmVj¢

wĂ ‘sour’ > Nakh *musṭi-n ‘sour’, Tsez. *čača-lu ‘sour’,
Lak qur(i- ‘sour, bitter’, Dargwa *qan(a ‘vinegar’, Lezgh. *ʡim(ʷV-r-
/ ʡir(ʷV-m- ‘sour; salty’, Khin. mi( ‘sour’, WCauc. *(ʷV ‘to get sour;
sour’.
STib. *[ǯh]ɨam ‘salt’ > Chin. 鹼 *ćham (~ ch-, -e-) ‘buck, lye’, Kachin ǯum
2

‘salt’, Lushai (KC) *tśhum ‘sour, salty’.
Burush. *ćhémil ‘poison’.
→ Hitt. verbs šammalešš-, šammalliya- are attested almost exclusively in the
texts translated from Hattic (CHD Š, 111 ff.). Since we know the Hattic
word šafat ‘apple-tree’/ ‘apricot-tree’ [83’] and Hittite word šamalu with
the same meaning, the only sensible solution is to treat Hitt. šammalešš-,
šammalliya- as an occasional loan translation from Hattic with the mean-
ing ‘to be(come) like an apple/ apricot’—for the precise translation ‘to be
sour/ bitter’ see Soysal, 1989 and Soysal, 2004, 88–92 (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’ → ša-fat
‘a k. of apple/ apricot’ is typologically normal (for the prefix ša- see
HWHT, 238), while Hittite shows an opposite direction šamalu ‘apple/
apricot’ → šammalešš-/ šammalliya- ‘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. *mIlćwV ‘to blow; wind’ >
NCauc. *mIlćwV ‘wind’ > Av.-And. *močʷi (/ *mičʷi), Tsez. *muš:ə A, Lak
marč, Lezgh. *muč.
STib. *mŭt ‘to blow’ > Burm. hmut ‘to blow’, Kachin (Ben) mut ‘to blow’,
Lushai (KC) *hmut, Lepcha măt, mŭt ‘to blow, to breathe at’, sŭŋ-mut
‘wind’, Kiranti *mùt ‘to blow’.
→ The Hattic stem contains the “masculine” suffix -l.
The loss of l in combination with an affricate is regular for all SCauc.
branches except the NCauc. one (SCC, 87 f.).
352 A. Kassian [UF 41
Vocalically the Hattic word is closer to the NCauc. proto-form than to the
STib. one.
Unconvincingly Иванов, 1985, № 63, where the Hattic element zil is
compared with unclear Kabardian sə- ‘rain(?)’ (found in compound).
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20: to WCauc. *pəλ:ʷa ‘wind; to blow’ (< NCauc.
*λwołʔV ‘wind, to blow’ with WCauc. prefix *pə-).
36. pnu ‘to observe, look’
= Hitt. ušk-.
√ STib. *mVn ‘to perceive; to think’ > Chin. 聞 *mən ‘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 prefixed forms.
An interesting Hattic–STib. isogloss, but not quite reliable in view of too
general semantics.
Not plausibly Иванов, 1985, № 33, and Chirikba, 1996, 421 (to WCauc. *bA
~ *p:A ‘to see’).
37. praš or paraš ‘leopard’ (attested form: ha-praš-un)
= Hitt. PÌRIG.TUR.
→ SCauc. *bħĕr¢Í (~ -ĕ) ‘a k. of predator’ >
NCauc. *bħĕr¢ĭ (~ -ĕ) ‘wolf’ > Nakh *bɦor( ‘wolf’, Av.-And. *bo(o ‘wolf’,
Tsez. *bɔ(ə 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(ʔ)s-tap (~ -b) ‘wolverine’ > Kott. feštap, fēštap, pheštap, Arin
ṕhjástap.
Basque *oćo ‘wolf’.
→ A rather interesting case. The Hattic root can be paraš (with an occasional re-
duction paraš > praš in the prefixed form) or praš.
In the case of paraš 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. *ʕapālxqwE ‘leaf’.
In the case of praš 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).
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 353
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. παρδ-/ πορδ- in πάρδᾰλις, πόρδᾰλις ‘leopard’ (Hom.+) as
well as Iranian forms like Sogd. pwrδnk- from the phonetic viewpoint
speak for the NCauc. origin (with regular NCauc. *( > Grk. δ, see
Николаев, 1985, 68 ff. № 8, 11, 12, 33), but semantically corresponds to
the Hattic stem. Hitt. parš- in paršna-, paršana- ‘leopard’, also ‘leopard-
man (a cult functionary)’ (OS+) is very similar to Hattic except for the
root structure CVRC. Persian pārs ‘leopard. panther’ and numerous
Turkic forms bars, pars ‘tiger, leopard, etc.’ probably originate from some
Anatolian Post-Hittite language.
38. *fula ‘bread’ in fula-šne ‘bread, used in ritual action; bread offering’
√ STib. *mor (~ -u-) ‘grain’ > Burm. munʔ ‘bread’, Lushai hmor-hāŋ ‘name of
a sp. of rice’, Lepcha jă-mór-zo ‘a spec. of zo (rice)’.
→ Hattic fulašne should be analyzed as a compound fula-šne, where šne [89’]
means ‘offering’ (cf. tefu-šne ‘libation’ [57]).
In all probability the STib. root is not connected with SCauc. *HmérV ‘a k.
of berry’.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
39. puluku ‘leaves, foliage, greenery’
= Hitt. lahhurnuzziyant-.
√ SCauc. *ʕapālxqwE ‘leaf’ >
NCauc. *ʕapālqwĔ (~ ɦ-) ‘burdock; leaf(?)’ > Av.-And. *HabuḳV ‘burdock’,
Tsez. *ʕemuq(a) ‘burdock’, Dargwa *hequl(i) ‘burdock’, Lezgh. *palqIʷ
‘burdock’, ? WCauc. *p:əǴə (~ b-) ‘leaf; to open (of leaves)’.
STib. *phak (~ bh-) ‘leaf’ > Burm. phak ‘leaf (of tree)’, Kachin phaʔ
2
-lap
2

‘tea, tea-leaf’, Kiranti *phok ‘leaf’.
Burush. *bilágur ‘a k. of weed’
→ For an anaptyxis between l and velar in the Hattic stem cf. praš ‘leopard’
[37].
40. fun (pun, wu
u
n) or funa (puna, wu
u
na) ‘mortality, mortals’
= Hitt. dandukeššar.
√ SCauc. *HmoŋV ‘to die, dead’ >
STib. *moŋ ‘to die’ > Chin. 薨 *smoŋ ‘to die (of king)’, Burm. (LB) *mhaŋ
‘corpse’, Kachin maŋ
1
‘a corpse, carcass’, Lushai maŋ ‘to die’, Lepcha
mak ‘to die (said of man, animal, tree, fire, dispute); dying’.
Yen. *boŋ ‘dead man’ > Ket bōŋ, Yug boŋ.
→ An interesting Hattic–STib.–Yen. isogloss.
354 A. Kassian [UF 41
Unpersuasively Иванов, 1985, № 66, and Браун, 1994, 20, who compare the
Hattic root with WCauc. *wV ‘person; people, persons’ and WCauc. *ʁʷV
‘person; self’.
41. fur (wu
u
r, pur, pu
u
r) ‘country; population’
= Hitt. utne, KUR(-e), utniyant-.
√ STib. *PrVŋ ‘country’ > Chin. 邦 *prōŋ ‘country, state’, Burm. prań ‘coun-
try’.
→ An exclusive Hattic–STib. isogloss. The STib. proto-form shows a frequent
reduction of the medial vowel and the common suffix -Vŋ.
42. puš or puše ‘to devour, swallow’
= Hitt. ed-.
√ STib. *mVt ‘to eat, swallow’ > Chin. 秣 *mhāt ‘to feed grain to horses’, Tib.
mid ‘to swallow’, ? Burm. mwat-sip ‘to be thirsty’.
→ STib. *-t can originate from SCauc. *-t / -ṭ / -d as well as from SCauc. *-c/ -(
and *-ć/ -(/ -,.
43. puš-an ‘to blow on, fan (a fire or burning materials)’
= Hitt. parai-.
√ SCauc. *[p]ūHV ‘to blow’ >
NCauc. *pūHV ‘to blow, blowing’ > Nakh *hu(:)p ‘to blow, blowing’, Av.-
And. *puʔ- ‘to blow’, Tsez. *pɨ-ƛʷ- ‘to blow; to swell, blow up; to whis-
tle’, Khin. pɨ ‘air; to blow’, WCauc. *p:Vwa (~ b-) ‘to breathe; breath’.
STib. *bŭ, bŭt > Chin. 弗 *pət ‘gust of wind’, Tib. ãbud ‘to blow’, sbud
‘bellows’, Burm. phəwʔ ‘bellows’, Kachin əphot
2
‘to blow in puffs’,
Lushai phuʔ ‘to blow out of the mouth’.
Yen. *pV(j) ‘to blow’ > Ket ugij, Yug duap-pē, Kott. śifu.
Burush. *phu ‘to blow’.
→ The Hattic form apparently contains the suffix -an, which is known from
some other verbal stems (e. g., šam ~ šaman ‘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 / -ṭ / -d as well as to SCauc. *-c/ -( and
*-ć/ -(/ -,) and semantically.
It is interesting that in the Dargwa group a similar root is observed: Proto-
Dargwa *puš(a) ‘bellows; bubble, bladder’ (< NCauc. *päršwA (~ -l-)
‘bubble, bladder; to swell’). Since there is no another evidence for Hat-
tic–Proto-Dargwa contacts, I suspect that we deal with a chance coinci-
dence here.
Cf. also p(a)šun ‘breath
?
; soul
?
; lung
?
’ [71’].
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 355
44. fute, futi (wu
u
te, wu
u
ti, puti) ‘(to be) long’ in temporal meaning (usually
in the collocation “long years”)
= Hitt. talugi- (eš-).
√ Yen. *bot- ‘often’ > Ket bōt.
→ An interesting Hattic–Yen. isogloss.
45. šahhu/ tahhu ‘ground, bottom (e. g., of the sea)’
= Hitt. tekan- ‘earth, ground’.
√ SCauc. *čHäłu/ *čäłHu ‘dirt, dust, earth, ground’ >
NCauc. *čHäłu/ *čäłHu ‘dirt, dust, earth, ground, sand’ > Nakh *č(ɦ)il
(~ -ī-) ‘ashes, dust’, Av.-And. *š:VlV ‘silt, slime’, Lak š:aIlu/ š:aI- ‘earth,
ground’, Lezgh. *č:il ‘earth; floor’.
Basque *śolho ‘meadow; field; field (prepared for sowing)’.
→ Caucet.dbf proposes the NCauc. proto-form *čHäłu with reference to the
pharyngealization in Lak š:aIlu as an indicator of NCauc. *H. As a matter
of fact Lak has doublets š:aIlu ~ š:aI-, where š:aI- points to the proto-
form *čäłHu (for the phonetic development see NCED, 69–70). Basque
*śorho also speaks for the *čäłHu variant.
Note the simplification *łH > hh in Hattic.
46. šai-l / tai-l ‘lord, master’. Probably the same stem without the “masculine”
l-suffix šai(u) ‘lord’ and with the “feminine” t/š-suffix še-t, se-t, si-t ‘lady
?
’.
Also found in the compounds like zihar-tail ’Holz-Meister’ (= carpenter),
huzza-šai ‘Herd-Meister’ (= smith), fur-šail ‘Land(es)-Herr’.
√ STib. *ćIH ‘to govern, rule; lord’ > Chin. 宰 *coʔ (~ ć-) ‘steward; minister’,
Tib. r,e, ,o ‘lord, master’, Burm. ćəwh ‘to govern, direct’, ćawh ‘king,
queen, royalty’, Kachin (H) ǯau ‘to rule’.
→ A Hattic–STib. isogloss. STib. *ć- can originate from SCauc. *ć/ (/ , and
*č/ (/ ǯ.
47. šaki-l, ški-l, aški-l, also without the “masculine” l-suffix: aški ‘heart’
= Hitt. ŠÀ(-ir).
√ SCauc. *rĕḳwÍ ‘breast, heart’ >
NCauc. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’ > Nakh *doḳ, Av.-And. *roḳʷo, Tsez. *rɔḳʷə A, Lak
daḳ, Dargwa *ʔurḳi, Lezgh. *jirḳʷ, Khin. ung, WCauc. *ǵʷə; cf. Hurr. egi,
igi ‘inside’.
STib. *ʔròŋ/ *ʔròk ‘breast’ > Chin. 臆 *ʔ(r)ək ‘bosom’, Tib. braŋ ‘chest,
breast’, Burm. raŋ ‘breast’, Lushai eŋ ‘breast’.
Yen. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ > Ket tʌga
5
/ tʌɣa
5
, Yug tʌga
5
, Pump. tíke.
Burush. *dak ‘hope, belief’.
→ SCauc. initial *r- > Hattic š-. Cf. also Sum. ŠAG ‘heart’ (an unclear
coincidence?).
356 A. Kassian [UF 41
48. šam(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. *ʔasV ‘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. šam(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. šemû ‘to hear’ (< Semitic
*šVmaʕ- ‘to hear’ < Afro-Asiatic *sim- ‘ear’) is not probable.
49. štip (probably not tip
19
) ‘gate’
= Hitt. KÁ.
√ Yen. *ǯīp ‘to cover; to plug; to close’ > Ket -dɔp ‘to plug’, -dup ‘to close’,
Yug !i:
h
p
4
‘to cover, close’, Kott. ha-čīp ‘to cover’.
→ A Hattic–Yen. isogloss. Hattic shows a very common semantic shift ‘cover’ >
‘door’. Yen. *ǯ- may originate from SCauc. *ć/ , and *č/ (/ ǯ.
50. taha-ya ‘barber’, ‘Barbier (ein Kultdiener)’
= Hitt.

ŠU.I.
√ SCauc. *čVxqV ‘to scratch, scrape’ >
NCauc. *čVqV/ *q

VčV ‘to scratch, rub’ > Av.-And. *χ:Vč- ‘to scrape’, Tsez.
*čãχ:- (~ -ʁ-) ‘to write’, Dargwa *=išq- ‘to scratch, scrape; to tear’,
Lezgh. *(iχ:an- ‘to scrape, rub; to fidget ; to peel ; to tear’.
Yen. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ > Ket dɔ:
3
, Yug !ou
3
// !o:, Kott. hāran-čex ‘to
hack, bevel’.
20

Burush. *qhaṣ ‘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
É
kaškaštipa- ‘gatehouse,
portal’ is a reduplicated formation *kas(k)-kas(k)-tipa with the suffix -tipa (known as
-šepa/ -zipa from other Hittite stems), but I think that we deal with a compound word-
forming here: kašku ‘gate building’ [29’] + štip ‘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).
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 357
actly matches the Yen. root. Sccet.dbf reconstructs the SCauc. proto-form
as *čVqV (~ -xq-) which seems unjustified.
Иванов, 1985, № 50 compares Hattic ta-ha-ya with WCauc. *¡V ‘to comb;
to scrape’ (< NCauc. *hrĕg

wē ‘comb’) which is not persuasive either
phonetically or morphologically.
51. takeha, takiha, also with the “masculine” l-suffix takeha-l, takiha-l ‘lion;
hero’
= Hitt. UR.MAH, UR.SAG(-i-).
√ SCauc. *sṭänqV ‘panther, leopard’ >
NCauc. *¢ǟnq

V ‘lynx, panther’ > Nakh *(ōq ‘ounce, snow leopard’, Av.-
And. *(irq:V ‘lynx; ounce, snow leopard’, Lak (iniq ‘tiger, leopard’, Dar-
gwa *(irq ‘panther’.
STib. *chi(ə)k ‘leopard’ > Tib. gzig ‘leopard; porcupine’, Burm. (kjah)-sać
‘leopard’, Kiranti *sík-ba ‘tiger, leopard’.
→ The suffix -(e)ha in take-ha remains without clear parallels among known
Hattic stems (it can hardly be identified with the feminine -(a)h [125’] as
in katta-h ‘queen’, etc.). Despite this fact the comparison is reliable both
phonetically and semantically. The simplification *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 *¢änqV (~ sṭ-), but *sṭ- 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 *(ēbV ‘idol, god; heathen deity;
priest’, Av.-And. *(:VbV ‘mercy, grace’, Lak (imi ‘grace, mercy, pity’,
Dargwa *(um ‘pity’.
STib. *ćūm ‘honour, authority’ > Chin. 宗 *ćūŋ ‘to honour, go to pay court ;
ancestor; master’, Tib. gćom, bćom ‘pride, haughtiness, arrogance’, Ka-
chin čum ‘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.
358 A. Kassian [UF 41
ing cultic and regal terminology), but not a single Hittite–Luwian 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 Καῖσαρ refers to the Roman emperors in
Ancient Greek texts), it is strange that we find this term in Hattic archaic
formulaic passages. The formal difficulties 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 *đapraz ‘heavy; sad, downcast’ (Orel,
2003, 68) or with Slav. adjective dobrъ ‘good’ (ЭССЯ 5, 45) is untenable
both semantically and morphologically
23
. An analysis of tawananna ac-
cepted by Melchert, 2003a, 18 ff. (to IE *stā-, *stāµ- ‘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- /daβara/ or /δaβara/ ‘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 (/δ/, /β/) in order to explain the forms
in question. Further Yakubovich refers to early second millennium Cappa-
docian onomastics in an attempt to find some evidence for Luwian **ta-
bara- /daβara/ or /δaβara/ ‘power’. He quotes four PN-s—Wa-dapra-,
Wa-lapra-, Waša-tapra, Šupi-lapra- —and attributes them to Luwian. As
a matter of fact the first 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. prefix 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 Šupi-pra, Garelli, 1963, 146). The third name Waša-
tapra may be either Luwian or not, since waša 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 identified 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. Λαπαρας (PN Λαπαρας 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.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 359
but de divinités’ (GLH, 247). Finally, the fourth name Šupi-lapra- seems
Hittite, since the element šupi well attested in Cappadocian onomastics
can be rather assuredly identified with Hitt. (not Luw. !) adj. šuppi-
‘clear’. To sum up the onomastic discussion. With some difficulties 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
λαβρ-, which is known in some divine epithets of the first millennium BC
or later,
25
or even to the more archaic term λαβύρινθος = Myc. da-
pu/pu
2
-ri-to- (see Yakubovich, 2002).
26
On the other hand tapra can be
identified 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. /δaβar/ with a
unique phoneme /δ/, 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 justified from my point of view.
The same concerns the idea that [δ]—when conjectural [δ]apra became a
Mediterranean wandering onomastic root—could 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. Yakubovich’s
examples: Myc. da-pu/pu
2
-ri-to- = Grk. λαβύρινθος; Lyc. A PN dapara
= Grk. Λαπαρας).
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 Melchert’s 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 (Λάβραυνδα, Λάβρανδα) or the epithet of Zeus in Cyprus Λα-
βράνιος.
26
For the latter cf. also hypothetical Linear A -du-pu
2
-re ‘master’, as proposed in
Valério, 2007.
27
Yakubovich, 2009, 230 fn. 29, advocating the Luwian origin of Hattic tafarna, postu-
lates the new Luwian phoneme /β/ for this case (/daβarna/), which was being transcribed
360 A. Kassian [UF 41
Almost all these difficulties 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. suffix known from some other Hat-
tic stems, both verbal (huku-r ‘to see’ [13] < SCauc. *HōkV ‘id.’) and
nominal (zeha-r ‘building wood’ [64] ~ NCauc. *¢

wēχV ‘stick; timber’).
The nominal suffix -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
Hattic–Hittite 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 Yakubovich’s 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, 289–90; Rie-
ken/ Yakubovich, 2010; Yakubovich, 2009a). Thirdly, even if we accept these examples,
the form in question is labarna, not **alabarna.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 361
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 Melchert’s one
(for which see above).
As for the second element of tawa-nanna, in all likelihood nanna reflects the
universally spread nursery word ‘mother’, cf., e. g., SCauc. *nǟnV ‘fe-
male breast ; mother’. An assumed compound ‘honoured/ powerful
mother’ as a queen title fits Hattic matriarchal culture very well.
The fact that tabarna/ labarna was the throne name of the first 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. λαβύρινθος has been recently briefly pro-
posed by Яцемирский, 2009, 110: Hsch. λάβιρος · βόθυνος ‘hole,
trench, or pit dug in the ground’.
31

–––––––––––––––––––––––
30
Cf. Yakubovich’s (2009, 231) criticism of Soysal’s 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 suffixes -υρ and -ινθ see Beekes, 2007 (§C.2). Except for λά-
βιρος, there are no clear examples for the suffix -ιρ (cf., however, βαλλιρός/ βάλε-
362 A. Kassian [UF 41
Quite differently Soysal, 2005 (following H.-S. Schuster’s 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 suffix fa- found in the similar collocation far-fa-šhaf / ta-
far-fa-šhaf ‘thousand deities’ (from šhaf ‘god’).
32
Third, the root na is not
attested elsewhere in Hattic (except for Soysal’s theoretical ta-wanan-na
‘(lady of) wanan na-s’) which makes this monoconsonantal analysis
doubtful.
Иванов, 1985, № 53 analyzes Hattic tawananna as a compound tawa-nanna,
comparing Hatt. tafa with Adyghe and Kabardian nǝ-wa, nǝ-wa-ź (ныо,
ныожъ, наужъ) ‘old woman’ and Hatt. nanna with WCauc. *nanV
‘mother, mummy; old woman, granny’ (< NCauc. *nǟnV ‘female breast ;
mother’). Although the elements of the Adyghe compound nǝ-wa are not
entirely clear, Ivanov’s etymology of Hatt. tawa- is improbable both pho-
netically and morphologically.
53. tafa (tauwa
a
) ‘fear, fright’
= Hitt. weridema-.
√ STib. *tĕp (~ d-) ‘fear, to be confused’ > Chin. 慹 *tep, *tip ‘scared stiff,
stupefied’, 慴 *tep ‘to fear’, Tib. rtab ‘to be confused, frightened; to be in
a hurry’.
→ A Hattic–STib. isogloss. The connection between Hattic tafa ‘fear’ and tufi
–––––––––––––––––––––––
ρος/ βαλῖνος [Arist.] ‘a kind of carp’ and κίσιρνις [Hsch.] ‘a bird’ ~ κίσσιρις · εἶδος ὀρ-
νέου [Suid.], the examples by S. Yatsemirsky, pers. comm.), but one can draw here a
parallel with the Pre-Greek suffixes -ιλ/ -υλ or -ινθ/ -υνθ which are well-attested in their
both variants: cf. especially the doublets like τόρδῡλον ~ τόρδιλον ‘hartwort, Tordylium
officinale’ and maybe μυστλη ~ μιστύλη ‘crust of bread scooped out to the form of a
spoon’ (the examples by S. Yatsemirsky, pers. comm.).
As for the fluctuation d~l in the Pre-Greek (scil. “Minoan”) vocabulary, this pheno-
menon does not seem an exclusive feature of λαβύρινθος. Cf. other Furnée’s examples
in Beekes, 2007 (§B.5.7): Myc. ka-da-mi-ta ~ Grk. κᾰλᾰμίνθη ‘name of “a good-smell-
ing plant”’, δάφνη (Hom.+) ~ Pergaean λάφνη (Hsch.) ‘sweet bay (Laurus nobilis)’,
ἄβλαροι (Hsch.) ‘wood; tree’ ~ βδαροί (Hsch.) ‘tree’, Ὀδυσσεύς ~ Ὀλυσσεύς, also
δίσκος (Hom.+) ~ λίσκος (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-šai ‘smith’ (hearth-master), fur-šail ‘lord of the land’
(land-master) etc.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 363
‘fear’ [102’] is unclear.
Иванов, 1985, № 52 compares the Hattic compound tafa-tufi ‘fear (and) hor-
ror’ with WCauc. *xə ‘cold; to get cold, freeze’ > Abkhaz–Abaza *xə-ta
‘cold (adj.)’, Adyghe–Kabardian *sətə- ‘to get cold’ with a further seman-
tic development into ‘fear’ in some WCauc. forms, e. g., Kabard. ś-tə
‘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. 多 *tāj ‘much, many’, 哆 *thajʔ, *thiajʔ,
*trājʔ, *thrājʔ ‘be great’, Burm. taj ‘very’, təiʔ sign of the plural, Kachin
theʔ
2
‘and’, Lushai teʔ (< *teiʔ ?) ‘much, very much’, -te suffix denoting
plurality, Lepcha tí, ti-m ‘to be great, large, big’, Kiranti *dV ‘big’.
Yen. *tɨʔj- ‘to grow’ > Ket tɨjiŋ
5
, -tij, Yug tɨjiŋ, -tɨj.
→ Phonetically the Hattic form is close to the STib. and Yen. attestations.
Similarly Браун, 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 Adyghe–Kabardian *do-da / *dá-də
‘most, at all’).
55. ti, te, also zi
?
‘to lie; to lay
?

= Hitt. ki-.
√ SCauc. *=ătV ‘to put, leave’ >
NCauc. *=ătV-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. *jatär- ‘to let, leave’, Khin. at- ‘to be there, be
available’, WCauc. *tV ‘to be inside; to stand; to be’ (Abkhaz -ta-/ -t(ə)-,
etc.).
STib. *dhăH (/ *thăH) ‘to put, place’ > Chin. 署 *ḏa(ʔ)s ‘to place, position’,
處 *thaʔ ‘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 daʔ ‘to put, place, set’, Lepcha tho-m ‘to
place’.
Yen. *di(j) ‘to lie down, put down’ > Ket dij ‘to put, load’, Yug di / diʔ ‘to put,
load’.
Burush. *-´t- ‘to do, make, set up’.
→ Hattic matches Yen. phonetically.
Chirikba, 1996, 421 compares Hatt. ti with WCauc. *ƛ:ʷA ‘to sleep’ (<
NCauc. *=HVw\

Ān) which is impossible phonetically. Doubtfully
Браун, 1994, 21 (Hatt. + WCauc. *(V ‘to lay eggs; to put (with pre-
verbs)’, for which see Hatt. eš ‘to put’ [4]).
364 A. Kassian [UF 41
56. teh, tih ‘to build’
= Hitt. wede-.
√ STib. *ćòH > Chin. 仕 *,

rəʔ ‘to work, serve, office’, 事 *,

rəʔs ‘affair’, Tib.
ãćha ‘to make, prepare’, Kachin (H) ča ‘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 Hattic–STib. isogloss (for the semantics cf. the Kachin and probably
Lushai cognates). STib. *ć- can originate from SCauc. *ć/ (/ , and *č/ (/ ǯ.
The phonetic similarity with Hurr. teh- ‘to grow up (of children)’ seems acci-
dental.
57. *tefu ‘to pour’ in tefu-šne ‘libation, offering’
= Hitt. išpantuzzi-, malt[eššar].
√ SCauc. *čVwV ‘to pour; wet’ >
NCauc. *=ǟwčĂ ‘to emit, pour; to vomit’ > Nakh *l-ēbč- ‘to bathe; to be
scattered about’, Av.-And. *=ačʷ- (~ -o-) ‘to splash; to rinse; to wash; to
bathe; to flow; liquid’, Tsez. *ʔeč- ‘to vomit’, Lak =i=či- ‘to to pour,
strew; to throw’, Lezgh. *ʔäča- ‘to flow, pour; to jump, fly; to vomit’,
WCauc. *ǯʷə ‘to vomit’.
STib. *ćəw (-t) ‘water, wet ; to scoop’ > Tib. ćhu ‘water’, bćud ‘moisture,
juice, sap’, ãćhu ‘to ladle or scoop (water)’, Burm. ćəw ‘to be wet, moist’,
Kachin ǯo
3
‘to pour into’, čo
2
‘spoon’, Lushai čiau ‘wet and dirty’, Kiran-
ti Limbu cwaʔl ‘water’
Yen. *ʔa-č- ‘to pour’ > Ket átij, Yug atčej / ačej.
Burush. *ṣao ‘to wash’.
→ Hattic tefu-šne should be analyzed as a compound, where šne [89’] means
‘offering’ (cf. fula-šne ‘bread offering’ [38]).
Phonetically and morphologically the Hattic stem is close to the STib. and
Burush. forms, while semantically—to the NCauc. and Yen. ones.
Cf. also Hurr. tab/w- ‘to found (metal)’, whose similarity with the Hattic root
can be a chance coincidence (Старостин, 1995/ 2007, 632 connects the
Hurrian term to NCauc. *=VṭwV ‘to pour, to soak’, further to SCauc.
*=V[ṭ]wV ‘water’).
58. tera-h (probably not štera-h) ‘leather covering, fell-cloak’
= Hitt.
KUŠ
NÍG.BÀR.
√ SCauc. *štɦorV ‘crust, incrustation, skin, shell’ >
NCauc. *čɦorV ‘skin, shell’ > Nakh *(ʡōr ‘skin, envelope; shell, peel’, Tsez.
*šɔrV (~ š:-) ‘lamb’s skin (for making hats); a k. of Tsez. shoes’, Lezgh.
*č:ar(a) ‘(milk) skin; sour cream; cream; mould’, Khin. ǯar ‘sour
cream’.
Yen. *təʔlap- (~ -r-) ‘bread crust’ > Ket tʌla:
3
, pl. tʌĺaŋ
5
, Yug tʌlap
5
/ tʌla:p
3
,
pl. tʌlafɨn
5
.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 365
→ Note the simplification *štɦ- > t- in Hattic, the same process as in Yen. For
the Hattic suffix -(a)h see HWHT, 216.
Yen. shows a further semantic development, while NCauc. and Hattic retain
the primary meaning ‘leather covering, envelope’.
Иванов, 1985, № 41 compares terah with NCauc. *¢ĭrqā ‘carpet ; coverlet’
which is less satisfactory both semantically and phonetically.
59. tu ‘to eat’
= Hitt. ed-.
√ SCauc. *=V¢V ‘to eat, drink’ >
NCauc. *=V¢

V ‘to drink; to gulp, to eat’ > Av.-And. *(:a- ‘to drink’, Tsez.
*=a(- ‘to eat’, Lezgh. *ʔV(V (~ -(:-) ‘to drink’.
STib. *ʒhaH ‘to eat’ > Tib. za ‘to eat’, gzan ‘to eat, devour’, zan ‘fodder,
porridge’, Burm. ćah ‘to eat’, Kachin ša
3
‘to eat’, šat
2
‘boiled rice, rice
for eating’, Lushai fa ‘rice’, faʔ ‘to feed with the mouth’, Kiranti *ʒo
(?/ *ʒə) ‘to eat’.
Yen. *sī- ‘to eat’ > Ket sī ‘to eat’, Yug sī ‘to eat’, Kott. šig ‘Speise’, Arin šau
‘Speise’, Pump. sogo ‘to eat’.
Burush. *śi / *ṣi / *ṣu ‘to eat’.
→ The Hattic u-vocalism is unclear (cf. Burush. *ṣu). Despite this fact, the
comparison seems reliable.
Improbably Иванов, 1985, № 59, who arbitrarily singled out the Hattic root
u[f] and compared it with WCauc. *fV ‘to eat’ (possibly < NCauc. *ɦĭfV
‘to guard, graze’).
60. tuh ‘to take; to keep
?

= Hitt. (-za) da-; ? har(k)-.
√ SCauc. *=ắčwV ‘to take’ >
NCauc. *=ăčwV > Av.-And. *=ač- (~ -o-) ‘to carry’, Tsez. *=aš(:)- ‘to find’,
Dargwa *=uč- ‘to gather, collect ; to take’, Lezgh. *ʔačʷɨ- ‘to take; to take
away; to bring’, WCauc. *čʷV ‘to take, carry’.
STib. *ĆŏH ‘to seize’ > Chin. 取 *ćhoʔ ‘to take’, Tib. ã,u ‘to seize’.
Basque *eući ‘to take, hold, seize, grasp’.
→ Note the similarity between the Hattic and STib. roots.
Иванов, 1985, № 48 compares the Hattic root with WCauc. *tA- ‘to give’
(< NCauc. *=VtV ‘to give’) which is unconvincing. Chirikba, 1996, 419
compares tuh with Abkhaz–Abaza *tǝ-xǝ ‘to take from inside’ (where *tǝ
is a locative preverb and *xǝ means ‘to take’) which is unconvincing, too.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 22 (Hatt. + Abaza).
61. tuk ‘to step’, ‘hintreten; beistehen
?

= Hitt. tiya-.
√ SCauc. *ČVQV ‘to step, run’ >
366 A. Kassian [UF 41
STib. *ćek (~ j-) ‘to tread, trample’ > Chin. 蹟, 跡 *ćek ‘footprints, trample’,
Tib. (ã)ćhags ‘to tread, to walk, to move’.
Yen. *čɔʔq- ‘to run’ > Ket tɔq-tət
5
‘to run’, Yug čat-tat
5
‘to trot’, Kott. čag-
anthak ‘running’, čāganthagākŋ ‘to run’.
→ Note the vocalic similarity between the Hattic and Proto-Yen. forms.
62. tumil, with a secondary assimilation tumin (also šumin?) ‘rain’
= Hitt. heyu-.
√ SCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘rainy season’ >
NCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘autumn, winter (rainy season)’ > Nakh *sṭab(ʡ)V/
*bʡastV ‘autumn; spring’, Av.-And. *c:ibirV ‘autumn; winter’, Tsez.
*s:ɨbə(rV) A ‘autumn’, Lak s:u-t ‘autumn’, Lezgh. *cowɨl: ‘autumn’,
Khin. cuwa-ž ‘autumn’, WCauc. *ć:ə (~ *,ə) ‘autumn; winter’.
STib. > Chin. 秋 *ćhiw ‘autumn’.
Yen. *sir
1
- ‘summer’ > Ket śīĺi
1
, Yug sīr, Kott. šilpaŋ, Arin šil.
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.
Иванов, 1985, № 56 analyzes the Hattic stem as tu-mil and compares the
first element with unclear Ubykh tʷá- in tʷá-sx ‘hail’ (sx goes back to
WCauc. *cəxʷə ‘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 suffix -l from the Hattic stem), but in all likelihood
we deal with a chance coincidence here—the same case as Hatt. šam ‘to
hear’ [48].
63. tup (probably not štup) ‘root’
= Hitt. šurki-.
√ Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’ > Kott. thempul, *thēmpul, Arin lēmbirgaŋ, lēmbi-
ŕaŋ, tenbir.
→ A Hattic–Yen. isogloss. Note an occasional retention of *m in Yen. and regu-
lar cluster simplification in Hatt. (for such a “non-disappearing” *m in
Yen. see SCC, 41). The nominal ĺ-suffix is not rare in Yen.
64. zehar, zihar ‘(building) wood, timber’
= Hitt. GIŠ-ru.
√ NCauc. *¢

wēχV ‘stick, chip; piece of wood, beam; timber’ > Tsez. *(iχ:
(~ -ɨ-, -ʁ) ‘chip, small piece of wood’, Dargwa *c:eχ:eni ‘beam, cross-
beam’, Lezgh. *(oχ:an (~ *(Vχ:ʷan) ‘perch, pole, log; wood, timber’
→ Hattic stem contains the suffix -(V)r, which is rather common in SCauc. lan-
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 367
guages, especially in the NCauc. branch. For -(V)r cf. Hatt. huku-r ‘to
see, look, notice’ [13].
Semantically unpersuasively Иванов, 1985, № 72, and Chirikba, 1996, 423,
who compare Hatt. zehar with the Adyghe–Kabardian compound *č:o-ɣə
‘tree’ < WCauc. *c:ʷə ‘a k. of tree’ (< NCauc. *Hă(r)ǯwī (~ -ē) ‘a k. of
tree’) + WCauc. *lA ‘male; testiculus’ (< NCauc. *lĭwŁĔ/ *ŁĭwlV ‘man,
male’). The original meaning of Adyghe–Kabardian *č:o-ɣə was probably
‘acorn’ (see Caucet.dbf).
65. zik ‘to fall’
= Hitt. mauš-.
√ Yen. *də(ʔ)q- (~ *dək- ?) ‘to fall’ > Ket dʌkŋ
5
, Yug dʌkŋ.
→ An important Hattic–Yen. isogloss.
Yen. *d- can originate from SCauc. *t-/ ṭ-, *l-/ ł-, *n- and (in the case of Yen.
*ʔ-tone) from SCauc. *s-/ ś-/ š-. The proto-form with the initial *t-/ ṭ- 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. *də(ʔ)q- ‘to fall’ to NCauc.
*=[a]rkVr ‘to fall’ and STib. *k(h)rīl (~ -ł) ‘to fall, drop’, proposing the
SCauc. proto-form *łVkVrV/ *rVkVłV, which is possible only theoreti-
cally: we must suppose assimilation ł-r > r-r in NCauc. and double meta-
thesis in STib.
Иванов, 1985, № 73 compares Hatt. zik with an unclear Ubykh double-mor-
phemic form.
66. zipina ‘sour’ (substantivized?)
= Hitt. EMṢU.
√ STib. *cVp (~ ć-) ‘bitter, pungent’ > Burm. ćap ‘to be hot, pungent’, ćhip
‘poison’, Kachin ǯap
2
‘to be hot, pungent, peppery’, məǯap
3
‘red pepper’,
Lushai thīp ‘to smart, be bitter (as egg-fruit)’.
→ An interesting Hattic–STib. isogloss.
Although the Hattic suffix -na is not entirely clear, the analysis zipi-na seems
natural. For the suffix -na cf., e. g., kurkufenna ‘wooden stand (vel sim.)
in rituals’ [40’] vs. kurkupal ‘peg’ [39’] (if -nna < -lna) and maybe
tafarna ‘lord’ [52].
Иванов, 1985, № 81 compares Hatt. zipina with the WCauc. compound
*(ʷV-qʷV ‘to get sour; sour’ (< NCauc. *ɦmVj¢

wĂ ‘sour’ + *=òqwVn ‘to
be sufficient, enough’) smart is not persuasive phonetically.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
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).
368 A. Kassian [UF 41
67. ziš ‘mountain’
= Hitt. HUR.SAG.
√ SCauc. *¢ɨšV (~ č-) ‘stone, mountain’ >
Yen. *čɨʔs ‘stone’, pl. *čəʔ-ŋ ‘rock’ > Ket tɨʔś, pl. tʌʔŋ / tʌŋa:n
3
, Yug čɨʔs, pl.
čʌʔŋ, čʌŋa:n
3
‘rock’, Kott. šīš, pl. šeŋ, Arin kes, Pump. kit.
Burush. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’.
→ A Hattic–Yen.–Burush. isogloss.
Synchronically *-s in Yen. *čɨʔs may be a singulative suffix (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. *¢ä¢wV ‘small
stone’ (reconstructing the SCauc. root as *¢ä¢wV ‘stone’) which seems
theoretically possible, but not very apt either semantically or phonetically.
68. zuwa-tu ‘wife’ or rather ‘concubine’
= Hitt. DAM.
√ SCauc. *¢wðjV (~ sṭ-, ~ -I-) ‘female’ >
NCauc. *¢

wŏjV (~ -I-) ‘woman, female’ > Nakh *psṭuw ‘wife; princess’,
Av.-And. *(:ʷijV ‘female’, Lak c:u- ‘female’, WCauc. *pə-zV ‘female;
bitch’.
STib. > Chin. 雌 *ćhej ‘female’.
Basque *a-ćo ‘old woman, (Sal) grandmother’.
→ Hattic -tu is the “female” suffix -t(u)/ -š(u).
Similarly Иванов, 1985, № 83 (Hatt. + East Cauc. + incorrectly WCauc.
*sʷə(mə)(V ‘woman’), and Браун, 1994, 19 (Hatt. + WCauc. *pə-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. *=VʔwVŋ ‘to go, travel’ >
NCauc. *=VʔwVn ‘to go’ > Nakh *ʡo-, Av.-And. *=VʔVn-, Tsez. *=oʔ-, Lak
na-; cf. Hurr. un-, Urart. nun- ‘to come’.
STib. *ʔʷă (s-, -ŋ) ‘to go’.
Yen. *hejVŋ ‘to go’ > Ket ējeŋ
1
/ ɛjeŋ
5
; Yug ejiŋ
1
; Kott. hejaŋ. Probably
*hejVŋ developed from Early Proto-Yen. *ʔwVʔwVŋ < *ʔVʔwVŋ (SCC,
29).
Burush. *né- ‘to walk (go)’.
Basque *e-oHa-n ‘to go’.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 369
→ If the comparison is correct, Hattic shows the phonetic development *ʔw > 0,
which is unparalleled by the Sino-Caucasian daughter proto-languages.
3’. ašti or šti ‘bird’
= Hitt. MUŠEN.
4’. *aw ‘to come’(?) in awa ‘come here!’
= Hitt. ehu.
5’. haifenamul (haipinamul, haiwe
e
namul) ‘manhood, virility, courage’
= Hitt. pišnatar, LÚ-tar.
→ Morphologically opaque. It is self-suggesting to single out the “masculine”
suffix -l: haipinamu-l. On the other hand, one can see a compound
haipina-mul here. For its first part cf. the well-attested noun haippin with
an unknown meaning (probably abstract, derived from fin ‘child, son’). In
this case the second part -mul may correspond to:
SCauc. *mōr[Ł]V ‘male’ >
NCauc. *mōrŁV ‘male (subst.)’ > Nakh *mār ‘husband’, Dargwa *marga
‘male’, Lezgh. *morƛ:ɨl/*uorƛ:ɨl ‘man; male; male child; brave man, hero’;
STib. > Chin. 牡 *m(h)(r)ūʔ ‘male animal’.
If so, note the retention of *m- in Hattic -mul in the non-initial position.
6’.

hakazue-l ‘drinker, toaster’, ‘кравчий’
= Hitt.

eguttarra- (< egu- ‘to drink’).
→ The stem is apparently derived from the Hatt. noun kazue ‘bowl’ [32’] (< Se-
mitic) with the frequent prefix ha- and the “masculine” suffix -(i)l, see
Soysal, 1999, 164–165, fn. 7.
Иванов, 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. *=āmʒŬ, further to SCauc. *=āmśdÚ ‘milk, to milk’.
7’. hamuruwa ‘beam, rafter’, ‘(Dach)balken’
= Hitt. GIŠ.ÙR.
→ If genuine Hattic, then perhaps ha-muru-a with the nominal prefix ha-, al-
though the initial m- in an inherited root is unlikely.
Иванов, 1985, № 5 compares Hatt. hamuruwa with the WCauc. root *poqʷa
(~ p:-, (ʷ) ‘wood, timber’ (< NCauc. *mħĕrqwĕ (~ -ʕ-, -I) ‘birch; tim-
ber’), used in compounds, denoting some wooden instruments. Phoneti-
cally unsatisfactory.
In their turn, Ардзинба, 1983, 170, Chirikba, 1996, 423, Chirikba, 1996a,
59, quote the Abkhaz–Abaza compound *qʷǝ(m)bǝlǝra ‘beam over the
hearth, cross-beam’, which theoretically can be the source of borrowing
370 A. Kassian [UF 41
of the Hattic term.
The Hattic terminus technicus was borrowed as Akkadian (OB, Nuzi) amrû
‘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. γέφῡρα (~ β-, δ-) ‘dyke, dam; bridge’, Arm. kamurǰ ‘bridge’,
Turk. *köper ‘id.’ see an extended discussion in Martirosyan, 2010,
351ff.
8’. *hana in hanal, hanail, hanau ‘food
?

→ Cf. NCauc. *ħānħV ‘fat’.
9’. hanti (hant?) ‘to summon up
?

=
?
Hitt. galliš- ‘to summon up’.
→ Cf. SCauc. *=alg[w]Ăn >
NCauc. *=alg[w]Ăn ‘to speak’ > Av.-And. *gʷVl-, Lak =uk:i-, Dargwa
*=[a]lgwVn, Lezgh. *ʔalga(n), WCauc. *ga; cf. Hurr. kul- ‘to say, to pro-
nounce solemnly’.
Dubious STib. *khān (~ *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 suffix
of unclear nature.
10’.
(D)
hanfašuit ‘Throne-goddess, throne’
= Hitt.
GIŠ
halmaššuitta-,
GIŠ
DAG.
→ Apparently a compound: hanfa-šuit.
11’.

hantipšufa ‘cook’
= Hitt.

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 reflects the same term, borrowed probably via Hurrian inter-
mediation.
If genuine Hattic, then probably ha-palki from the hypothetical root *palk.
33

–––––––––––––––––––––––
33
Cf. Valério/ 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. brḏl ‘iron’,
etc., see below sub kinawar ‘copper’ [34’] for detail (for the first time the idea about the
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 371
On the other hand, Caucet.dbf (following Vjač. Ivanov’s theory about a par-
ticular relationship between Hattic and WCauc.) connects Hatt. hapalki to
the Proto-WCauc. compound *«Iʷə-\ʷV ‘iron’, lit. ‘metal + blue’: “it
seems very tempting to relate *«Iʷə-\ʷV to the attested Hatti name for
‘iron’, χap/walki (with χVw- rendering *«Iʷ- 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. *«Iʷə-\ʷV ‘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. *«Iʷə-pə\ə ‘(red) copper’,
lit. ‘metal + red’ (reconstructed on the basis of Adyghe–Kabardian *ʁʷa-
pλá ‘id.’), where the palatalized lateral fricative *\ is rendered by Hatt.
lki (cf. Hatt. malhip ‘good, favorable’ [49’] < WCauc. *ma\ʷV with the
WCauc. palatalized labialized lateral fricative *\ʷ > Hatt. lhip).
35

WCauc. *«Iʷə-\ʷV ‘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 *«Iʷə > 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 *ḱ > Anat. *ḱ > Luw. z, but the change l > r is unmotivated (the late toponymic evi-
dence with the fluctuation 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.
GIŠ
kišhit-
‘chair, throne’ < Hurr. kešhi without the assibilation. In any event, if we accept Yakubo-
vich’s 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 Казанскене/ Казанский, 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) Kazansky’s 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. βαρακίς · γλαύκινον ἱμάτιον
‘bluish-grey cloth’, Akkad. barraqtu ‘emerald’, etc.), see Melena, 1987, 224 ff.
34
On the phonetic shape of the reconstructed WCauc. *«Iʷə-\ʷV see esp. Starostin,
1997/ 2007, 711–712 (the discussion with Chirikba).
35
For meaning shifts in names of metals cf. also Hatt. kinawar ‘copper’ [34’] ~ Grk. κιν-
νάβαρι ‘cinnabar’, Hitt. kuwanna(n) ‘copper (ore)’ ~ Myc. ku-wa-no, Grk. κύᾰνος
‘dark-blue enamel, lapis lazuli, blue copper carbonate’.
372 A. Kassian [UF 41
cate *\ʷV > klu(b). Then the word penetrated (via Hittito-Luwians?) into
Ancient Greek as Χάλυψ/ Χάλυβος—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. χαλκός (Myc. ka-ko) ‘copper’, this term may independently ori-
ginate from WCauc. *«Iʷə-\ʷV ‘iron’ also (as per Старостин, 1985/
2007, 304, № 49), but its semantically more preferable source seems
WCauc. *«Iʷə-λʷV ‘copper, bronze’, lit. ‘metal + white’, which can be
tentatively reconstructed on the basis of Ubykh wə-sʷá ‘id.’.
Eventually one or more of the three WCauc. terms discussed above—*«Iʷə-
\ʷV ‘iron’ (‘metal + blue’), *«Iʷə-pə\ə ‘(red) copper’ (‘metal + red’),
*«Iʷə-λʷV ‘(white) copper’ (‘metal + white’)—spread all around Eurasia:
cf. Balto-Slav. *geleǵ- ‘iron’, Thai *hlek ‘iron’, etc., see Старостин,
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. kārum Hattuš); perhaps a self-designation of Hattians.
√ SCauc. *[k]wVn[ṭ]V ‘man’ >
NCauc. *kwVnVṭV (/ *ḳwVnVtV) > Nakh *ḳanat ‘young man, boy; hero’,
Av.-And. *kʷinṭa ‘husband; male’.
Yen. *keʔt ‘man, person’ > Ket kɛʔt (also as self-designation of Kets), Kott.
hit, Arin ḱit, Pump. kit.
→ Semantically very tempting (cf. especially the Ket ethnonym), but the fricati-
vization SCauc. *k > Hatt. h seems irregular (the same concerns the
simplification of the NT-cluster).
14’. her, hir ‘to allocate, assign; to entrust; to hand over, assign; to adminis-
ter’
= Hitt. maniyahh-, tapariya-.
√ SCauc. *χVłHé ‘arm, sleeve’ >
NCauc. *χĕłHe (~-a) ‘sleeve’ > Av.-And. *kʷo-χ:al (~ -ol), Lak ka-χ:a,
Lezgh. *χäla (~ -l:-).
Yen. *xɨre ‘arm’ > Ket iĺ, iĺi
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. μάρη ‘hand’.
15’. hu ‘to exclaim, pronounce’, also as an enclitic particle of direct speech
= Hitt. halzai- ‘to cry out’, -wa(r).
→ Cf. SCauc. *HarχÚ ‘to speak, shout’ >
NCauc. *HarχU ‘to sound, shout’ > Nakh *ʡaχ-, Av.-And. *=aχ-, Tsez.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 373
*=eχ- (~ -ʁ:-), Lezgh. *raχa-, WCauc. *χʷV ‘to shout’.
STib. *χʷV ‘to speak’ > Chin. 云 *wən, 曰 *wat, 謂 *wəts ‘to say, speak’,
Burm. hu ‘to speak, talk’, Kachin hɔ ‘to preach’ (an irregular onset in
Chin.).
Yen. *huxV- ‘to cry, shout’ > Ket dūɣə
1
, Yug dūɣ, Kott. hujei ‘shouting’ (a d-
prefix in Ket–Yug?).
Burush. *ha-n- ‘to call’
Basque *eran ‘to say’.
Probably an onomatopoeic expressive root with an unclear loss of the final
cluster *rχ in Hattic.
Alternatively Иванов, 1985, № 8, Браун, 1994, 21 and Chirikba, 1996, 422
compare the Hatt. root with WCauc. *qIa- ‘to say’, showing labialization
in some daughter languages (Abkhaz–Abaza ħʷa, Adyghe ʡʷa vs. Kabar-
dian ʡa, 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. *qäʔG ‘word’). As is
truly noted by proponents of the Hattic–WCauc. 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 Abkhaz–Abaza
ħʷa, which is used both as a verbal root ‘to say, tell’ and as an enclitic
quotation marker. It is very likely, however, that the Abkhaz–Abaza en-
clitic -ħʷa is the result of a secondary late development in Abkhaz–Aba-
za, since the particle status of this WCauc. root is not supported by
Adyghe–Kabardian 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’, ‘großes
?
Ištar-Instrument’
= Hitt.
GIŠ(.D)
INANNA.GAL.
→ Cf. SCauc. *jonHV > Yen. *ʔōn- (~ x-) ‘many’ ~ STib. *jòw ‘all’ ~ Burush.
*jṓn ‘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 ( ~ *χ-) ‘full, enough’ (without SCauc. cognates).
Improbably Иванов, 1985, № 9 (see below sub zinar [118’]). Untenably
Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
17’. hut ‘to get free, move (intr.)
?
’, ‘loskommen, sich bewegen
?

=
?
Hitt. nini(n)k- ‘to set in motion’.
374 A. Kassian [UF 41
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. *ʔi ‘this’ [> NCauc. *ʔi ‘this’ ~ STib. *ʔĭ ‘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. kiniššan, QĀTAMMA.
20’. *ippi ‘small
?
’ in ippi-zinar ‘a k. of lyre’, “kleines
?
Ištar-Instrument”
= Hitt.
GIŠ(.D)
INANNA.TUR.
→ Иванов, 1985, № 13 translates ippi as ‘finger’ or ‘hand’ (ippi-zinar ‘finger-
lyre, hand-lyre’), comparing ippi with Adyghe–Kabardian ʡa-pa ‘hand,
finger’ which is not likely phonetically (see sub zinar [118’]).
21’. išpel ‘evil man’
=
!?
Hitt. idaluš UN-aš.
→ The anlaut spelling iš-pí- can merely be a graphical representation of /SP-/.
36

Cf. SCauc. *šVłV (~ ¢-) ‘bad; to assault’ >
STib. *ś(r)uał > Chin. 篡 *chrōns ‘take by force, usurp’ (< *t-srōns?), Ka-
chin gəšun
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 sufficiently poison (a pool)’.
Yen. *sel- (~ -r-) ‘bad’ > Ket śēĺ, śēĺi
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” suffix -l from
the Hattic stem: išpe-l.
22’. ištarrazi-l ‘(dark/ black) earth, soil ; terrestrial, earthly(?)’, ‘(schwarze)
Erde, Erdboden; der Irdische(?)’
= Hitt. daganzipa-, dankui- tagn-.
→ -l is probably the “masculine” suffix 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 ištar-
Cazi-l ‘dark earth’ with an unknown sandhi.
For the second element -Cazi- ‘earth’ cf. SCauc. *jVmćV ‘earth, sand’
–––––––––––––––––––––––
36
See Kassian/ Yakubovich, 2002 for this orthographic rule in the Hittite cuneiform.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 375
[> NCauc. *jōmćV ‘earth, sand’ ~ Yen. *ʔeʔǯ- (~ x-, -ʒ-) ‘damp sand’ ~
Basque *hauć ‘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 *ʔars-
‘earth’ (Akkad. erṣetu, Ugar. ýrṣ, Hebr. ʔere(, Arab. ʔarḍ, etc., see
Semet.dbf). As an alternative solution Soysal, 2006, 112 attempts to con-
nect Hatt. is-ta-arazil to Hitt. arzili- ‘tin’.
Иванов, 1985, № 40 analyzes it as išta-razil and compares išta with WCauc.
*(ʷa ‘black’ (< NCauc. *¢ĂwnV ‘dark’); alternatively he segments it as
ištar-azil, comparing ištar with NCauc. *¢VndV (~ -m-) ‘black, dark’.
Both solutions do not seem probable.
Браун, 1994, 20, Браун, 2002, 56 and Chirikba, 1996, 414 unpersuasively
single out an element (i)šta-, comparing it with the Abkhaz–Abaza pre-
verb *sṭa- ‘on the ground’. Probably *sṭa- originates from the Abkhaz–
Abaza verbal stem *sə-ṭa- (or *sə-ta-, if the Abaza glottalization is secon-
dary), where *sə goes back to Common WCauc. *\ə- ‘to lie’ < NCauc.
*=äƛĔw ‘to lie, to put ; to lead’, see Caucet.dbf, Abadet.dbf.
23’. izzi ‘favorable, good’, also in
D
izzištanu ‘god of the Good Day’ < izzi
‘good’ + eštan ‘sun; day
?
’ [5]
= Hitt.
D
UD.SIG
5
.
√ SCauc. *ʡV(n)ǯV ‘good, big’ >
NCauc. *ʡV(n)ǯV ‘good’ > Tsez. *hõže (~ -ž:-) ‘well, all right’, Lezgh.
*ʔič:V- ‘good’.
STib. *ća ‘great, big’ > Tib. ćhe ‘great’, Burm. ćah ‘to be big (compared to
smth.)’, Kachin (H) tiŋ-ǯa ‘great’.
Basque *onća ‘well, good, benefit’.
→ Not quite reliable in view of too general semantics.
Иванов, 1985, № 80 compares Hatt. izzi with WCauc. *(ʷə ‘good’ (maybe
< NCauc. *mĭʒ

V ‘sweet’).
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc. *ṗə-źA ‘clean; good’).
24’. yah ‘sky’
= Hitt. nebiš.
→ Cf. Yen. *ʔa-j[a]k (~ x-, -g) ‘thunder’ > Ket ēkŋ
1
/ ɛkkiń
5
/ ɛkŋ
5
, Yug ekŋ
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) *jā ‘sky’.
Иванов, 1985, № 15 compares Hatt. yah ‘sky’ with WCauc. *(mV)-rəʁa
‘sun’ (< NCauc. *wiroq

Ă ‘sun’) which is improbable phonetically.
376 A. Kassian [UF 41
25’. yay, ya, ay ‘to give’
= Hitt. piya-.
26’. kait ‘grain, corn, grain-crop’ (also deified)
= Hitt. halki-.
→ Cf. NCauc. *q

HwōǯĀ ‘corn, wheat’ (> Tsez. *qečV, Dargwa *q:Iʷač:,
WCauc. *k:ʷač:ə (~ -c:-)). The correspondences NCauc. *ǯ ~ 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. ŠE; also deified:
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. kade—NCauc. *Łədwi / *ŁəŁədwi ‘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

fintu-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. *kwərV ‘a k. of vessel’, as proposed by Иванов, 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:Vrχ:V—the second element of the Av.-And. compound *\:iχ:ʷV-
q:Vrχ:V ‘rake’ [where the first *\:iχ:ʷV goes back to NCauc. *\

VχwV
(~ Ł-) ‘rake’].
Hitt. hah(ha)r(a)- ‘rake’ cannot be kept apart from these forms either. Proba-
bly a Wanderwort of unknown origin. Николаев, 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 κοδο- ‘roast barley’
(κοδομεία ‘barley-roasting’ [Poll.], κοδομεῖον/ κοδομήϊον ‘vessel for roasting barley’
[Poll., Hsch., Suid.], κοδομεύς ‘one who roasts barley’ [Hsch. ; -εύτρια, Poll., Phot.],
κοδομεύω ‘to roast barley’ [Hsch.]) or Hsch. καδρεμα · σίτου φρυγμός. Despite
Иванов, 1978, 158 f., obscure Lyc. A χθθα- can hardly be related here, cf. Neumann,
2007, 135 f. w. lit. and discussion.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 377
29’.
(D)
kašku ‘(deified) 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. išharweškiya-.
32’. kazue ‘goblet, cup’
→ A long ago recognized Semitic loanword: Akkad. kāsu ‘goblet, cup’, Ugar.
ks ‘id.’ etc. (see AHw, 454; DUL, 459). Cf. also Hurr. (Bogh.) kaz-
(z)i / kaši ‘goblet’ (Catsanicos, 1996, 242 f.), which is tentatively com-
pared with NCauc. *gaǯinV ‘jar, jug’ by Старостин, 1995/ 2007, 632,
but in reality should represent the same areal cultural term (further see
Soysal, 1999, 164–165, fn. 7).
33’.

kiluh ‘courier-spy’, ‘Läufer-Kundschafter’
= Hitt.

NÍ.ZU

KAŠ
4
.E.
→ Resembles WSem. forms with similar semantics: Ugar. ḳl ‘courier, messen-
ger’, Hebr. (Bibl.) ḳal ‘light, nimble, rapid (said of messengers); some-
thing speedy, fast riding animal, racer’ from the Sem. root *ḳll ‘to be
quick, rapid’ (see DUL, 700; HALOT). Hence it might be a WSem. loan-
word with the (Hattic?) h-suffix.
Браун, 1994, 22 proposes a typical bringen-Sie-etymology: Abkhaz a-ḳol-χ-
ra ‘to take off, carry away’, which probably contains the root χa (á-χa-
ra) ‘to pull, drag’ with the frequent preverb ḳǝl. Abkhaz–Abaza *qV- ‘to
pull, drag’ originates from NCauc. *=Hīq

V(r) ‘to pull, take out ; to drag,
carry’.
34’. kinawar ‘copper’
= Hitt. URUDU.
→ Without doubt the Hattic word relates to Grk. κιννάβαρι ‘cinnabar’. A
Wanderwort (‘red mineral’)?
Soysal, 2004, 365 tentatively connects Ancient Greek Κύπρος 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 Κύπρος
–––––––––––––––––––––––
38
For the Hattic loanword in Hittite
É
kaškaštipa- ‘gatehouse, portal’ see štip ‘gate’ [49].
378 A. Kassian [UF 41
requires some additional comments. The island name Κύπρος ‘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’: Κύπριος ‘Cyprian’, κύπρῐνος
‘1. made from the flower of Cyprus; 2. made of copper’, κύπριος ‘of
copper’ and so on. The similar shift from toponym to metal designation is
attested in Latin: cuprium [aes] > cuprum (probably under the Greek
influence). 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 Κύπρος 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 Alašiya (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 Alašiya was not an auto-
nym, but an exonym derived from a metal name, and connect Alašiya to
cuneiform alaš ‘copper’ or ‘bronze’ attested in a Nuzi vocabulary.
39
In
fact, however, Sum. ALAŠ ‘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 time—especially after the discovery of the Hurrian word kab(a)-
li ‘copper’—some authors (e. g., Neu, 1997, see also Reiter, 1997, 295 w.
prev. lit.) made an attempt to interpret Κύπρος 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 Tsezian–Avaro-Andian *kʷibV-l-
‘a k. of metal’: Av.-And. (Andian only) *kʷibV ‘iron’, Tsez. *kʷɨbu 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 Cyprus’s 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.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 379
NCauc. protoform as *kwiwV (~ -ē-, -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 Valério/ Yakubovich, forthc.) and various
Semitic forms with the meaning ‘iron’: Akkad. parzillu (OA, OB+), Ugar.
brḏl, Hebr. and Phoen. brzl, Aram. przl, Amor. /barzillu/, Arab. firzil, ESA
frzn (CAD P, 212 ff. ; DUL, 236; Artzi, 1969). Isolated Modern Svan
berež ‘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. bræs ‘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; flèche’,
burat- ‘anneau en fer qu’on passe dans la narine du chameau, et qui tient
lieu du frein’, and in the Ethiopian branch—Geez bərt ‘copper, brass’;
bərat ‘iron’, Tigre brät ‘iron’, Amharic bərt ‘metal basin’, brät ‘iron’, Ar-
gobba bräd ‘iron’, Harari brät ‘iron’, Gurage brät, bräd ‘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 Tsezian–Avaro-Andian proto-language
occurred ca. 2100 BC (see fig. 2 above). The relationship between Hurr. kabali and Tsez.–
Av.-And. *kʷibV is uncertain: -(a)l-i is a Hurrian suffix, known from some other nominal
stems; in its turn the Tsez.–Av.-And. root *kʷibV 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 *kʷibV-l- can be reconstructed at the Proto-Tsez.–
Av.-And. level. If Hurr. kabali was borrowed < Tsez.–Av.-And. *kʷibV-l-, the foreign
oblique marker can have been interpreted by Hurrians as a native suffix. The opposite
scenario looks similar: Hurr. kabali > Tsez.–Av.-And. *kʷibV-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. /ʷi/ which makes the idea of a
direct borrowing somewhat suspicious. Cf. also Старостин, 1995/ 2007, 632, who
connects NCauc. *kwiwV (~ -ē-, -b-) and Hurr. kabali as inherited etymological cog-
nates, but I am not sure that it is justified for such a cultural term.
41
The split of the Chechen-Ingush proto-language occurred ca. the early 2
st
millenni-
um AD.
380 A. Kassian [UF 41
Ethiopian words can probably be a Coptic loan, Takács, EDE 2, 124).
BIRT-forms with the meaning ‘iron’ are also attested among various
Cushitic (and Omotic?) subgroups (see Afaset.dbf sub *bir- ‘metal’,
Takács, 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-suffixes 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 Takács, EDE 2, 123 ff. sub
bjꜣ (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: Valério/ 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 find PRZL-forms. Luw. parza-, however, remains un-
etymologizable within Luwian or Indo-European (although the l-suffix
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. κιννάβαρι 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. Κύπρος. 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
?
kišat or mere tat / šat ‘to be(come) arrogant’
= Hitt. šullai-.
36’. kuka in the compound zifi-kuka ‘posterity, descendants’ (< *zifin-kuka
with regular simplification nk > k), where zifin [121’] means ‘grandchild,
descendant’
√ SCauc. *qwāqwV(-łV) ‘grain, seed; egg; hail’ >
NCauc. *qwāqwV(-łV) ‘seed, grain, egg’ > Av.-And. *qʷaqʷal ‘nut, walnut’,
Tsez. *quqV-LV ‘nut, walnut ; small stone’, Dargwa *qIʷaqI ‘grain’,
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 381
Lezgh. *qoloq ‘egg; fried eggs; testiculus’.
STib. *kōk ‘grain’ > Chin. 穀 *kōk ‘grain’, Burm. kauk ‘a k. of rice’, Lushai
kok ‘grain’.
Yen. *qoK- (~ χ-) ‘hail’ > Ket qɔgdəm
5
, Yug xɔksl
5
/ xɔksɨl
5
, Pump. xoxdá-
mon.
→ Probably the meaning of Hatt. kuka was ‘seed’.
37’. kunkuhu, kukkuhu (also kunkun
?
) ‘to be alive (intr.); to keep alive
(trans.)’
= Hitt. hušuwant- eš-.
→ Morphologically opaque. Cf. SCauc. *=HixqwV ‘to bear; to be born’ >
NCauc. *=HiqwĀ(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. *HrāgwV ‘to stay, leave’ > NCauc. *=argwV-n ‘to stay’ ~ STib.
*rak ‘to lay, place’ ~ Yen. *ʔākV- ‘to stay’.
A metathesis in Hattic?
39’. kurkupal ‘peg’, ‘Pflock, Nagel’
= Hitt.
(GIŠ)
GAG.
→ Cf. kurkufenna [40’].
40’. kurkufenna (also kurkupun?) ‘wooden stand (vel sim.) in rituals’
= Hitt.
GIŠ
arimpa-.
→ From kurkupal ‘peg’ [39’]? If so, the stem contains the suffix -na (-al-na >
-enna).
41’. kurtapi ‘foliage
?

=
?
Hitt.
GIŠ
happuriya-.
42’. kusim, kušim ‘throne’
→ A long ago recognized Semitic loanword: Akkad. kussû-m, kussiu-m ‘chair,
throne’, Ugar. ksÿ ‘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 reflecting the Akkadian mimation.
382 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 kōqt ‘das Innere;
Gemüt’, Yug kɔxtɨ
6
‘das Innere’ (Werner, 2002 1, 441, 446).
The etymology was proposed by Иванов, 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 suffix, therefore the Hattic–Yen. comparison
seems dubious. Further Ivanov’s cognates (WCauc. *ǵʷə ‘heart’ < NCauc.
*jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’) are not provable. Chirikba, 1996, 426 follows Ivanov
and adds Abkhaz *gʷə-ta ‘centre, core’ (*gʷə- ‘heart’ + -ta ‘place of’).
44’. kuzan, kuzzan, also huzza ‘hearth, brazier’, tete-kuzzan ‘big hearth’
= Hitt. hašša-, GUNNI.
→ Иванов, 1985, № 22, 79 unjustifiedly segments the Hattic stem as ku-zan,
proposing some unconvincing WCauc. etymologies for ku- and NCauc.
*¢ăjI ‘fire’ for -zan.
45’. lianu or elianu ‘implement
?
, utensil
?

= Hitt. UNŪTE
MEŠ
.
46’. lin ‘to drink
?
(vel sim.)’
→ Cf. SCauc. *=V\Vŋ ‘to wash’ (> NCauc. *=V\

Vn ‘to wash, pour; to weep’
~ STib. *ƛēŋ (~ -ā-) ‘to wash (by pouring water over), to spill’ ~ Burush.
*-hált- ‘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 daß
?

48’. mai(u) ‘a valuable cloth, linen cloth’
= Hitt. GADA.
49’. malhip ‘good, favorable’
= Hitt. aššu, aššiyant-, SIG
5
-ant-, SIG
5
-in.
→ Morphologically opaque.
As was noted by Chirikba, 1996, 428, very similar to WCauc. *ma\ʷV
‘good, luck’. Probably a WCauc. loanword, where the palatalized labial-
ized lateral *\ʷ is rendered by Hatt. lhip, cf. Hatt. hapalki [12’] for Hatt.
lki, representing WCauc. *\. The WCauc. form possesses reliable exter-
nal etymology: NCauc. *wēnλwē ‘luck, good’.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 383
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + Arabic loanword in Adyghe
42
).
50’. mar or kamar ‘to slit, slash’
= Hitt. iškalla-.
51’.

maššel (or

paršel) ‘cult performer, chanter, clown
?

= Hitt.

ALAN.ZU
9
.
→ If the first sign has the phonetic value MAŠ, not PÁR, the stem is a WSem.
loanword: Ugar. mṣl ‘cymbal player’, Akkad. (RS) māṣilu ‘(a musician,
performer)’, further cf. Hebr. Bibl. mǝṣiltajim, Ugar. mṣltm ‘cymbals’
from Sem. ṣll ‘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-prefixed form (unattested elsewhere) of Common Sem.
*ʔalp ‘cattle’: Akkad. alpu ‘bull, ox’, Ugar. ýlp ‘(head of) cattle; bullock’
etc. (SED 2, #4). Vjač. Ivanov (pers. comm. and Иванов, 2009, 8) ad-
vocates a Semitic origin of the Hattic term.
53’. miš, mis, meš, also mit
?
, piš
?
‘to take (for oneself)’, imp. miša ‘take
(for yourself )!’
= Hitt. -za da- ‘to take (for oneself)’, dai- (!) ‘to put’.
→ Cf. Yen. *ma(ʔ) ‘take!’ (> Ket maʔ/ 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 final consonant) in the Yen. allegro forms.
43

Браун, 1994, 22 quotes a strange Abkhaz form.
54’. mu, also fu ‘mother, lady, mistress (vel sim.)’
55’. muh and muhal ‘hearth’
= Hitt. hašša-.
→ Initial m- should point to a non-inherited word.
Of course, Hatt. muhal is rather similar to Sum. (ED IIIa+) MUḪALDIM
‘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 (< dím ‘to fashion, create’),
standardly forming craftsman names like kug.dím ‘gold or silver smith’
–––––––––––––––––––––––
42
Adyghe mǝλkʷ ‘property, fortune’ < Arab. mulk ‘ownership, property’ (Шагиров, 1977
1, 272).
43
On the other hand, Yen. *ma(ʔ) ‘take!’ can be an areal form, cf. ma, me, mä ‘take!’ in
various Mongolic and Turkic languages.
384 A. Kassian [UF 41
(kug ‘silver’), giš.dím ‘wood carver’ (giš ‘wood’), pana.dím ‘bow maker’
(pana ‘bow’), etc. At the present stage of research, however, the idea of
Hattic–Sumerian lexical contacts is unsupported by other data and cannot
be discussed in earnest.
56’. *muna in redupl. muna-muna ‘foundation, base, bed stone’
= Hitt. šamana-.
57’. muš or muša ‘smth. relating to tree, fruit
?

58’. nimah and via a contact dissimilation lmah ‘eye(s)’
= Hitt. šakuwa.
→ Can hardly be compared with SCauc. *wĕmqV ( ~ -xq-) ‘eye; witness’ (>
NCauc. *wĭmqV ‘witness; true’ ~ STib. *mjVk ‘eye’ ~ Yen. *ʔəqa- ( ~
-χ-) ‘to be visible’ ~ Burush. *-moq- ‘face; cheek’).
Note that the Hattic onset ni- cannot be explained as the possessive prefix le-
/li- (> ni-) ‘his’, since the known attestations explicitly contain this
possessive morpheme: li-nimah, ha-le-lmah, etc.
59’. nif (and nf ) or nifaš, nfaš ‘to sit’, ‘sitzen; sich setzen’
= Hitt. eš-.
→ Chirikba, 1996, 421 proposes a monophonemic comparison with WCauc. *sǝ
‘to sit’ which is nor persuasive.
60’. ntel ‘shape, form; body, body-frame’. The following attestations are
known: le-ntel, zi-ntil(-)
= Hitt. ešri-.
√ NCauc. *ʔĕndū ‘forehead’ > Av.-And. *hondV (~ ħ-), Dargwa *ʔant:a.
Or alternatively to NCauc. *nHǟṭV ‘forehead, face’ > Tsez. *maṭa ‘fore-
head’, Lak niIṭa ‘face’, Lezgh. *näṭ(a) ‘forehead; eyebrow; eyelash’,
WCauc. *naṭa ‘forehead’.
→ The Hattic stem contains the “masculine” suffix -l. The root may be nte, ente
or (with the reduction of the medial vowel in prefixed 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. paššu-.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 385
63’. *faku in redupl. pakku-paku, wakku-pakku ‘hammer’
= Hitt.
GIŠ
NÍG.GUL.
→ If one assumes the reduction of the medial vowel and strange simplification
lK > K, Hatt. faku can represent a proto-Wanderwort of unknown origin,
the same as NCauc. *bIlVgwi ‘hammer’ (> Nakh *barVg, Lak burg, Dar-
gwa *barɣʷi, Lezgh *p:ul[k]; irregular correspondences between NCauc.
daughter languages in the cultural word), IE *peleku- ‘axe’ (> OInd.
paraśú- m. ‘axe, battle-axe’ [RV+], Grk. πέλεκῠς ‘two-edged axe, battle-
axe’ [Hom.+], for Iranian data see Абаев 1, 451), and Altaic *pằluk῾V
‘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 Иванов, 1985, № 61, where the Hattic root is compared with
WCauc. *ḳʷə ‘handle’ (< NCauc. *ḳŭnʡV ‘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-šul, wa
a
wa
a
h-šul ‘in eagle-fashion’
= Hitt. haranili.
→ Probably onomatopoeic. Cf. NCauc. *uħālGV ‘a bird of prey; big bird’ >
Nakh *mɦāqqVl ‘kite’, Lak waIrq:u ‘magpie’, Dargwa *waIrq:- ‘mag-
pie’, WCauc. *bəʁIa ‘eagle; kite’.
67’. fafaya (wa
a
ppaya, wa
a
wa
a
ya, papaiya
?
) ‘father’
= Hitt. atta-.
→ Cf. NCauc. *babajV ‘father, grandfather’ > Nakh *babV (~ -ā-) ‘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.
GIŠ
parnulli-.
69’. *faš(i) in
D
wa
a
šul,
D
wa
a
šil,
D
wa
a
šiul ‘(deified) fecundity, abundance,
plenty’
= Hitt. iyatar tametar ‘fecundity and abundance’, ? aššu- ‘good’.
386 A. Kassian [UF 41
→ Note the “masculine” suffix -l in the Hattic stem.
Иванов, 1985, № 44 treats the Hattic root as šul, comparing it with the
WCauc. Abkhaz–Abaza adjective *pəśə-la ‘fat, thick’ from the noun
*pəśə- ‘fat’ (< NCauc. *=HrVjśĒ ‘thick, dense, fat’ with the frequent
WCauc. suffix *pǝ-). Not probable.
70’. paštae, pšatae (pšattai) ‘cudgel, bludgeon (vel sim.)’
71’. pašun, pšun, fašun
?
‘breath
?
; soul
?
; lung
?

=
?
Hitt. ZI.
→ Unfortunately the meaning of the Hattic stem cannot be established with cer-
tainty. If f(a)šun indeed meant ‘breath/ soul / lung’, it finds an interesting
parallel in Yen. (Ket) beńśiŋ
5
‘lung’, which is, however, usually explained
as a late compound of Yen. *beʔjiŋ ‘light’ + Yen. *seŋ ‘liver’.
On the other hand, there are some WCauc. form of a very similar phonetic
shape:
1) WCauc. *pəsA ‘soul, spirit’, which is analyzed as pə-sA, where *pə- is a
frequent WCauc. prefix, while the root *sA goes back to NCauc. *ʡămsa
(~ -ə,-ɨ) ‘sky, cloud; soul, breath; god’;
2) WCauc. *pəśʷA ‘to breathe; to get tired; to die’, containing the same pre-
fix *pə- and the common NCauc. root *sĭHwV ‘breath, to breathe’ (Nakh
*sa ‘soul’, Av.-And. *s:uh- ‘to get tired’, Lak s:iħ ‘breath, vapour’).
Since the Hattic morphological system has no counterparts of the WCauc.
prefix *pǝ- (a former class exponent?), one can guess only about the bor-
rowing WCauc. > Hatt. in this case.
See Браун, 1994, 20, and Chirikba, 1996, 424 (Hatt. + WCauc. *pəsA). Cf.
also Hatt. puš-an ‘to blow on, fan’ [43].
72’. fin, 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. *puʔn ‘daughter’, *puʔb ‘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
Vjač. Ivanov, e. g., Иванов, 2009, 8): Sem. *bin ‘son’ (Akkad. bīnu,
Ugar. bn etc.), but the borrowing of such a basic term from Semitic is
very unlikely proceeding from general reasons.
Cf. Браун, 1994, 19, and Chirikba, 1996, 424 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
73’. *fintu ‘?’ in

wi
i
ntu-kkaram, pintu-kkaram ‘cupbearer’, ‘Weinschenk,
Mundschenk’.
= Hitt.

SAGI.
→ A compound of karam ‘wine’ [27’].
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 387
74’. pip ‘stone’
= Hitt. NA
4
.
→ Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
75’. witanu ‘cheese’
= Hitt. GA.KIN.AG.
→ Probably derived from wet, wit ‘to be(come) sour/ bitter’ [34].
Иванов, 1985, № 67 quotes enigmatic Proto-East Caucasian *uintV ‘sour
milk’ without references.
76’. pu ‘to do’
= Hitt. iya-.
√ SCauc. *=ăhwV ‘to do’ >
NCauc. *=ăhwV(r) ‘to do’ > Nakh *=a-, Av.-And. *-ih-, Tsez. *=Vw-, Lak
=a-, Dargwa *0/-i-r-, Lezgh. *ʔaʔa(r)-, Khin. =ar, WCauc. *wə; cf.
Urart. u/or- ‘to make, to work’.
STib. *qʷ[i]ăj (~ ʔʷ-) ‘to make; to divide, distribute’ > Chin. 為 *waj ‘to
make, do, act’, Tib. bgjid ‘to make, to manufacture; to do, to act’, Burm.
wij ‘to divide, to distribute’.
Yen. *wVǯ- (~ b-) ‘to do, make’ > Ket bɛ:ŕi
4
, Yug bɛ:hl, Kott. ba-paj-aŋ,
Arin ša-pi-te ‘I make’.
→ Phonetically unclear. Note the similarity between WCauc., some STib., Yen.
and Hattic forms.
Cf. Иванов, 1985, № 4, and Chirikba, 1996, 419 (Hatt. + WCauc. *wə).
77’. pule, puli, pwu
u
li
?
‘to become, happen’
= Hitt. kiš-.
78’. pupišet ‘fire…’, ‘Feuer(stelle/ -stätte)’
= Hitt. INIM.IZI[…] or rather KA.IZI ‘mouth of fire’ = ‘fire pit / location’: see
Süel / Soysal, forthc.
79’. put and putu
?
‘to be’
= Hitt. eš-.
→ Cf. STib. *phɨw (~ -i-) ‘to appear’ > Burm. paw ‘to appear’, Kachin po
1
‘to
appear’, Kiranti *b(h)ó(-ks) ‘to be’.
A suffixation in Hattic?
80’. putu or put
?
‘to stretch (a sheep, lamb, kid) out (on a flat surface for
sacrifice)’
= Hitt. palzahai-.
388 A. Kassian [UF 41
81’. šah (also tah
?
) ‘bad, evil’
= Hitt. idalu-, HUL-lu-.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + an Abkhaz–Abaza compound).
82’. šaip (or even aip) ‘to make good’
= Hitt. SIG
5
-ahh-.
83’. šafat (šāwa
a
t) or mere fat ‘apple-tree’ or ‘apricot-tree’
= Hitt.
GIŠ
HAŠHUR ‘apple(-tree)’ or ‘apricot(-tree)’.
→ Cf. SCauc. *ʕämćṓ ‘a k. of fruit’ >
NCauc. *ʕämćō ‘apple; medlar’ > Nakh *ħamc (~ -ā-) ‘medlar’, Av.-And.
*ʔimči ‘apple’, Tsez. *ʔẽš: A ‘apple’, Lak hiwč ‘apple’, Dargwa *hinc ‘ap-
ple’, Lezgh. *ħämč ‘apple’, Khin. mɨč ‘apple’, WCauc. with b-prefix
*bVc:ʷV ‘medlar’; cf. Hurr. hinz-uri ‘apple’/ ‘apricot’.
STib. *ćh(r)iòH (~ jh-) > Chin. 柿 *,hrəʔ ‘Diospyros, persimmon’, Burm.
ćhih ‘the jujube, Zizyphus jujuba’.
Burush. *mićíl / *bićíl ‘pomegranate’.
Basque *mahanć ‘grape’.
Despite the semantic similarity, the phonetic relationship between the Hattic
stem and the SCauc. proto-form is quite unclear. Иванов, 1985, № 6
compares Hatt. fat with some modern East Caucasian forms. As a matter
of fact, Ivanov’s Avar weč ‘apple’ probably does not exist (the correct
form is ʕeč), while Tabasaran wič ‘apple’ is the result of a late phonetic
development with the labialization of the initial laryngeal < *ħäwč
< Proto-Lezgh. *ħämč, and therefore cannot be compared with Hattic fat
in any way.
It seems more probable that šafat was derived from the verb wet ‘to be-
(come) sour/ bitter’ [34], for the prefix ša- see HWHT, 238. On the other
hand, one can suspect a borrowing from WCauc. *bVc:ʷV ‘medlar’ here,
but the Hattic ša-prefix remains unexplained in this case.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (to WCauc. *(ʷa ‘apple’).
84’.
(D)
šaru,
(D)
taru ‘Storm-god’ (the standard spelling is ša-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.
*ŝaʕar > Akkad. šāru (OAkk.+) ‘wind (also mythologized or even dei-
fied); air; breath’, Hebr. (Bibl.) ŝaʕar ‘heavy gale’, ŝəʕārā ‘high wind’,
ŝʕr ‘to be stormy’ (CAD Š2, 133 ff. ; HALOT).
44
Theoretically Hatt. plene
writing can reflect WSem. ʕ, while the Hatt. fluctuation t~š reflects a lat-
eral.
–––––––––––––––––––––––
44
Deir Alla šr ‘heavy rain’ (HJ, 1191) probably relates to Arab. šrr ‘to pour’.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 389
An alternative connection to Sem. *ṯawr- ‘bull, ox’ (Akkad. šūru, Ugar. ṯr,
Hebr. šōr 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’. šhaf, šahaf (šhap, šhaw, šahap, šahaw) ‘god’
= Hitt. DINGIR(-u-).
→ Иванов, 1985, № 37, and Chirikba, 1996, 425 support old Mészáros’
comparison of the Hatt. plural form fa-šhaf ‘deities’ with the Adyghe–
Kabardian and Ubykh compounds of WCauc. *wa ‘sky; god’ + *šʷəχʷa
‘grey; powder’: Adyghe–Kabardian *wa-šχʷa ‘sky’, Ubykh wa-šχʷa
‘thunder and lightning’ < *‘heavenly blasting powder’ (the Ubykh word
does not mean ‘god’, see Шагиров, 1977 2, 89 f.). Certainly unconvinc-
ing.
Differently and untenably Браун, 1994, 19.
86’. šhezni ‘fox’
= Hitt. KA
5
.A.
→ SCauc. *chwōlé ‘fox’ (> NCauc. *chwōlĕ (~ -ă) ‘fox, jackal’, STib. *Crio
‘leopard’, Burush. *hal ‘fox’) is interesting, but SCauc. *l ~ Hatt. zn is in-
explicable.
87’. *šep in redupl. šep-šep ‘footwear, shoes’
= Hitt.
KUŠ
E.SIR.
→ Similar to some Semitic forms with footwear semantics: Syr. šēpā ‘scapus
(caligae); mucro nasi’ and Arab. šabāt- ‘chaque côté de la chaussure’,
which can goes back to Sem. *ŝayṗ ‘foot’ (Akkad. šēpu ‘foot’ ~ Soqotri
ŝab, ŝaf ‘foot’ and other MSA), see SED 1, #269 for the discussion.
On the other hand, Hatt. šep somewhat resembles NCauc. *māčVj ‘boot,
shoe’ (> Nakh *māčVj, Av.-And. *maču(jV) (~ -o-), Lezgh. *šʷVm(a)) and
Osset. mest- ‘soft morocco footwear, чувяк’, Turk. (Anat.) mest, Georg.
mesṭi etc. (see Абаев 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-.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + WCauc.).
88’. šezzit ‘a k. of stone
?
’, ‘ein unheilvoller Stein
?

=
?
Hitt. alhari- ‘(a k. of stone?)’.
89’. *(a)šne ‘offering (vel sim.)’
→ Found in compounds fula-šne ‘bread offering’ and tefu-šne ‘libation’. Cf.
also fapu-šne or pu-šne ‘etwas Nützliches’, para-šni ‘ein Gegenstand, der
den Göttern zugeeignet ist’, tahafaiu-šni or faiu-šni ‘etwas Nützliches’.
390 A. Kassian [UF 41
90’. šul ‘to let, to let in’, ‘lassen, (in ein Gebäude) zulassen’
= Hitt. tarna-.
→ Иванов, 1985, № 45 segments it as š-u-l from the hypothetical root *-u-,
comparing Hatt. š-u-l with Ubykh ca-wǝ-la ‘to let, release exhaustively’,
where ca- is a preverb used with verbs of motion (Vogt, 1963, 104), wǝ is
a frequent verbal root ‘to enter, go’ (< WCauc. *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ < NCauc.
*=orƛŬ ‘to go, walk, enter’), while -la is a regular exhaustive suffix.
Hardly justified.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 22: to the WCauc. verbal root *ŁʷV ‘to enter’
(< NCauc. *=orƛŬ ‘to go, walk, enter’), which is attested in modern lan-
guages with different preverbs.
91’. šuf (šup, šuw) ‘ox’
= Hitt. GU
4
.NITA.
→ Resembles some Semitic forms: Akkad. ṣuppu ‘white sheep’ (OA+, OB+),
Ugar. ṣp ‘white sheep’ (AHw, 1113; DUL, 787).
92’. tahalai[n…] ‘liver’
45

=
UZU
NÍG.GIG ‘liver’ or huišu- ‘raw’.
→ Formally resembles Sem. *ṭiḥāl ‘spleen’ (Ugar. ṭḥl, Hebr. pBibl. ṭǝḥōl etc.,
see SED 1, 248).
Иванов, 1985, № 49 compares the Hattic stem with NCauc. *Hlä\V ‘liver’
that is not persuasive.

93’.

tagulrunail ‘tent-man’, ‘Zeltmann’
= Hitt. LÚ
GIŠ
ZA.LAM.GAR.
→ Morphologically opaque.
94’. talfit (talwi
i
t) ‘(a wooden part of building), lock
?

= Hitt.
(GIŠ)
huimpa-.
→ The meaning ‘lock’ seems to be the best candidate for
(GIŠ)
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 talfi- with a t-suffix. The same root talf- is contained in the
Hattic loanword in Hittite: hattalu- ‘bolt, lock’, where the Hattic nominal
prefix ha- should be singled out (ha-talu-).
Иванов, 1985, № 51 compares the Hattic root with NCauc. *daro ‘tree;
conifer’ or *ṭwēlʔe (~ -ʡ-) ‘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’.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 391
95’.

tanišawa ‘sceptre-bearer, herald’
= Hitt. LÚ
GIŠ
GIDRU.
96’. tariš ‘horse
?

=
?
ANŠE.KUR.RA.
√ Burush. *ćhardV ‘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

taršipiyala-
‘charioteer’ (OS, with the NH variant

taršipala-, also known as a
Cappadocian PN: taršipiala/ taršipiali ; 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-.
→ Morphologically opaque.
99’. tiuz, ziuz ‘rock, stone block’
= Hitt.
NA4
piruna-.
→ Cf. ziš ‘mountain’.
100’. tuhul ‘four pillar construction (an element of house)’
= Hitt. 4-aš šarhuliuš.
101’. tuntu ‘to bewitch’
= Hitt. uddaniya-.
102’. tufi (tupi, tuwi
i
) ‘fear, fright’
= Hitt. nahšaratt-.
→ The same stem as tafa ‘fear’ [53]?
103’. tur ‘to hit, strike’
= Hitt. walh-.
104’.

tušhafadun tanišawe ‘(ein Angestellter bei Hofe)’
= Hitt.

GAD.TAR.
→ Cf.

tanišawa ‘sceptre-bearer, herald’ [95’].
–––––––––––––––––––––––
46
The Luwian verb :tarši- with an unknown meaning seems unrelated here.
392 A. Kassian [UF 41
105’.

tuttušhiyal ‘(ein Angestellter bei Hofe)’
= Hitt.

duddušhiyalla-.
106’. tuwahši ‘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.
TÚG
kureššar.
109’. ur or uri ‘spring, well’
= Hitt. PÚ.
→ Cf. SCauc. *ħwir¡ ‘water, lake’ >
NCauc. *ħwirɨ ‘lake, pond’ > Av.-And. *ʔin-ħʷVrV ‘lake, pond’, Lak baIr
‘lake, pond’, Dargwa *ħeru-ḳ > *ħerḳʷ ‘river’, Lezgh. *ʡʷir ‘lake, pond’.
STib. *ri(a)j ‘water’ > Burm. rij ‘water’, Kachin (H) numra ‘water’.
Yen. *xur
1
‘water’ > Ket ūĺ, Yug ur, Kott. ūl, Arin kul, Pump. ul.
Burush. *hurV- ‘wet ; becoming wet, overripe; juice of overripe fruits;
wave, stream, whirlpool’.
Although the fate of SCauc. initial *ħw- (and *ħ-) 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. *[Pŭ]r ‘to gush forth, jet’ (> Chin. 濆 *bər ‘gush
forth’, 瀵 *pərs ‘source, spring, gush forth’, Burm. panh ‘to jet, gush
forth’, Kachin npun
1
‘a spring’, (H) kəpun ‘to spring, well’), but the loss
of *P- in Hattic remains unexplained.
Alternatively Chirikba, 1996, 426 compares Hatt. ur with WCauc. *«Iʷarǝ
‘stream, torrent’ (Abkhaz–Abaza *ʕʷarǝ, Adyghe–Kabardian *warǝ)
which is phonetically not better, one could expect Hatt. h- here. East
Cauc. cognates of WCauc. *«Iʷarǝ are not clear (Caucet.dbf and
Abadet.dbf lack this WCauc. proto-forms), but one can think about its
connection to NCauc. *ʁHwadVrV ‘river, stream’ (> Nakh *ʡadurV, Av.-
And. *ʁador(V), Lak aItara, Dargwa *q:I(ʷ)art:) with an irregular drop
of the medial consonant in WCauc.
Untenably Браун, 1994, 20 (Hatt. + Abkhaz).
110’. urana ‘angular
?
’, ‘kantig
?

=
?
Hitt. tatrant-.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 393
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. *sēr
1
e ‘deer’ > Ket śɛĺ
4
, Yug sɛ:
h
r, Kott. šeli, *šele, *šeĺe,
47
Arin sin,
Pump. sálat.
→ 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 (Долгих, 1934, 78 ff. ; Алексеенко, 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 Иванов, 1985, № 69, who compares Hatt. zar with unclear
Nakh *ʔustiʁ- ‘ram’ (Chechen üstaʁ ‘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 (Старостин, 1988/ 2007, 334 f. advocates the contrary direc-
tion of borrowing: WCauc. > IE which is not likely in my opinion).
Браун, 1994, 20 (supported by Chirikba, 1996, 426) unpersuasively com-
pares Hatt. zar with Abkhaz–Abaza *,ə- ‘goatling’ (sg. *,ə-śə, collect.
plur. *,a-ra), which originates from WCauc. *źʷə (the Adyghe–Kabardian
cognate is *źa-jə ‘young, small’, used only as an element of compounds)
< NCauc. *¢

uhnV ‘goat’. Although the Abkhaz–Abaza collective plural
–––––––––––––––––––––––
47
Castrén, 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 дикий (‘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 *ʔustiʁ- to WCauc. *wasa ‘price; sheep’ accepted, e. g., in
Старостин, 1988/ 2007, 334 f., Starostin, 2009, 99 f., is very doubtful ; later this NCauc.
etymology was rejected in NCED.
394 A. Kassian [UF 41
suffix *-ra has obvious East Cauc. parallels (Nakh plur. *-r, Av.-And.
plur. *-r-, etc.), the comparison of Hatt. zar with Abkhaz–Abaza *,a-ra
‘goatlings’ seems a bringen-Sie-etymology (see 2.1.2 above).
113’. zar or zaraš ‘to exclaim, cry out’
= Hitt. halzai-, kalleš-.
→ Браун, 1994, 21, and Chirikba, 1996, 422 compare Hatt. zar(aš) with
WCauc. *(ǝrǝ ‘to chirp, squeak, cheep, peep’ and Abkhaz–Abaza
*(arǝ/ *(ǝrǝ ‘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. dandukeššar.
→ Иванов, 1985, № 70 compares Hatt. zari with the Proto-Nakh compound
*sṭ-aḳ ‘person, man’ (< NCauc. *ćwĭjo ‘man, male’ + *HĭrḳwĔ ‘man,
person’) which is not persuasive.
115’. zel, zil ‘to cry
?
, wail
?

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

= Hitt.
GIŠ
ŠÚ.A.
→ Both Ivanov’s comparisons (Иванов, 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\ŏnŭ ‘bottom’) and enigmatic Proto-East Cauc. *ʔVḳ:V
‘prince’ (without references).
118’. zinar, zinir ‘a k. of musical instrument, lyre’ (“Ištar-instrument”);
also as a command ‘Music!’
= Hitt.
GIŠ(.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 ǰnar ‘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;
Иванов, 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-rúm = Sum. BALAG, Hebr. (Bibl.) kinnōr ‘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.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 395
(Mari, RS) kinnāru ‘a k. of lyre’, Hitt.

kinar-talla- ‘singer, musician’,
Hurr. (Bogh.)

kinnaruhuli ‘musician’, Egyp. (New Kingdom) knnr
‘lyre’, Grk. (LXX) κῐνύρα [ῠ] ‘a stringed instrument played with the
hand’,
49
Arm. k‘nar ‘a musical instrument played by plucking’, possibly
OInd. (very late) kiṁnarā ‘a k. of stringed instrument’, Middle Tamil
kiṇṇaram ‘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 *ḱ > Anat. *ḱ > 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 find 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

Иванов, 1985, № 75 (supported by Chirikba, 1996, 427) compares Hatt.
zinar with Adyghe–Kabardian *pc:ǝna ‘non-percussion musical instru-
ment (in general)’
52
(Adyghe psǝna, Kabardian pšǝna ‘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 Ivanov’s 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
Adyghe–Kabardian *pc:ǝna reflects the same Wanderwort with the very
frequent WCauc. prefix *pǝ- (a former class marker?) and loss of final
-r.
54
A contrary direction of borrowing (Proto-WCauc. > Hattic zinar) is
not probable:
a) both Adyghe–Kabardian *pc:ǝna and Adyghe–Kabardian absolutive
case ending *-r lack WCauc. (as well as NCauc.) cognates.
b) the suffix -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, 313–316.
50
Despite Иванов, 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:ǝna cf., e. g., Paris/ Batouka 1/ 1, 631 (‘musical instru-
ment (in general)’).
53
But in his recent paper (Иванов, 2009, 8 ff.) the scholar adopts a migratory nature of
the Adyghe–Kabardian stem.
54
The final consonant of Hatt. zinar might have been reinterpreted as the Adyghe–
Kabardian absolutive case ending *-r.
396 A. Kassian [UF 41
Futher Иванов, 1985, № 9 compares the Hatt. compounds hun-zinar ‘great
?

lyre’ (see hun [16’] above) with the standard Old Adyghe compound
psǝna-šxʷa ‘a k. of big musical instrument’, assuming reverse order of the
elements in the Hattic form, but Adyghe -šxʷa ‘big’ (< Adyghe–Kabardian
*-čxʷa < WCauc. *čʷəχʷa ‘big; strong’ < NCauc. *¢HəqwV ‘big’) can-
not be compared with Hatt. hun in any way. The second known Hattic
compound ippi-zinar ‘small
?
lyre’ is compared by Иванов, 1985, № 13
with Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡapa-pc:ǝna ‘a k. of hand musical instrument’
((Old) Adyghe ʡapa-psǝn, Kabardian ʡapa-pšǝna ‘a k. of lyre or accor-
dion’), where Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa- —the first part of Adyghe–Kabar-
dian *ʡa-pa ‘hand, finger’—goes back to WCauc. *qIa (~ *q:Ia) ‘hand’
(< NCauc. *q

w[ǟ]łʔV ‘arm; bosom, armpit’)
55
. The comparison of Hatt.
ippi and Adyghe–Kabardian ʡa-pa is witty, but unpersuasive phonetically.
119’. zipah ‘a k. of knife
?

=
?
GÍR.
120’. zifi-kuka (zipikuka, ziwe
e
kuka) ‘posterity, descendants’, ‘Enkel (und)
Urenkel’
= Hitt. hašša- hanzašša-.
→ A compound of zifin ‘grandchild’ [121’] + kuka ‘seed
?
’ [36’] with the regular
simplification nk > k.
121’. zifin (zipin, zipen, ziwi
i
n) ‘grandchild, descendant’
→ A compound of zi ‘?’ [116’] + fin ‘child, son’ [72’].
122’. zizintu, zizentu ‘posterity
?
, seed
?
’, ‘Nachfolger
?
; Samen
?

= Hitt. ÉRIN.MEŠ UZU.GÉŠPU ‘Truppen der Körperstärke’.
123’. zuh ‘clothing, garments’
= Hitt. TÚG.
→ Иванов, 1985, № 78 quotes enigmatic NCauc. *čoq

ajV ‘clothing, garments’
without references.
124’. zulufe (

zuluwe
e
) ‘table man’, ‘стольник’
= Hitt. LÚ
GIŠ
BANŠUR.
–––––––––––––––––––––––
55
Pace Caucet.dbf and Abadet.dbf, Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa-pa ‘hand, finger’ can hardly
be separated from Ubykh qā-ṗá ‘hand’ and the other WCauc. compounds like WCauc.
*\a-ṗV ‘foot’, Abkhaz–Abaza *na-ṗə ‘hand’. Further to WCauc. *ṗV ‘extremity’
(< NCauc. *HaṗV ‘paw, extremity’), despite the irregular development WCauc. *ṗ >
Adyghe–Kabardian *p (probably the secondary dissimilative deglottalization **ʡa- ṗa >
*ʡa-pa as in some other similar cases).
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 397
6 Hattic–Sino-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, -ä, -i, WCauc. *-0.
→ Note that WCauc. languages have imperative in -0 as opposed to Hattic and
East Cauc. languages.
70. aš-/ iš-, plural of the accusative case
√ NCauc. *-š:w, plural stem marker > Nakh *-ši ‘plural’, Tsez. *-š(:) ‘plural
direct stem marker’, Lezgh. *-š ‘oblique stem plural’; cf. Hurr.-Urart. -aš
‘plural suffix’.
71. ha-, nominal and verbal (slot –3) morpheme with locative and dative
meaning ‘in, to’
√ NCauc. *-χV, ad series > Nakh *-x ‘inessive I, (adj.) comparative’, Av.-And.
*-χ ‘ad series’, Tsez. *-χV ‘ad series’, Khin. -χ ‘inessive 1 (“about”)’.
Alternatively to NCauc. *-GV ‘ad close / in series’ > Nakh *-ʁ ‘terminative
(causative) case; inessive I, (adj.) comparative’, Tsez. *-qV ‘ad close/ ver-
tical series’, Dargwa *-ʁI (~ -ʕ-) ‘ad series’, Lezgh. *-q:I ‘in filled series’,
WCauc. *q:Ia- ‘lative preverb (towards the speaker)’. Thus Браун, 2002,
55 (Hattic + WCauc.).
Alternatively to WCauc. *xa-, preverb ‘super; inter’ (thus Иванов, 1985, 33;
Браун, 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. *ḱʷə-/ *ǵʷə- preverb ‘super; ad, close to’; cf. Urart. -kai,
-kā ‘prelative’. Perhaps two original morphemes (*-k- vs. *-g-), but rather
hard to distinguish.
Yen. *-ka, locative case > Ket -ka/ -ga/ -ɣa ‘locative’, Yug -kej / -gej ‘loca-
tive’ (Werner, 2002 1, 402 f.), Kott. -ga ‘dative’ (Castrén, 1858, 34 ff.).
Yen. *k-, verbal preverb > Ket–Yug k(i)-, Kott. h- (Старостин Г., 1995,
168; Решетников, 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 suffix seems reliable.
→ Chirikba, 1996 and Браун, 2002, 55 propose some alternative WCauc. cog-
nates for the Hatt. morpheme.
398 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 še-/ 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’,
*-dǝ ‘she’, sing. subject (see Старостин Г., 1995, 148, 153; Решетников,
1999, 348, 462 f.).
→ Иванов, 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 suffix;
infinitive’, Av.-And. *-nV ‘ablative; translative’, Lak -n ‘dative I, lative,
infinitive’, Lezgh. *-n ‘genitive; elative; temporal ; suff. of adjectives and
participles; terminative; ergative’, WCauc. *-nə ‘ergative and general
indirect case; possessive case; transformative case’.
75. fa-, verbal morpheme (slot –7), 1
st
pers. sg. subject ‘I’
√ SCauc. *ŋV ‘I’ >
NCauc. *nI ‘I’ (1
st
pers. pronoun) > Lak na, Dargwa *nu (not a very reliable
isogloss).
STib. *ŋā- ‘I, we’ > Chin. 吾 *ŋhā ‘I, we’, 我 *ŋhājʔ ‘my, me’, 言 *ŋhan
‘I, we’, 卬 *ŋhāŋ ‘I, me’, Tib. ŋa ‘I, we’, ŋan ‘we’ (C), ŋed ‘I, we’, (d)ŋos
‘I, we, self’, ŋaŋ-ma ‘self, own’, Burm. ŋa ‘I’, Kachin ŋai
1
‘I’, Lushai ŋei
‘self’, Lepcha kă ‘I’, Kiranti *ʔòŋ/ *gòŋ ‘I’.
Yen. *b- (*ʔab-) / *aŋ ‘my’ (attr.) > Ket āp, Yug ap, Kott. m-inšo, an-še,
Arin b(i)-; *ba-/ *-aŋ 1
st
person sg. object > Ket b-, Kott. -aŋ (Решетни-
ков, 1999, 357, 461 ff.).
Burush. *a- ‘I’, 1
st
p. sg. pronominal prefix.
Basque *ni ‘I’.
→ In all likelihood Hattic shows the same development of initial *ŋ- as Proto-
Yen. does: *ŋ- > *m- > *P-.
76. fa-/ fi-, 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-/ fi- may correspond to the Yen. plural marker
*-ŋ- (both in nouns and verbs), if one assumes the phonetic development
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 399
*ŋ- > *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: ɣa-cǝ ‘his horse’ ~ ɣa-w-cǝ (> ɣō-cǝ)
‘his horses’, sǝ-tʷ ‘my father’ ~ sa-w-cǝ (> sō-cǝ) ‘my horses’, sǝ-tʷ ‘our
father’ ~ sa-w-cǝ (> sō-cǝ) ‘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.
Дьяконов, 1967, 173 (followed by Chirikba, 1996, 415) incorrectly com-
pares Hattic fa-/ fi- 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. *uō ‘thou’ (2
nd
p. pr.) > Nakh *waj ‘we (incl.)’, Av.-And. *mi-n
‘thou’ (2
nd
p. pr.), Tsez. *mə ‘thou’ (2
nd
p. sing. pronoun), Lak wi- ‘thou’
(obl. stem), Lezgh. *uo-n ‘thou’ (2
nd
p. pr.), Khin. wɨ ‘thou’ (2
nd
p. pr.),
WCauc. *wA ‘thou’ (2
nd
p. pr.); cf. Hurr. we ‘thou’.
Yen. *ʔaw (/ *ʔu) ‘thou’ > Ket ū, Yug u, Kott. au, Arin au, Pump. úe.
Burush. *u-n ‘thou’.
78. ta-, verbal morpheme with locative semantics ‘in(to)’ (slot –4)
√ WCauc. *tV- preverb ‘in; super’.
→ Proposed by Иванов, 1985, 33; Браун, 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-ħVnV ‘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’.
400 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 suffix, probably forming femininum (found in katta-h
‘queen’ [17], in two epithets of the Sun-goddess ka-aš-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 Soysal’s -ah
2
is the same
femininum suffix)
→ Иванов, 1985, 37 (followed by Chirikba, 1996, 415) compares it with
WCauc. *(ʷA ‘woman’ (found in stems like WCauc. *pə-(ʷA ‘daughter’
etc. ; goes back to NCauc. *qwänV ‘woman’) which looks very factitious.
126’. -i, locative case
√ NCauc. *-Hi, dative(?) > Av.-And. *-jV ‘dat. ; dat. anim. ; infinitive’, Tsez.
*-V(j) ‘erg. ; dat. ; infinitive’, Lak -j-nu, -ija ‘instrumental ; deverbative
nominal suffix’, Dargwa *-Hi ‘ergative; instrumental’, Lezgh. *-i (-Vj)
‘deverbative nominal ; masdar’, Khin. -i(j) ‘ergative/ genitive; infinitive’.
→ 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 *ḳa-l(e) ‘down, be-
low’, Av.-And. *-\:i ‘locative suffix (series Sub)’, Tsez. *ƛɨ-, *-ƛ ‘down,
below; locative suffix (series Sub)’, Lak luw, -l- ‘down, below’, Dargwa
*-ɣ(u)- ‘sub series’, Lezgh. *\:i-, *-\: ‘below, down; locative suffix (Sub
series)’.
→ Note the similarity between Hatt. ka-la- and Proto-Nakh *ḳa-l(e).
For alternative locative preverbal cognates in WCauc. (Ubykh and/ or Ab-
khaz–Abaza) see Chirikba, 1996, 414, Браун, 2002, 55. Note that Chirik-
ba and Braun propose their etymologies not for nominal la-, but for ver-
–––––––––––––––––––––––
57
An example. Ivanov (Иванов, 1985, 34) postulates the Hatt. “causative prefix 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 Abkhaz–Abaza–
Ubykh causative prefix *ʁa-. 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. kāsu ‘bowl’ with reliable Semitic cognates). Phonetically the comparison
of Hatt. k with WCauc. *ʁ is unpersuasive also.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 401
bal **li- (uncritically following old Forrer’s analysis), which does not
exist.
128’. fe-, nominal prefix 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 Abkhaz–Abaza *la-/ *lə- < WCauc. *Łʷa- ‘preverb inter’ <
NCauc. *-ƛ- ‘in filled series’ which makes the Hatt.–WCauc. comparison
phonetically impossible.
Браун, 2002, 56 compares Hatt. fe- with WCauc. *pʷA ‘nose’ (< NCauc.
*pŭrV ‘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 Abkhaz–Abaza level
only).
130’. taš- ~ šaš- and teš- ~ šeš-, verbal prohibitive morpheme (slot –9)
√ NCauc. *jò/ *¢ò, negative particle >
SCauc. *jò/ *¢ò, negative particle > Nakh *ca ‘not’ (used as a separate
word), Av.-And. *-(i, Tsez. *-(, Lezgh. *č: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 (-š) of the Hatt. morpheme is unclear. The
phonetic correspondence SCauc. *,/ *( ~ Hatt. /č/ seems slightly strange.
131’. tu- ~ šu-, verbal morpheme, theoretically can be the indirect object re-
flexive exponent (‘for oneself’). Slot –6
√ SCauc. *[č]V (~ št-) ‘self’ >
NCauc. *č[ŭ] ‘self, oneself (3
rd
–4
th
class)’ > Lak cu ‘self, oneself’, Dargwa
*če-/ ču- ‘(one)self (reflex. pronoun)’, Lezgh. *-ič(ʷ) ‘self, oneself (re-
flexive pronoun)’, WCauc. *čʷə- ‘for oneself (prefix of the subject ver-
sion)’.
STib. *śəj ‘private, oneself’ > Chin. 私 *səj ‘private, oneself’, Tib. śe, śe-
dag, śa-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)’ (> Abkhaz–Abaza
*(a- ‘under’, *(ǝ- ‘from down’, Adyghe–Kabardian *ca- ‘under’, Ubykh
402 A. Kassian [UF 41
-(a ‘bottom, lower part’, etc.), originating from NCauc. *H\ŏnŭ ‘bot-
tom’. The comparison was proposed by Браун, 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 first Hatt.–Hitt. phonetic isogloss is assibilation /ti/ >
/ʦi/, for which see 4.2.2.2–3 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) amrû ‘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. kāsu-m ‘goblet, cup’, Ugar. ks ‘id.’ etc.

An Akkadian loanword:
kusim, kušim ‘throne’ [42’] < Akkad. kussû-m, kussiu-m ‘chair, throne’ (fur-
ther to Ugar. ksÿ ‘seat, throne’ etc.), where Hattic -m probably reflects
Akkadian mimation.

West Semitic loanwords:
karam ‘wine’ [27’] < WSem. *karm ‘vineyard, vine’.
maššel ‘cult performer, chanter, clown
?
’ [51’] < Ugar. mṣl ‘cymbal player’,
Ugaritic Akkad. māṣilu ‘(a musician, performer)’.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 403
?

kiluh ‘courier-spy’ [33’] < Ugar. ḳl ‘courier, messenger’, Hebr. (Bibl.) ḳal
‘light, nimble, rapid (said of messengers)’ with the (Hattic?) h-suffix.
?
(D)
šaru,
(D)
taru ‘Storm-god’ [84’] < Hebr. (Bibl.) ŝaʕar ‘heavy gale’, ŝəʕārā
‘high wind’, ŝʕr ‘to be stormy’ (further to Akkad. šāru ‘wind; air;
breath’).
? šep ‘footwear’ [87’] < Syr. šēpā ‘scapus (caligae); mucro nasi’ and Arab.
šabāt- ‘chaque côté de la chaussure’ (further probably to Akkad. šēpu
‘foot’ ~ Soqotri ŝab, ŝaf ‘foot’).
? tahalai[n…] ‘liver
?
’ [92’] < WSem. *ṭiḥāl ‘spleen’.

Despite Vjač. Vs. Ivanov, the Semitic origin of the two following Hattic words
does not seem probable for some reasons: milup ‘bull, ox’ [52’] ~ Sem. *ʔalp
‘cattle’ and fin ‘child, son’ [72’] ~ Sem. *bin ‘son’. A phonetic similarity be-
tween Hatt. šam(a) ‘to hear, listen (vel sim.)’ [48] ~ Sem. *šVmaʕ- ‘to hear’ and
Hatt. šuf ‘ox’ [91’] ~ Akkad. ṣuppu ‘white sheep’, Ugar. ṣp ‘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) amrû
‘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. *«Iʷə-\ʷV ‘iron’ or rather *«Iʷə-pə\ə
‘copper’.
malhip ‘good, favorable’ [49’] < WCauc. *ma\ʷV ‘good, luck’.
? pašu-n ‘breath
?
’ [71’] < WCauc. *pəśʷA ‘to breathe’.
? hamuruwa ‘beam, rafter’ [7’] < Abkhaz–Abaza *qʷǝ(m)bǝlǝra ‘cross-
beam’.

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

The fact of Hattic–WCauc. 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-
buure’s (2008) schema of Hattic–Luwian–Hittite interferences at the beginning
of the 2
nd
millennium BC (with some remarks), Hattic–WCauc. contacts add new
404 A. Kassian [UF 41
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. šaki ~ Sum. ŠAG ‘heart’) and should be regarded today as a
chance coincidence.
Ancient Greek dialects possess a number of North Caucasian loanwords, see
Николаев, 1985 (some Nikolaev’s 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. κιννάβαρι ‘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 Hattic–Greek wandering word (‘red mineral’) of
unknown origin.
8 Conclusion
8.1 Linguistic affiliation
Above I list ca. 70 reliable Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons and ca. 10
reliable Hattic–Sino-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 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian phonetical correspondences is rather simple
and logical. Thus, according to the general comparative procedure (see Camp-
bell / Poser, 2008, 4; Бурлак/ Старостин, 2005, 7–24) 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
difficult 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, first, 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\ʷV ‘good, luck’, it suggests that Hattic–Proto-West Caucasian interferences
were much more intensive than we can judge today from the available Hattic data.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 405
reconstruction as it is presented today is somewhat preliminary (work in this
field 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 Hattic–Sino-
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-Tibetan–Na-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 Caucasian–Yenisseian 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. *\ānpV ‘lip’ ~ STib. *ƛep ‘tongue, to lick’ ~ Yen.
*ʔalVp ‘tongue’. The primary meaning of the proto-root was probably ‘to
lick’.
anna ‘when’ [2] ~ NCauc. *h[ä]nV ‘now’ ~ STib. *n[ǝ] ‘time or place of,
when’ ~ Yen. *ʔen ‘now’.
eštan ‘sun’ [5] ~ NCauc. *=Huǯ

V-n ( ~ -j

-) ‘to clear up (of weather)’ ~ STib.
*Ćoj (~ -l) ‘clear (of weather)’ ~ Yen. *ʔēǯ- ‘clear (of weather)’, *ǯin
‘bright day’ ~ Burush. *¢āŋ ‘clear (of sky)’.
han ‘sea’ [7] ~ NCauc. *xänɦI ‘water’ ~ STib. *χĭw(s) ‘water, moisture’ ~
Yen. *xäń (~ ʔ-) ‘wave’ ~ Burushaski *hán-chil ‘water from a wound;
watery (tea, soup)’ ~ Basque *u-hin ‘wave’.
harki- ‘to be(come) wide’ [9] ~ NCauc. *ɦărq[w]Ĕ ‘wide’ ~ STib. *qʷāŋH
‘wide, broad’ ~ Yen. *χiGV-ĺ ‘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 find’
kun ‘to see’ [21] ~ NCauc. *=agwV ‘to see’ ~ STib. *kʷēn ‘to glance at ; to
regard’ ~ Yen. *qo ‘to see’.
luizzi-l ‘runner, messenger’ [26] ~ NCauc. *hilčwĒ ‘to run (away)’ ~ STib.
(Chin. *ćhoʔ, *ćhōʔ, *ćōʔ ‘to run’) ~ Yen. *tut- ‘to flee, hide’
fa- ‘I’ [75] ~ NCauc. *nI ‘I’ ~ STib. *ŋā- ‘I, we’ ~ Yen. *b- (*ʔab-) / *aŋ
‘my’ (attr.) ~ Burush. *a- ‘I’ ~ Basque *ni ‘I’.
šaki- ‘heart’ [47] ~ NCauc. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’ ~ STib. *ʔròŋ/ *ʔròk ‘breast’ ~
Yen. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ ~ Burush. *dak ‘hope, belief’.
te ‘great, big’ [54] ~ NCauc. (WCauc. *dA ‘big’) ~ STib. *tajH ‘big, much’ ~
406 A. Kassian [UF 41
Yen. *tɨʔj- ‘to grow’.
ti ‘to lie; to lay
?
’ [55] ~ NCauc. *=ătV-r ‘to let, leave; to stay’ ~ STib.
*dhăH ‘to put, place’ ~ Yen. *di(j) ‘to lie down, put down’ ~ Burush. *-´t-
‘to do, make, set up’.
tefu ‘to pour’ [57] ~ NCauc. *=ǟwčĂ ‘to emit, pour; to vomit’ ~ STib. *ćəw
‘water, wet ; to scoop’ ~ Yen. *ʔa-č- ‘to pour’ ~ Burush. *ṣao ‘to wash’.
tu ‘to eat’ [59] ~ NCauc. *=V¢

V ‘to drink; to gulp, to eat’ ~ STib. *ʒhaH ‘to
eat’ ~ Yen. *sī- ‘to eat’ ~ Burush. *śi / *ṣi / *ṣu ‘to eat’.
tumil ‘rain’ [62] ~ NCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘rainy season’ ~ STib. (Chin. *ćhiw
‘autumn’) ~ Yen. *sir
1
- ‘summer’ ~ Basque *asaro ‘November; autumn’.

Hatt. ~ NCauc. and STib. : 15 etymologies.
halu ‘bolt, lock’ [6] ~ NCauc. *ḳułI/ *łIḳu ‘lock, bolt ; key’ ~ STib. *kălH
‘bolt, lock’.
hel, hil ‘to grow, ripen’ [11] ~ NCauc. *=ĭrqwĂ ‘to ripen’ ~ STib. *grĭ ‘old,
large’
her ‘to hide’ [12] ~ NCauc. *=igwVł ‘to lose; to steal’ ~ STib. *koj (~ -l) ‘to
hide’ ~ Basque *gal- ‘to lose’.
kaiš ‘horn’ [14] ~ NCauc. *ḳəlčwi ‘forelock, plait ; horn’ ~ STib. *khaj
‘horn, a pair of horns’ ~ Burush. *ɣuy ‘hair’.
ku ‘to seize’ [19] ~ NCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to put (together), take’ ~ STib. *Khu
(~ -ua, -əw) ‘take out, extract’
(a)ku ‘soldier, escort (vel sim.)’ [20] ~ NCauc. *HŭqwĂ ‘to graze, guard,
preserve’ ~ STib. *kŭ ‘to help; friend, companion’
liš ‘year’ [24] ~ NCauc. *ƛăjV ‘year, day’ ~ STib. *lòH ‘year, season’
(a)nti ‘to stand; to stay’ [28] ~ NCauc. *=Vm¢

Vr ‘to stand (up)’ ~ STib.
*ćhioH ‘to be at, sit, stay’.
paru ‘bright, shining’ [33] ~ NCauc. *pārē ‘lightning’ ~ STib. *prɨăŋH
‘bright ; morning’
wet ‘to be sour/ bitter’ [34] ~ NCauc. *ɦmVj¢

wĂ ‘sour’ ~ STib. *[ǯh]ɨam
‘salt’ ~ Burush. *ćhémil ‘poison’.
pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] ~ NCauc. *mIlćwV ‘wind’ ~ STib. *mŭt ‘to blow’
puluku ‘foliage’ [39] ~ NCauc. *ʕapālqwĔ ‘burdock; leaf(?)’ ~ STib. *phak
‘leaf’ ~ Burush. *bilágur ‘a k. of weed’
take-ha ‘lion’ [51] ~ NCauc. *¢ǟnq

V ‘lynx, panther’ ~ STib. *chi(ə)k ‘leop-
ard’.
tafa-r-na ‘lord’ [52] ~ NCauc. *¢

ombi ‘god; mercy’ ~ STib. *ćūm ‘honour,
authority’
zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68] ~ NCauc. *¢

wŏjV ‘woman, female’ ~ STib. (Chin. *ćhej
‘female’) ~ Basque *a-ćo ‘old woman’.

Hatt. ~ NCauc. and Yen. : 5 etymologies.
eš ‘to put’ [4] ~ NCauc. *=i¢Ă ‘to give, compensate; to put’ ~ Yen. *ʔes- ‘to
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 407
put’ ~ Basque *ecan ‘to lie down, rest (tr.) to put down’.
p(a)raš ‘leopard’ [37] ~ NCauc. *bħĕr¢ĭ ‘wolf’ ~ Yen. *pe(ʔ)s-tap ‘wolver-
ine’ ~ Basque *oćo ‘wolf’.
we ‘thou’ [77] ~ NCauc. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen. *ʔaw (/ *ʔu) ‘thou’ ~ Burush. *u-n
‘thou’.
taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] ~ NCauc. *čVqV/ *q

VčV ‘to scratch, rub’ ~ Yen.
*ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ ~ Burush. *qhaṣ ‘to rub’.
tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] ~ NCauc. *čɦorV ‘skin, shell’ ~ Yen. *təʔrap-
‘bread crust’.
Hatt. ~ STib. and Yen. : 4 etymologies.
kip ‘to protect’ [18] ~ STib. *Gāp ‘to cover’ ~ Yen. *qepVn- ‘to close
(door)’
fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] ~ STib. *p(r)IwH ‘to speak’ ~ Yen. *baŕ- ‘to pray’ ~ Bu-
rush. *bar ‘speech, word’.
fun ‘mortality’ [40] ~ STib. *moŋ ‘to die’ ~ Yen. *boŋ ‘dead man’.
tuk ‘to step’ [61] ~ STib. *ćek ‘to tread, trample’ ~ Yen. *čɔʔq- ‘to run’.

Hatt. ~ NCauc. : 6 etymologies.
han ‘to open’ [8] ~ NCauc. *=aχ

wVn ‘to open’
nimhu- ‘woman’ [27] ~ NCauc. *λɨnɦV (~ -ɨ-) ‘woman, female’
fel ‘house’ [30] ~ NCauc. *bēŁV ‘cattle-shed’
šahhu/ tahhu ‘ground, bottom’ [45] ~ NCauc. *čHäłu/ *čäłHu ‘earth,
ground, sand’ ~ Basque *śorho ‘meadow; field’.
šam(a) ‘to hear, listen’ [48] ~ NCauc. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent, listen’
zehar, zihar ‘(building) wood, timber’ [64] ~ NCauc. *¢

wēχV ‘stick, chip;
piece of wood, beam; timber’

Hatt. ~ STib. : 16 etymologies.
hel ‘to strew, pour’ [10] ~ STib. *q(h)ʷār ‘throw (into water), scatter’
(a)le ‘to envy (vel sim.)’ [22] ~ STib. *re ‘to dislike’
leli ‘source of light’ [23] ~ STib. *rołH ‘light’
lu ‘to be able’ [25] ~ STib. *lòw ‘to be able’
nu ‘to come, go’ [29] ~ STib. *nŭ ‘to tread, trace’
far ‘thousand’ [31] ~ STib. *bhăr ‘abundant, numerous’
pnu ‘to observe, look’ [36] ~ STib. *mVn ‘to perceive; to think’
fula ‘bread’ [38] ~ STib. *mor ‘grain’
fur ‘country; population’ [41] ~ STib. *PrVŋ ‘country’
puš ‘to devour, swallow’ [42] ~ STib. *mVt ‘to eat, swallow’
puš- ‘to fan (a fire or burning materials)’ [42] ~ STib. *bŭ, bŭt ‘to blow; to
fan’ (further to onomatopoeic NCauc. *pūHV ‘to blow, blowing’ ~ Yen.
*pV(j) ‘to blow’ ~ Burush. *phu ‘to blow’).
šai-l / tai-l ‘lord, master’ [46] ~ STib. *ćIH ‘to govern; lord’
408 A. Kassian [UF 41
tafa ‘fear’ [53] ~ STib. *tĕp ‘fear, to be confused’
teh ‘to build’ [56] ~ STib. *ćòH ‘to work; to build’
tuh ‘to take’ [60] ~ STib. *ĆŏH ‘to seize’ (further to NCauc. *=ăčwV ‘to
take, carry’ ~ Basque *eući ‘to take, hold, seize, grasp’).
zipi-na ‘sour’ [66] ~ STib. *cVp ‘bitter, pungent’

Hatt. ~ Yen. : 9 etymologies.
aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] ~ Yen. *ʔēč- ‘to let come, let enter’
kaš ‘head’ [16] ~ Yen. *ʔa-KsV- ‘temple (part of head)’
katte ‘king’ [17] ~ Yen. *kaʔt ‘old (attr.)’
fute ‘long (in temporal meaning)’ [44] ~ Yen. *bot- ‘often’
štip ‘gate’ [49] ~ Yen. *ǯīp ‘to cover; to plug; to close’
tup ‘root’ [63] ~ Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’
zik ‘to fall’ [65] ~ Yen. *də(ʔ)q- ‘to fall’
ziš ‘mountain’ [67] ~ Yen. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’
kap ‘moon’ [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’

A high number of exclusive Hattic–Sino-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 Старостин, 2007) with
10 additional words from S. Yakhontov’s 100-wordlist, taken from the second
part of the Swadesh 200-wordlist (see Бурлак/ Старостин 2005, 12—13 for
detail). Yakhontov’s 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. *tɨʔj- ‘to grow’.
6. bird ašti or šti ‘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. *rołH ‘light’ which are formally acceptable, but can hardly
prove some specific relationship.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 409
No. ENG Hattic Sino-Caucasian
7. to bite —
8. black —
9. blood —
10. bone —
11. breast —
12. to burn
(trans.)

13. cloud —
14. cold —
15. to come
aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] Yen. *ʔēč- ‘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. šahhu/ tahhu ‘ground’ [45] NCauc. *čHäłu/ *čäłHu
‘earth, ground, sand’ ~
Basque *śorho ‘meadow;
field’.

Cf. ištarrazi-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. *ʒhaH ‘to
eat’ ~ Yen. *sī- ‘to eat’ ~ Bu-
rush. *śi / *ṣi / *ṣu ‘to eat’.

Cf. puš ‘to devour, swallow’ [42] STib. *mVt ‘to eat, swallow’
23. egg —
24. eye nimah, lmah ‘eye(s)’ [58’]
25. fat —
26. feather —
410 A. Kassian [UF 41
No. ENG Hattic Sino-Caucasian
27. fire —
28. fish —
29. to fly —
30. foot —
31. full —
32. to give yay ‘to give’ [25’]
33. to go
nu ‘to come, go’ [29] STib. *nŭ ‘to tread, trace’
34. good
malhip ‘good, favorable’ [49’] (a WCauc. loan)
35. green —
36. hair —
37. hand —
38. head
kaš ‘head’ [16] Yen. *ʔa-KsV- ‘temple (part
of head)’
39. to hear
šam(a) ‘to hear, listen’ [48] NCauc. *=a(m)sV ‘to be si-
lent, listen’
40. heart
šaki- ‘heart’ [47] NCauc. *jĕ-rḳwĭ ‘heart’ ~
STib. *ʔròŋ/ *ʔròk ‘breast’ ~
Yen. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ ~ Bu-
rush. *dak ‘hope, belief’.
41. horn
kaiš ‘horn’ [14] NCauc. *ḳəlčwi ‘forelock,
plait ; horn’ ~ STib. *khaj
‘horn, a pair of horns’ ~ Bu-
rush. *ɣuy ‘hair’.
42. I
fa- ‘I’ [75] NCauc. *nI ‘I’ ~ STib. *ŋā- ‘I,
we’ ~ Yen. *b- (*ʔab-) / *aŋ
‘my’ (attr.) ~ Burush. *a- ‘I’ ~
Basque *ni ‘I’.
43. to kill —
44. knee —
45. to know —
46. leaf
puluku ‘foliage’ [39] NCauc. *ʕapālqwĔ ‘burdock;
leaf(?)’ ~ STib. *phak ‘leaf’ ~
Burush. *bilágur ‘a k. of
weed’
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 411
No. ENG Hattic Sino-Caucasian
47. to lie
ti ‘to lie; to lay
?
’ [55] NCauc. *=ătV-r ‘to let, leave;
to stay’ ~ STib. *dhăH ‘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 (~ χ-) ‘moon’
56. mountain
ziš ‘mountain’ [67] Yen. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush.
*ćhiṣ ‘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
taš- ~ šaš-, teš- ~ šeš-

65. one —
66. rain
tumil ‘rain’ [62] NCauc. *cōjwIlɦV ‘rainy sea-
son’ ~ STib. (Chin. *ćhiw ‘au-
tumn’) ~ Yen. *sir
1
- ‘summer’
~ Basque *asaro ‘November;
autumn’.
67. red Cf. kazza ‘blood red
?
, red
?
’ [31’]
412 A. Kassian [UF 41
No. ENG Hattic Sino-Caucasian
68. road —
69. root
tup ‘root’ [63] Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘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 find’

kun ‘to see’ [21] NCauc. *=agwV ‘to see’ ~
STib. *kʷēn ‘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 nifaš ‘to sit’ [59’]
76. skin
Cf. tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] NCauc. *čɦorV ‘skin, shell’ ~
Yen. *təʔrap- ‘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. *ćhioH ‘be at,
sit, stay’.
81. star —
82. stone pip ‘stone’ [74’]
83. sun
eštan ‘sun’ [5] NCauc. *=Huǯ

V-n ( ~ -j

-) ‘to
clear up (of weather)’ ~ STib.
*Ćoj (~ -l) ‘clear (of weather)’
~ Yen. *ʔēǯ- ‘clear (of
weather)’, *ǯin ‘bright day’ ~
Burush. *¢āŋ ‘clear (of sky)’.
84. to swim —
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 413
No. ENG Hattic Sino-Caucasian
85. tail —
86. that —
87. this imallen, imallin ‘this’ [18’]
88. tongue
alef ‘tongue’ [1] NCauc. *\ānpV ‘lip’ ~ STib.
*ƛep ‘tongue, to lick’ ~ Yen.
*ʔalVp ‘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. *λɨnɦV (~ -ɨ-)
‘woman, female’ (not a default
NCauc. root for ‘woman’)
99. yellow —
100. you (thou)
we ‘thou’ [77] NCauc. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen.
*ʔaw (/ *ʔu) ‘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. *mIlćwV ‘wind’ ~
STib. *mŭt ‘to blow’
109. worm + —
414 A. Kassian [UF 41
No. ENG Hattic Sino-Caucasian
110. year +
li-š ‘year’ [24] NCauc. *ƛăjV ‘year, day’ ~
STib. *lòH ‘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. *čɦorV ‘skin, shell’ ~ Yen. *təʔrap-
‘bread crust’.
we ‘thou’ [77] ~ NCauc. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen. *ʔaw (/ *ʔu) ‘thou’ ~ Burush. *u-n
‘thou’.

Hatt. ~ Yen.
aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] ~ Yen. *ʔēč- ‘to let come, let enter’
kaš ‘head’ [16] ~ Yen. *ʔa-KsV- ‘temple (part of head)’
ziš ‘mountain’ [67] ~ Yen. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’
tup ‘root’ [63] ~ Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’
kap ‘moon’ [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’

Hatt. ~ NCauc.
šahhu/ tahhu ‘ground, bottom’ [45] ~ NCauc. *čHäłu/ *čäłHu ‘earth,
ground, sand’ ~ Basque *śorho ‘meadow; field’.
šam(a) ‘to hear, listen’ [48] ~ NCauc. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent, listen’
nimhu- ‘woman’ [27] ~ NCauc. *λɨnɦV (~ -ɨ-) ‘woman, female’

Hatt. ~ STib.
puš ‘to devour, swallow’ [42] ~ STib. *mVt ‘to eat, swallow’
nu ‘to come, go’ [29] ~ STib. *nŭ ‘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. puš ‘to devour, swallow’ and pnu ‘to observe, look’ should be
excluded from the Hattic list of Swadesh’s 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. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen. *ʔaw (/*ʔu) ‘thou’ ~ Bu-
rush. *u-n ‘thou’, Hatt. ziš ‘mountain’ [67] ~ Yen. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. *ćhiṣ
‘mountain’ and Hatt. kap ‘moon’ [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 415
I believe that the statistic data above speak for a specific Hattic–North
Caucasian–Yenisseian relationship, but the supposition of a specific 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. Hattic–Yen.
/ \
Hattic Yenisseian

The Schema (b) might be more realistic in view of some specific 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 *ŋ- > *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 first half of the 2
nd
millennium BC) is more
archaic then Proto-Yenisseian (its split : the first 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. *ʔen < SCauc. *hVnV; praš ‘leopard’ [37] ~ Yen.
*pe(ʔ)s-tap < SCauc. *bħĕr¢Í ; eštan ‘sun’ [5] ~ Yen. *ʔēǯ-, *ǯin < SCauc.
*=HVǯV(-n) ; te ‘big’ [54] ~ Yen. *tɨʔj- < SCauc. *dVHV; fun ‘mortality’ [40] ~ Yen.
*boŋ < SCauc. *HmoŋV; han ‘sea’ [7] ~ Yen. *xäń < SCauc. *xänɦI, and so on.
Retention: harki- ‘wide’ [9] ~ Yen. *χiGV-ĺ ‘wide’ < SCauc. *ɦVrqwĔ.
A possible exception: ur(i) ‘spring, well’ [109’] ~ Yen. *xur
1
‘water’ < SCauc.
*ħwir¡ ‘water, lake’.
416 A. Kassian [UF 41
alef ‘tongue’ [1] ~ Yen. *ʔalVp ‘tongue’ vs. NCauc. *\ānpV ‘lip’.
han ‘sea’ [7] ~ Yen. *xäń (~ ʔ-) ‘wave’ vs. NCauc. *xänɦI ‘water’.
fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] ~ Yen. *baŕ- ‘to pray’ vs. STib. *p(r)IwH ‘speak’
taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] ~ Yen. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ vs. NCauc. *čVqV ‘to
scratch, rub’.

These examples are opposed to the following etymologies, where Hattic mean-
ings coincide with North Caucasian:
šaki- ‘heart’ [47] ~ NCauc. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’ vs. Yen. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ (cf.
STib. *ʔròŋ/ *ʔròk ‘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. *čɦorV ‘skin, shell’ vs. Yen. *təʔ-
rap- ‘bread crust’. Can be explained as a subsequent semantic specifi-
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): fig. 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 simplification 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 first half
of the 11
th
millennium BC, see fig. 8 for detail).
62
We cannot argue about the Hurrian and Hattic phonemic inventories due to their sim-
plified cuneiform transmission.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 417
be explained by the influence 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 (fig. 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): fig. 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 (4500–3850 BC), Maykop (that includes the great May-
kop kurgan and related complexes; 3850–3300 BC) and its successor Novosvo-
bodnaya culture (3300–2500 BC). For the periodization and dating see Lyonnet,
2007a, 13; Kohl, 2009, 243; similarly in Trifonov, 2007, 170; for details see
Мунчаев, 1994; Kohl, 2007, 73. It is important that according to Трифонов,
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: Трифонов, 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 (Мунчаев, 1994, 189 w. lit.).
418 A. Kassian [UF 41
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

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 419

Fig. 6. Distribution of copper and bronze artefacts. I = 7
th
to 6
th
millennium BC;
II = 5
th
to first half of the 4
th
millennium BC; III = mid-4
th
to first 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.
420 A. Kassian [UF 41

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 (Ан-
дреева, 1977, 50–55; Мунчаев, 1994, 169; Lyonnet, 2007b, 148). The Amuq F
period is now treated as contemporary to Maykop culture: 3850–3000 BC (Lyon-
net, 2007a, 13; Kohl, 2009, 243). Traditionally Amuq F pottery is derived from
the earlier Tepe Gawra (northern Mesopotamia) ware (Gawra XII–IX,
64
see
Андреева, 1977, 53–54). But, on the other hand, there is some evidence of
northern/ northwestern sources of the Maykop culture.
— Traces of Balkans–North 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 4920–4450 BC for XII. The new OxCal calibrations
should yield a date of somewhere between 4700–4400 BC.”
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 421
the later Novosvobodnaya culture spreads into southeast (Мунчаев, 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
first half of the 4
th
millennium BC), have been recently discovered in southern
Caucasus—northwestern Azerbaijan and central Georgia (Kohl, 2009, 242 w.
lit. ; Ахундов/ Махмудова, 2008, 41–43; 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 Трифонов, 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 (Мунчаев,
1994, 178–179; 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, 142–144; Kohl,
2007, 78–79 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 (3850–3500 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 Höyük, Troy II–III, 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. 75–86) 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 (“(…) l’apparition de la céramique
grise polie et lissée, ou l’introduction du décor peigné en Mésopotamie sont,
–––––––––––––––––––––––
65
Note that the traditional argument for the southern origin of the Maykop culture—slow
potter’s wheel, used by both the Maykop and Novosvobodnaya people (Мунчаев, 1994,
219)—does not seem reliable. Indeed slow potter’s wheel is known, e. g., from the
transitional phase between late Ubaid and early Uruk of Tepe Gawra—Gawra XII
(Rothman, 2002, 54; Charvát, 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: 4000–3300 BC; Kohl, 2007, 74–75; Zbenovich, 1996, 230). An alternative solution
is the supposition that it was a local Maykop invention.
422 A. Kassian [UF 41
eux, très probablement d’origine 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, Ахундов/ Махмудова, 2008, Akhundov, 2007).
66
Cf. Трифо-
нов, 2000, 259 w. lit. about the stylistic uniformity between Maikop and Late
Uruk applied art. For metallurgical isoglosses see Chernykh’s (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 BC—Uruk, Jemdet Nasr—and 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 influence are paired þ-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
þ-objects are known from the Mesopotamian iconography, where they serve as a
symbol of some deities, whose cults are associated with a bull ; see Канторович
и др., 2009 for details. According to Мунчаев, 1994, 209 similar paired þ-rings
were found in Hattic Alaca Höyük burials (as is well known, another striking
Maykop–Alaca 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 fig. 2 above for detail). They have been compiled by
G. Starostin as part of the ongoing research on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical
Tree of the world’s 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 influence 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 Maykop–Leilatepe
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).
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 423
The Maykop people can hardly be Semitic speakers (despite, e. g., Сафро-
нов, 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-Semitic—the 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.,
Сафронов, 1989, into Central Anatolia looks too fantastical from the linguistic
viewpoint.
The Maykop people cannot be identified 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 Микеладзе, 1994.
As has been proposed by various scholars, the Proto-Hurrians (Proto-Hurro-
Urartians) could be identified 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 fig. 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)
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 425
8.2.6 The split of the Basque–NCauc. proto-language into the Basque and
NCauc. branches glottochronologically occurred in the first half of the 7
th
mil-
lennium BC. It is hard to guess about the localization of the homeland of the
Basque–NCauc. proto-language (South Anatolia or Balkans, see 8.2.7 below),
but the first 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 Occam’s razor. See Старостин,
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 Старостин, 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 Çatal-Höyük 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. Старостин, 1988/ 2007, Starostin
2009, offers a solid list of Indo-European–NCauc. lexical parallels (including
some Indo-Hittite–NCauc. 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: firstly, 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
*ɦĕrVcwĭ ‘silver’, *lŏʒV ‘a bright metal’, *rĕwcwi ‘red copper ; gold’, *riƛ(w)e
‘brass; gold’, *ṭIš(w)ɨ ‘lead’, *ṭVtV(wV) ‘silver ; gold’. Note that none of them pos-
sesses Basque cognates. The NCauc. word ‘iron(?)’ quoted in Старостин, 1985/ 2007,
304 originally meant ‘blue’, see now Caucet.dbf sub *nHǟ\

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 *H¡g-ent-
/ *Harg-ent- ‘silver’ was probably borrowed from NCauc. *ɦĕrVcwĭ ‘silver’ and secon-
darily contaminated with IE *H¡g- / *Harg- ‘white, light’ (see Caucet.dbf, Старостин,
1988/ 2007, 334; , Starostin, 2009, 99).
426 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 specific 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 Basque–NCauc. 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 Дыбо, 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 significant 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 (Dniepr–Don region, the
first half of the 5
th
– the first half of the 4
th
millennia BC) could at a stretch satisfy these
conditions, but the absence of proper steppe floral terms or specific 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 Старостин, 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 *ɦɨ[n]čwĭ
(~ -ĕ) ‘horse’.
A sometimes proposed argument for the kurgan theory is the IE–Uralic lexical con-
tacts, but these contacts date back to the Indo-Iranian epoch, not earlier (Proto-IE–Proto-
Ural. isoglosses which belong mostly to the basic vocabulary represent the Nostratic
heritage). Various Anatolian / South Caucasian models reflect 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 Дьяконов, 1982a and 1982b for the
heavy criticism of these connections. The most probable Proto-Semitic loanword in IE is
the designation of ‘7’ (Blažek, 1999, 246 ff.), but, firstly, it was a wandering word in that
region (cf. Kartv. *šwid- ‘7’, probably Hurr. šitta- ‘7’ and Etruscan semφ), 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 *taµr-os ‘aurochs’ < Sem.
*ṯawr- ‘bull, ox’ (Akkad. šūru, Ugar. ṯr, Hebr. šōr, 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. *ṯ tended to shift to [t], thereupon spread into the Wes-
tern IE dialects—cf. 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 IE–Semitic 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 Nostratic–Afro-Asiatic heritage.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 427
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. Today’s
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 Basque–North 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 (3850–3300 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 find some Maykop-influenced 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 Старостин, 1985/ 2007, 310 f., Proto-NCauc. people knew
horse-breeding, stock-breeding, agriculture, textile and metallurgy that exactly
fits the Maykop culture (see Мунчаев, 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).
Милитарев/ Старостин, 2007, 876–881 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 fits 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 myth—see the ex-
tended discussion in Kohl, 2007, 51, 126–144. 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 Caucasian–Proto-Indo-European contacts within the
Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province.
73
Eight connections labeled as “Proto-Afrasian–Proto-North Caucasian isoglosses” by
A. Militarev / G. Starostin (Милитарев/ Старостин, 2007, 879 f.) could reflect not the
Proto-Afroas.–Proto-NCauc. contacts (which is impossible chronologically), but the
428 A. Kassian [UF 41
As is noted in 2.2.3 above, the ECauc. stock of the NCauc. family demon-
strates the shift from prefixal verbal morphology to suffixal systems, as opposed
to the more archaic West Caucasian stock, which retains verbal prefixation 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
prefixation to suffixation.
During the late 3
rd
– 2
nd
millennia BC. ECauc. and WCauc. dialects were do-
nors of some loanwords into Hattic (see above), Hittite (Николаев, 1985
74
) and
even in Ancient Greek (Николаев, 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 (fig. 9–14). 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 East—Afro-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 fig. 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 Natufian 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 Nikolaev’s 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 ‘fleshy part of sacri-
ficial animals’ < Nakh *moħ, obl. base *maħar- ‘fat (n.)’, Hitt. mariš (“From the
mou[th(?) …] evil saliva […] evil m. […]”) < Nakh *marš ‘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)’ *zʷA goes back to NCauc.
*=āmʒŬ ‘to milk’ ; the WCauc. verb for ‘to eat (of humans)’ *fV goes back to NCauc.
*ɦĭfV ‘to graze, feed’ ; WCauc. *-ṗV ‘human extremity’ (attested in compounds only:
*λ´a-ṗV ‘foot’, Abkhaz–Abaza *na-ṗə, Ubykh qā-ṗá ‘hand’, Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa-pa
‘hand, finger’) originates from NCauc. *HaṗV ‘paw’. Alternatively cf. Singer, 2007,
who supposes that Kaska were the remnants of the indigenous Hattic population.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 429
ous authors in Bocquet-Appel / Bar-Yosef, 2008 for general effect of Neolithic
demographic transition and subsequent language diversity.
b) A. Militarev/ G. Starostin (Милитарев/ Старостин, 2007, 879 f.) propose
eight cultural lexical borrowings between Proto-Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Sino-
Caucasian (the title “Proto-Afrasian—Proto-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 (Çatal-Höyük 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-Tibetan–Na-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.
430 A. Kassian [UF 41
Phase 2. The break-up of the North Caucasian–Basque and Yenisseian–Buru-
shaski branches (the second half of the 9
th
millennium BC).

Fig. 10. The split between the North Caucasian–Basque
and Yenisseian–Burushaski branches.
Phase 3. The split of the Yenisseian-Burushaski branch. I tentatively include
Hurro-Urartian and Hattic languages into the Yenisseian–Burushaski stock, al-
though the formal lexicostatistic evidence remains insufficient 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 first half of the 4
th
–3
rd

millennia BC). Theoretically some earlier (late Neolithic) cultures of that region
can be identified with the Proto-Hurrians also. The Proto-Hattians dislocate into
East Anatolia (cf. the Hattic Alaca Höyük 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 Burushaski–Yenisseian proto-lan-
guage splits at the middle of the 7
th
millennium BC, hence Karasuk culture (Late
Bronze Age; ca. 1500–800 BC) certainly cannot be identified with the Bu-
rushaski–Yenisseian 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 Клейн, 2000, where the
Karasuk culture is connected to the Proto-Tocharians (but Klejn’s Fatyanovo-Karasuk
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 431
attribution of the Tashtyk culture (Minusinsk Basin, the first 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,
чешуйчато-ленточная, обмазочно-валиковая, защипно-пальцевая), known
from the Middle Yenisei to the Minusinsk Basin during the 1
st
millennium AD;
see Леонтьев/ Леонтьев, 2009, 67, 76–83 w. lit.
78



Fig. 11. The split of the Yenisseian–Burushaski 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 kaša ‘iron(??)’ see now Дыбо А., 2007, 97)
78
Note that, according to Леонтьев/ Леонтьев, 2009, the Yenisseian valik pottery arises
under the influence of the corresponding “Hun style”.
432 A. Kassian [UF 41
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 first
half of the 7
th
millennium BC). The Proto-Basques move into Europe.

Fig. 13. The split of the North Caucasian–Basque branch (scenario 1)
and the migratory way of the Proto-Basques.
An alternative scenario is to locate the Proto-North Caucasian–Basque home-
land in the Balkans. In the first half of the 7
th
millennium the Proto-Basques start
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 433
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 first half of the 4
th

millennium BC that coincides with the North Caucasian Maykop culture.

Fig. 14. The split of the North Caucasian–Basque 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
ʔ voiceless laryngeal (glottal) stop
ʡ voiceless pharyngeal stop
ʕ voiced pharyngeal fricative
c voiceless hissing affricate (the same as ʦ)
č voiceless hushing affricate
g the same as ŋ (in Sumerian)
G voiced uvular stop/ affricate
ɣ voiced velar fricative
h 1) voiceless glottal fricative; 2) a velar of post-velar fricative (in cuneiform lan-
guages; the simplified transcription of traditional ḫ)
434 A. Kassian [UF 41
ḥ voiceless pharyngeal fricative (in Semitic; the same as ħ)
ɦ voiced glottal fricative
ħ voiceless pharyngeal fricative
H unidentified laryngeal (used in reconstructions)
I after any vowel or consonant signifies pharyngealization (in NCauc.)
j palatal resonant
ł a lateral resonant (different from plain l ; used in reconstructions)
L voiced lateral fricative
Ł voiced lateral affricate
λ voiceless lateral fricative
ƛ voiceless lateral affricate
ŋ velar nasal resonant
q voiceless uvular stop/ affricate
ʁ voiced uvular fricative
š 1) voiceless hushing fricative; 2) voiceless hissing fricative (in the Hattic, Hittite
and Hurrian cuneiform; the same as s)
ŝ voiceless lateral fricative (in Semitic)
ʦ voiceless hissing affricate (the same as c)
θ voiceless interdental fricative
x voiceless velar fricative
χ voiceless uvular fricative
z 1) voiced hissing fricative; 2) hissing affricate (in the Hattic, Hittite and Hurrian
cuneiform; the same as c/ ʦ and ʒ)
ʒ voiced hissing affricate
ǯ 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
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 435
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 (Abkhaz–Adyghe) 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
millénaires avant
notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Paris. Pp. 95–122.
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/ 1–2, 27–48.
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 brḏl, b(a)rz(e)l, ‘Iron’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28/ 4,
268–270.
Avilova, L. I., 2009: Models of metal production in the Near East (Chalcolithic
— Middle Bronze Age). Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia
37/ 3, 50–58.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2002: The Natufian 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. 113–126.
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.
436 A. Kassian [UF 41
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. 13–34.
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: Труды Института восточных культур и анти-
чности. Вып. XIX. Moscow: RSUH. Pp. 45–118.
Berger, H., 1998: Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager. 3 vol. Wiesba-
den.
Blažek, 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, 141–151.
Burney, Ch., 1997: Hurrians and Indo-Europeans in their historical and archaeo-
logical context. Al-Rafidan 18, 175–193.
Buruet.dbf: Burushaski etymological database by S. Starostin (based on H. Ber-
ger’s data). Available online at Tower of Babel Project.
Campbell, L. / Poser, W. J., 2008: Language Classification: History and Method.
Cambridge University Press.
Castrén, M. A., 1858: Castrén’s Versuch einer jenissei-ostjakischen und kot-
tischen Sprachlehre / Herausgegeben von A. Schiefner. St. Peterburg.
Catsanicos, J., 1996: L’apport de la bilingue de Hattusa à la lexicologie hourrite.
In Mari, Ébla et les hourrites. Amurru 1, 197–296.
Caucet.dbf: North Caucasian etymological database by S. Nikolayev and S. Sta-
rostin (= NCED). Available online at Tower of Babel Project.
Charvát, 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 générale. Mélanges
offerts à Denis Creissels. Forthcoming.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 437
Diakonoff, I. M., 1985: On the original home of the speakers of Indo-European.
JIES 13, 92–174.
— 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. 53–65.
Diakonoff, I. M. / Starostin, S. A., 1986: Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian
Language. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft, N. F. 12.
München.
Diamond, J. / Bellwood, P., 2003: Farmers and Their Languages: The First Ex-
pansion. Science 300, 25 April 2003, 597–603.
Dolgopolsky, A., 1989: Cultural contacts of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-
Indo-Iranian with neighbouring languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 8/ 1–
2, 3–36.
Fähnrich, H., 1980: Zur genealogischen Einordnung der hattischen und kassiti-
schen Sprache. Georgica 3, 73–75.
Forrer, E., 1921: Ausbeute aus den Boghazköi-Inschriften. MDOG 61, 20–39.
— 1922: Die Inschriften und Sprachen des Hatti-Reiches. ZDMG 76, 174–269.
Franceschetti, A., 2008: Musici e strumenti musicali alle corti micenee. In Atti
del XII Colloquio Internazionale di Micenologia. Roma, 20–25 febbraio
2006. Vol. 1. Pisa/ Roma. Pp. 309–321.
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.):
Musikarchäologie im Kontext : Archäologische Befunde, historische Zusam-
menhänge, soziokulturelle Beziehungen. Vorträge des 4. Symposiums der In-
ternationalen Studiengruppe Musikarchäologie im Kloster Michaelstein,
19.—26. September 2004. Rahden (Westfallen). Pp. 379–397.
Gabeskiria, Ş., 1998: Hattiler, Hatti ve Hitit dilleri üzerine bazı düşünceler. In
S. Alp / A. Süel (eds.): Acts of the III
rd
International Congress of Hittitology.
Çorum, September 16–22, 1996. Ankara. Pp. 223–231
Garelli, P., 1963: Les assyriens en Cappadoce. Paris, 1963.
Girbal, Chr., 1986: Beiträge zur Grammatik des Hattischen. Europäische 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, 137–180.
— 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. 949–981.
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. 57–80
438 A. Kassian [UF 41
Haas, V. / Thiel, H.-J. (eds.), 1976: Das hurritologische Archiv (Corpus der
hurri(ti)schen Sprachdenkmäler) des Altorientalischen Seminars der Frein
Universität 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 Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa. BoHa 19. Mainz. S. 248–303.
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 Wörterbuch. 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, 7–39.
Janhunen, J., 1998: Ethnicity and language in prehistoric Northeast Asia. In
R. Blench / M. Spriggs (eds.): Archaeology and Language II. London: Rout-
ledge. Pp. 195–208.
Kassian, A., 2009: Anatolian *meyu- ‘4, four’ and its cognates. Journal of Lan-
guage Relationship 2, 65–78.
— 2010: Review of A. Fournet / A. R. Bomhard, ‘The Indo-European Elements
in Hurrian’. Journal of Language Relationship 4, 199–206.
Kassian, A. / Yakubovich, I., 2002: The Reflexes 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. 10—48.
Kassian, A. / Starostin, G. / Dybo, A. / Chernov, V., 2010: The Swadesh wordlist.
An attempt at semantic specification. Journal of Language Relationship 4,
46–89.
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. 67–89.
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
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 439
steppe and the sown. Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Confer-
ence on Eurasian Archaeology. Brill. Pp. 3–39.
— 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 , 241–265.
Krebernik, M., 2006: Philologische Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Bezie-
hungen im Überblick. Babel und Bibel 3, 59–100.
Kun Chang, 1972: Sino-Tibetan ‘iron’: *qhleks. Journal of the American Orien-
tal Society 92/ 3, 436–446.
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, 141–188.
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
millénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient.
Paris. Pp. 11–20.
— 2007b: La culture de Maïkop, la Transcaucasie, l’Anatolie orientale et le
Proche-Orient : relations et chronologie. In B. Lyonnet (ed.): Les cultures du
Caucase (VI
e
–III
e
millénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le
Proche-Orient. Paris. Pp. 133–162.
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. 235–248.
Mallory, J., 1997: The homelands of the Indo-Europeans. In R. Blench /
M. Spriggs (eds.): Archaeology and Language, vol. 1. London: Routledge.
Pp. 93–121.
Manzura, I., 2005: Steps to the steppe. Or, how the North Pontic region was
colonised. Oxford journal of archaeology 24/ 4, 313–338.
Martirosyan, H. K., 2010: Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited
Lexicon. Brill.
Melchert, H. C., 2003a: Prehistory. In Luwians 2003. Pp. 8–26.
— 2003b: Language. In Luwians 2003. Pp. 170–210.
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. 203–232.
Museibli, N., 2007: Chalcolithic settlement Beyuk Kesik. Baku.
440 A. Kassian [UF 41
Neu, E., 1997: Zur Herkunft des Inselnamens Kypros. Glotta 73, 1995–1996, 1–
7.
Neumann, G., 2007: Glossar des Lykischen. Überarbeitet 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., 1988–2005: Dictionnaire abzakh (tcherkesse occidental).
Vol. 1–2. Louvain: Peeters.
Patri, S., 2009: La perception des consonnes hittites dans les langues étrangères
au XIII
e
siècle. ZA 99, 87–126.
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. Münster.
Rendsburg, G. A., 1982: Semitic przl / brzl / brḏl ‘iron’. Scripta Mediterranea.
Bulletin of the Society for Mediterranean Studies, Toronto, Canada 3, 54–71.
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, 1012–1022.
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 südkau-
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 Kaška? Phasis. Greek and Roman Studies 10
(II), 166–181.
Soysal, O., 1989: Der Apfel möge die Zähne nehmen! Or NS 58, 171–192.
— 1999: Review of J. Klinger. StBoT 37. Kratylos 44, 161–167.
— 2004: Review of H.-S. Schuster, Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen II. BiOr
61/ 3–4, 355–377.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 441
— 2004a: The Angry Priests in a Hattian-Hittite Narrative. JANER 4/ 1, 75–98.
— 2005: On the origin of the royal title tabarna/ labarna. Anatolica 31, 189–
209.
— 2006: Das hethitische Wort für »Zinn«. Historische Sprachforschung
119, 109–116.
— 2010: Zum Namen der Göttin Katahzipuri mit besonderer Berücksichtigung
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. 1041–1058.
Starostin, G. S., 2010: Preliminary lexicostatistics as a basis for language
classification: A new approach. Journal of Language Relationship 3, 79–116.
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. 223–259 [available online at
www.nostratic.ru]. In Russian: Сравнительно-историческое языкознание
и лексикостатистика. In Лингвистическая реконструкция и древнейшая
история Востока. М. : Наука, 1989. С. 3–39. Reprinted in Старостин,
2007. Pp. 407–447.
— 1997/ 2007: A Review of V. A. Chirikba’s “Common West Caucasian” [Chi-
rikba, 1996]. In Старостин, 2007. С. 682–744. [First publ. : Mother Tongue,
vol. 3, 1997. Pp. 185–243.]
— 2007a: Indo-European among other language families: Problems of dating,
contacts and genetic relationships. In Старостин, 2007, 806–820.
— 2007b: Indo-European glottochronology and homeland. In Старостин 2007,
821–826.
— 2009: Indo-European—North Caucasian isoglosses. Mother Tongue 14, 77–
135. [First. publ.: Старостин 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.
Süel, A. / Soysal, O., forthc. : The Hattian-Hittite Foundation Rituals from Orta-
köy. Part II.
Takács, G., EDE: Etymological dictionary of Egyptian. Brill, 1999–.
Taracha, P., 1988: Zu den syntaktischen Verknüpfungen im Hattischen. AoF 15,
59–68.
Tower of Babel Project : Etymological database project “The Tower of Babel”,
headed by S. A. Starostin. In affiliation 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 südrussi-
schen Steppe. In Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im
Vorderen Orient und Europa. Mainz am Rheim. Pp. 167–176.
442 A. Kassian [UF 41
Valério, M., 2007: ‘Diktaian master’: A Minoan predecessor of Diktaian Zeus in
Linear A? Kadmos 46, 3–14.
Valério, 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 Mészáros, J., 1934: Die Päkhy-Sprache. The Oriental Institute of the Uni-
versity of Chicago. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 9. Chicago.
Werner, H., 2002: Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. 3 vols.
Wiesbaden.
Yakar, J., 2008: The archaeology of the Kaška. In A. Archi / R. Francia (eds.):
VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005.
SMEA 50. Roma. Pp. 817–827.
Yakubovich, I., 2002: Labyrinth for Tyrants. In A. S. Kassian / A. V. Sidel’tsev
(eds.): Studia Linguarum 3 (Memoriae A. A. Korolëv dicata). Moscow.
Pp. 93–116.
— 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. 9–36.
— 2009: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language. Leiden.
— 2009a: The Luvian enemy. Kadmos 47/ 1–2, 1–19.
Yenet.dbf: Yenisseian etymological database by S. Starostin (= Старостин,
1995 and Werner, 2002 with additions and corrections). Available online at
Tower of Babel Project.
Yildirim, T. / Zimmermann, T., 2006: News from the Hatti Heartland—The
Early Bronze Age Necropoleis of Kalınkaya, Resuloğlu, 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, 199–241.
Zimmermann, T., 2009: Frühmetallzeitliche Eliten zwischen Ostägäis 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 frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften”. Mainz. Pp. 1–32.

Абаев, В. И., 1958—1995: Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского
языка. Москва—Ленинград.
Алексеенко, Е. А., 1967: Кеты. Историко-этнографические очерки. Ленин-
град.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 443
Андреева, М. В., 1977: К вопросу о южных связях майкопской культуры.
Советская археология 1, 39–56.
Ардзинба, В. Г., 1979: Некоторые сходные структурные признаки хаттского
и абхазо-адыгских языков. Переднеазиатский сборник 3, 26–37.
— 1983: Послесловие. О некоторых новых результатах в исследовании
истории, языков и культуры древней Анатолии. In Дж. Г. Маккуин:
Хетты и их современники в Малой Азии. Москва. С. 152–180.
Ахундов, Т. / Махмудова, В., 2008: Южный Кавказ в кавказско-переднеази-
атских этнокультурных процессах IV тыс. до н.э. Баку.
Браун, Я., 1994: Хаттский и абхазо-адыгский (Hattian and Abasgo-Kerke-
tian). Rocznik Orientalistyczny 49, 15–23.
— 2002: Локальные префиксы хаттского глагола и те же морфемы в абха-
зо-адыгских языках. In P. Taracha (ed.): Silva Anatolica. Anatolian studies
presented to the Maciej Popko on the occasion of his 65
th
birthday. Warsaw.
Pp. 55–56.
Бурлак, С. А. / Старостин, С. А., 2005: Сравнительно-историческое языко-
знание. 2-е изд. Москва.
Долгих, Б., 1934: Кеты. Иркутск—Москва.
Дунаевская, И. М., 1960: О структурном сходстве хаттского языка с языка-
ми Северо-Западного Кавказа. In Исследования по истории культуры на-
родов Востока. Сб. в честь акад. И. А. Орбели. Москва—Ленинград. Pp.
73–77.
Дунаевская, И. М., 1961: Принципы структуры хаттского (протохеттского)
глагола. Переднеазиатский сборник 1, 57–159.
Дыбо, А. В., 2007: Лингвистические контакты ранних тюрков. Лексический
фонд. Пратюркский период. Москва.
Дыбо, В. А., 1994: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. Несколько
мыслей по поводу индоевропейской проблемы. I. In Язык—культура—
этнос. Москва: Российская Академия Наук, Научный совет по истории
мировой культуры.
— 1999: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. Несколько мыслей по
поводу индоевропейской проблемы. II. In Язык как транслятор культу-
ры. Москва: Российская Академия Наук, Научный совет по истории ми-
ровой культуры.
— 2002: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. Несколько мыслей по
поводу индоевропейской проблемы. III. In Встречи этнических культур
в зеркале языка. Москва: Российская Академия Наук, Научный совет по
истории мировой культуры.
— 2006: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. Несколько мыслей по
поводу индоевропейской проблемы. IV. In Глобализация—этнизация.
Этноязыковые и этнокультурные процессы. Москва.
Дьяконов, И. М., 1967: Языки древней Передней Азии. Москва.
444 A. Kassian [UF 41
— 1982a: О прародине носителей индоевропейских диалектов. I. Вестник
древней истории, 3, 3–30.
— 1982b: О прародине носителей индоевропейских диалектов. II. Вестник
древней истории, 4, 11–25.
Иванов, Вяч. Вс., 1978: Разыскания в области анатолийского языкознания:
3–8. Этимология 1976, 153–162.
— 1985: Об отношении хаттского языка к северозападнокавказским. In
Б. Б. Пиотровский и др. (ред.): Древняя Анатолия. Москва. С. 26–59.
— 2009: К исследованию отношений между языками. Вопросы языкового
родства [Journal of Language Relationship] 1, 1–12.
Казанскене, В. П. / Казанский, Н. Н., 1986: Предметно-понятийный словарь
греческого языка. Крито-микенский период. Ленинград.
Канторович, А. Р. / Маслов, В. Е. / Петренко, В. Г., 2009: Находка бронзо-
вых элементов управления быками (носовых колец) в 2009 г. и проблема
передневосточных связей майкопской культуры Северного Кавказа. In
Древность: Историческое знание и специфика источника. Материалы
международной научной конференции, посвященной памяти Эдвина
Арвидовича Грантовского и Дмитрия Сергеевича Раевского. Вып. IV.
14–16 декабря 2009 г. Москва: ИВ РАН. [Antiquity: Historical knowledge
and specific nature of sources. Moscow, Institute of Oriental Studies].
Pp. 49–52.
Карданов, Б. М. (ред.), 1957: Кабардинско-русский словарь. Москва.
Касьян, А. С., 2010: Хаттский язык. In Языки мира: Реликтовые языки Пе-
редней Азии. Москва. С. 168–184.
Клейн, Л. С., 2000: Миграция тохаров в свете археологии. Stratum plus 2,
178–187.
Леонтьев, Н. В. / Леонтьев, С. Н., 2009: Памятники археологии Кизир-Ка-
зырского района. Кемерово.
Микеладзе, Т. К., 1994: Протоколхская культура. In К. Х. Кушнарева / В. И.
Марковин (ред.): Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и сред-
няя бронза Кавказа. Москва: Наука. С. 67–74.
Милитарев, А. Ю. / Старостин, С. А., 2007: Общая афразийско-севернокав-
казская культурная лексика [Corrected and updated by A. Militarev / G.
Starostin]. In Старостин, 2007. Pp. 256–264, 876–881.
Мунчаев, Р. М., 1994: Майкопская культура. In К. Х. Кушнарева / В. И. Мар-
ковин (ред.): Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя
бронза Кавказа. Москва: Наука. С. 158–225.
Николаев, С. Л., 1985: Северокавказские заимствования в хеттском и древ-
негреческом. In Б. Б. Пиотровский и др. (ред.): Древняя Анатолия. Мо-
сква. С. 60–73.
Решетников, К. Ю., 1999: Морфология праенисейского глагола. Некоторые
результаты грамматической реконструкции. In А. С. Касьян / Ф. Р. Мин-
лос (ред.): Studia Linguarum 2. Москва. С. 304–480.
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 445
Сафронов, В. А., 1989: Индоевропейские прародины. Горький: Волго-вят-
ское кн. изд-во.
Старостин, Г. С., 1995: Морфология коттского глагола и реконструкция
праенисейской глагольной системы. In Кетский сборник (Studia Ketica).
Вып. 4. Москва. С. 122–175.
Старостин, С. А., 1982/ 2007: Праенисейская реконструкция и внешние
связи енисейских языков. In Старостин, 2007. С. 147–246. [First publ. :
Кетский сборник. Ленинград, 1982. С. 144–237]
— 1985/ 2007: Культурная лексика в общесеверокавказском словарном
фонде. In Старостин, 2007. С. 289–311 [First publ. : Древняя Анатолия.
Ред. Б. Б. Пиотровский и др. М., 1985. С. 74–94. In English: The Cultural
Vocabulary in the Common North Caucasian Lexical Stock. In Russian Ori-
ental Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Pp. 211–245.]
— 1988/ 2007: Индоевропейско-севернокавказские изоглоссы. In Старос-
тин, 2007. С. 312–358 [First publ. : Древний Восток: этнокультурные свя-
зи. Москва, 1988. С. 112–163; English translation = Starostin, 2009]
— 1995: Сравнительный словарь енисейских языков. In Кетский сборник
(Studia Ketica). Вып. 4. Москва. С. 176–315.
— 1995/ 2007: Несколько новых хурритских этимологий. In Старостин,
2007. С. 629–630. [First publ.: Вестник древней истории. Вып. 213(2).
Москва, 1995. С. 133–136]
— 2007: Труды по языкознанию [Works in Linguistics]. Москва.
Топоров, В. Н. / Цивьян, Т. В., 1968: Об изучении имени в кетском (некото-
рые результаты и перспективы). In Кетский сборник. Лингвистика. Мо-
сква. С. 229–246.
Трифонов, В. А., 2000: Курганы майкопского типа в северо-западном Ира-
не. In Судьба ученого. К 100-летию со дня рождения Бориса Александ-
ровича Латынина. Санкт-Петербург. С. 244–264.
— 2001: Дарквети-мешоковская культура. In Третья Кубанская археологи-
ческая конференция. Тезисы докладов. Краснодар—Анапа. С. 190–194.
— 2009: Существовал ли на Северо-Западном Кавказе неолит? In В. А.
Трифонов (ред.): Адаптация культур палеолита—энеолита к изменени-
ям природной среды на Северо-Западном Кавказе. Санкт-Петербург.
С. 84–93.
Цивьян, Т. В., 1968: Материалы к сложным словам в кетском языке. In Кет-
ский сборник. Лингвистика. Москва. С. 262–276.
Чикобава, А., 1960: Основные типы спряжения глаголов и их исторические
взаимоотношения в иберийско-кавказских языках. In XXV международ-
ный конгресс востоковедов. Доклады делегации СССР. Москва.
Шагиров, А. К., 1977: Этимологический словарь адыгских (черкесских)
языков. 2 т. Москва.
Шаов, Ж. А. (ред.), 1975: Адыгейско-русский словарь. Майкоп.
446 A. Kassian [UF 41
Яцемирский, С. А., 2009: Labyrinthos: суффикс -nth- в минойском и тиррен-
ских языках. In Аспекты компаративистики 4 [Aspects of Comparative
Linguistics 4]. Под ред. Г. С. Старостина. Москва: Изд-во РГГУ. (Orien-
talia et Classica: Труды Института восточных культур и античности.
Вып. XXVIII.) С. 98–111.
Abbreviations
AHw W. von Soden: Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 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. Sanmartín: 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 1–5 combined in one electronic edition. Leiden / New
York, 1994—2000.
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 2–3. Leiden, 2002.
HJ J. Hoftijzer / K. Jongeling: Diсtionary of the North-West Semitic
Inscriptions. Leiden / New York / Köln, 1995.
HWHT O. Soysal : Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung
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
2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 447
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.
Münster, 2000, 2005.
StBoT 37 J. Klinger: Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen
Kultschicht. StBoT37. Wiesbaden, 1996.

ЭССЯ Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological
dictionary of the Slavic languages]. Ред. О. Н. Трубачев. Т. 1—.
Москва, 1974—.

Anschriften der Herausgeber: M. Dietrich / O. Loretz, Schlaunstr. 2, 48143 Münster Manuskripte sind an einen der Herausgeber zu senden. Für unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewähr übernommen werden. Die Herausgeber sind nicht verpflichtet, unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen. Manuskripte für die einzelnen Jahresbände werden jeweils bis zum 31. 12. des vorausgehenden Jahres erbeten.

© 2010 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster (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, Göttingen Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-86835-042-5
Printed on acid-free paper

Inhalt

Artikel
Bojowald, Stefan Noch einmal zum Personennamen t6®6w©w 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 3rd 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 38–40) und die Unterscheidung zwischen dbb I, dbb II, dbb III................................................ 47 Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald Ugaritisch ©nn „(Komposit-)Bogenschütze“, qšt „Kompositbogen“, „Bogen“ und q‰®t /ƒÝ „Pfeil“. Beobachtungen zu KTU 1.17 VI 13–14 . 18b–25a .............................................................................................................. 51 Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald Präventiv-Beschwörung gegen Schlangen, Skorpione und Hexerei zum Schutz des Präfekten Urt‘nu (KTU 1.178 = RS 92.2014) ........................ 65 Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald Urbild und Abbild in der Schlangenbeschwörung KTU3 1.100. Epigraphie, Kolometrie, Redaktion und Ritual .............................................75 Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald Die keilalphabetischen Briefe aus Ugarit (I). KTU 2.72, 2.76, 2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 2.89 und 2.90...........................................................................................109 Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald ‰md I „Paar“ und ‰md II „Axt, Doppelaxt“ nach KTU 4.169; 4.363; 4.136 ; 1.65 ..................................................................................................165 Faist, Betina I. / Justel, Josué-Javier / Vita, Juan-Pablo Bibliografía de los estudios de Emar (4) .....................................................181

............581 Shea............. Issam K.......505 Melchiorri..................... État des études et perspectives de la recherche ........... Pirhiya / Ziffer.........263 Halayqa..... The Pattern book of a Philistine offering stand from a shrine at Nahal Patish...............303 Kassian....449 Matoïan.. Giovanni On the Problematic Term syr/d in the New Old Aramaic Inscription from Zincirli .....469 Mazzini.... Reality.......................... Issam K............. Juan-Pablo Les textiles à Ougarit.........525 Nahshoni......... Antioco............... Myth.243 Halayqa...... A.......................509 Murphy.................309 Keetman..... the land of his inheritance............................................... Valentina Le tophet de Sulci (S...........................543 Natan-Yulzary.................. Tropper’s Kleines Wörterbuch des Ugaritischen (2008). H.. Jan Die Triade der Laterale und ihre Veränderungen in den älteren semitischen Sprachen.......iv Inhalt [UF 41 Galil............ Perspectives de la recherche....................... Literature and History .......... Kelly J........................................ A Literary Perspective.............. the throne of his dwelling............ William H............ Anat’s Violence and Independence in the Ba®al Cycle ........ A Supplementary Ugaritic Word List for J.............. Shirly Divine Justice or Poetic Justice? The Transgression and Punishment of the Goddess ®Anat in the ¬Aqhat Story...............................193 Gillmann............. The Qeiyafa Ostracon........... Nicolas Quelques remarques additionnelles sur le siege de Lachish.... Valérie / Vita..... (With an appendix on the technology of the stand by Elisheva Kamaisky) .........601 ............................... Gershon The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa / Ne˜a®im. Separation of Powers in Ancient Israel ............ Language............ Two Middle Bronze Age Scarabs from Jabal El-Tawaƒin (Southern Hebron)...... Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language ................. and the Goddess Anat... Irit Caphtor............... Memphis.. H................................. Script...... Sardaigne).............

.............631 Sturm. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung hethitischer Ritualtradition und Kulturgeschichte (Piotr Taracha)..693 Valérie MATOÏAN (Hrsg....................... Rabb°tum – ein Ort der Textilmanufaktur für den aA Fernhandel von Assyrien nach Zentralanatolien (ca.. Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil (Oswald Loretz)...... SOMMER : The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Oswald Loretz).......... A (Small) Test Case in Relating Ugarit to the Hebrew Bible.........................): Society and Administration in Ancient Ugarit...713 .............................. Jahrhundert v... Englische Übersetzung des Textes von Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst...........................Chr.................................... Thomas Fr...... VAN SOLDT (Hrsg................................ 13–14 December 2007 (Oswald Loretz).........) ...........................................................701 Benjamin D............. LEMAIRE (Hrsg..611 Strawn........................................689 Sophie DÉMARE-LAFONT / A........................701 Rita STRAUSS: Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna.............................. Again..659 Buchbesprechungen und Buchanzeigen W..............................................................691 Jo Ann HACKETT : A Basic Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Oswald Loretz) 692 Detlev JERICKE : Regionaler Kult und lokaler Kult.................... Jerusalem und Umgebung im 19.....697 Carole ROCHE (Hrsg.......... Text – Grammatik – Kopie.694 Maciej POPKO: Arinna......................... 1930–1730 v........ (Hrsg.......... H....................................... Das Heilige Land in alten handkolorierten Photographien (Wolfgang.... Papers read at a symposium in Leiden... Studien zur Kult...... Thomas Bull leaping and other images and rites of the Southern Levant in the sign of Scorpius ......und Religionsgeschichte Israels und Judas im 9..............): Le Mobilier du Palais Royal d’Ougarit (Alexander Ahrens) ....708 W.............................. Zwickel) ..): Trois millénaires de formulaires juridiques (Oswald Loretz) ........... und 8. Eine heilige Stadt der Hethiter (Manfred Hutter)... (Oswald Loretz)..649 Zadok.............): D’Ougarit à Jérusalem.....): Alt-Jerusalem............................................................... HARDIMAN / H... Brent kwšrwt in Psalm 68:7. Ran Philistian Notes............................................690 Manfried DIETRICH / Walter MAYER : Der hurritische Brief des Dušratta von M÷tt°nni an Amen`otep III. Jahrhundert in Bildern aus der Sammlung von Conrad Schick und R....................................................2009] Inhalt v Staubli................703 Josef TROPPER / Juan-Pablo VITA : Das Kanaano-Akkadische der Amarnazeit (Matthias Müller) . SPEELMAN : Auf den Spuren Abrahams........ Chr................... a........... BERTELMANN u............................

.........737 Namen ...719 Indizes A B C D Stellen .................................................................713 Abkürzungsverzeichnis .........................................................745 Anschriften der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter .......................742 Sachen..........................................749 ......................................................................................): Studies on War in the Ancient Near East..........................................vi Inhalt [UF 41 Jordi VIDAL (ed................... Collected Essays on Military History (Fabrice de Backer).............................................................735 Wörter ..................................................................................................................................................................

Russian State University for the Humanities) for their criticism and general discussion (Vladimir Dybo........................ Some Adyghe–Kabardian and Ubykh forms are quoted from Карданов... additions and corrections to the Hattic data..................312 1......................4 Hattic morphosyntax.1 Vocalism (a very preliminary schema) .................. Naturally.... Verbal wordform (main slots) ...................... I am especially indebted to George Starostin for his help in the compilation of actual lexicostatistical trees of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily........ 1997 / 2007 for the final discussion)........ who has taken pains to read my MS through and made a number of valuable remarks..... Caucet............322 4..... Yenet.................... I adopt S................. Anna Dybo..... My warm thanks go to the participants of the Moscow Nostratic Seminar (Center for Comparative Linguistics of the Institute of Oriental Cultures and Antiquity.....313 1.............2 Hattic consonantism ...... Albert Davletshin and others).. Stibet....320 3 Previously proposed Kartvelian attribution ........1 Sino-Caucasian (or Dene-Sino-Caucasian) macrofamily ..........dbf..321 4..........316 2. ................5 ............... Starostin’s reconstruction of the Proto-West Caucasian phonological system which is somewhat different from Chirikba’s one (see Starostin....................... Buruet..........321 4 Sino-Caucasian hypothesis............dbf..................................317 2................. 1975 .dbf............312 1...............324 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 I am grateful to Oğuz Soysal (Chicago)............... consonantism......................................................................3 Hattic morphosyntax....................... 1957 .... Kassian..324 4.......2........... all the infelicities are the author’s only..4 Conclusions . All forms from Sino-Caucasian languages are generally given after the Tower of Babel Project databases (Abadet........ In the present paper I quote Hattic forms after HWHT unless otherwise mentioned..................321 4............................ Шагиров......................dbf......................311 1....2 Consonantism ..........319 2.. Nominal wordform (main slots).................. nominal and verbal morphosyntax)..................................................... I am grateful to Mark Iserlis (Tel Aviv University) for his help in archaeological matters.......................... Basqet.....................dbf......314 2. Шаов......3 Hattic–WCauc............. Vogt.............. root etymologies .......2 Phonetic correspondences........1 Hattic vocalism... Sccet...Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language A....314 2 Previously proposed West Caucasian attribution........1 General remarks................... Alexander Militarev.........dbf—see the list of references) unless otherwise mentioned........................dbf.......313 1.......... The tabarna-problem has been ardently discussed with Ilya Yakubovich (Chicago / Moscow)................... Moscow 1 1 On the Hattic language (Hattic vocalism...........................2.. 1963—standardly without special references.............................................. 1977 .....2 Structural features and morphosyntax ..

..............1 Labials .......................340 5...................2........338 5 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons...........2............................434 9...........402 8 Conclusion.............................................446 ........ Kassian [UF 41 4.2..........................9 xK(w)-clusters..........12 NC-clusters ..............6 Velar and uvular consonants ......................433 9......................................2..........................................2.....5 Laterals .....2................................400 7 Contacts with neighboring languages..2..2........................3 Alveolar..2..........1 Phonetic symbols (selectively) ...................327 4....................397 6.........368 6 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons ................2............2.......2....................................4 Other front consonants....340 5............................404 8.......................................................................336 4....................................................337 4................2..............................................2..........10 ST-clusters.................................................337 4...........................2 Dentals...329 4...........................................332 4.397 6...........................................2. and roots without etymology..336 4............... cognates .............7 Laryngeals ............and rC-clusters......................................................................................2 Geographical problem ... post-alveolar and palatal affricates..335 4................................................331 4....................2......................334 4.......2................ lC...............................2.....333 4.404 8............334 4.......2...................435 Abbreviations.2 Some auxiliary morphemes with dubious or improbable SCauc..........433 9.310 A.2..................11.................1 Linguistic affiliation ..............................................3 References .......2..............................2......................2 Loans.................338 4......................3 Root structure ............... cognates ....... Language name abbreviations..............416 9 Phonetic symbols....2....2 Language name abbreviations .........1 Auxiliary morphemes with reliable SCauc................8 Clusters with *w ......13 Clusters with laryngeals.......................... References ...... dubia.2................. cognates ......2.............2...............................................................1 Roots with reliable SCauc........................

Yalçin in “New investigations on the royal tomb of Alacahöyük” (paper presented on May 27 at the “Meeting on the Results of Archaeometry”—session of the 32nd International Symposium of Excavations.. 2008). We have to suppose that Hattians were Anatolian autochthons before the Hittite-Luwian migrations in this region (more about the sociolinguistic situation see Goedegebuure. Yildirim/ Zimmermann. g. But we cannot say the same about the prehistoric Hittito-Luwian tribes known to us. 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!]. developed pantheon and were metal-workers—it fits the Alaca Höyük culture very well. although Ü. The map reflects only known linguistic units ––––––––––––––––––––––– The Alaca Höyük royal tombs as well as the corresponding sites in the “Hatti Heartland” of the 3rd millennium BC—Kalınkaya. 2 .2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 311 1 On the Hattic language (Hattic vocalism. Zimmermann. 14) attribute the Alaca Höyük tombs to the Hittito-Luwians. It is not clear to me on what evidence some scholars (e. g. nominal and verbal morphosyntax) Hattic is an ancient unwritten language spoken in Central Anatolia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC and in all likelihood earlier. Surveys and Archaeometry. May 24–28. Fig.2 The Hattic language is known only in Hittite cuneiform transmission (ca. The traditional (pre-C14) dating places Alaca Höyük tombs in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. Republic of Turkey. 2006—require Hattic attribution. Bryce. with the exception of some personal names from Old Assyrian Cappadocian colonies (the early 2nd millennium BC). 1650–1200 BC). 2009. organized by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. 2010.. for this reference). Resuloğlu and others. We know that the Hattians had institution of kingship. consonantism. e. Anatolia. 2005. the second half of the 3rd—the first half of the 2nd millennia BC. 1. see. but this result is not very reliable (I am grateful to Thomas Zimmermann. Ankara.

Soysal. Hitt. 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). wuú . wii . 1. From the formal view- . For a short sketch of the Hattic grammar.). but it seems that this graphical phenomenon is significantly less regular than the same opposition in Hittite (where Hitt. which is based mostly on HWHT.and E-signs freely alternate.and P-signs. 1. but this opposition differed phonetically from the analogous opposition in Hittite and Hittite scribes met with difficulties in transferring their graphical method onto Hattic texts. voiceless ~ voiced. Since the Hattic corpus is too small. It is very likely that Hattic had two or more consonant series (e. /f/ is postulated for the ligatures waa .< IE *d.312 A. lax ~ tense or ejective ~ aspirate ~ plain). see Касьян. the meanings of ca. at-ta). g.1 Hattic vocalism i e (?) a u Signs of the E-series can reflect the phoneme /e/ or be a mere graphical phenomenon. HWHT. wee . wuu .. wipí . since there are a lot of examples where I. r j č/θ h k Consonants can be graphically geminated and non-geminated in the intervocalic position (a-ta vs. puu .< IE *t). Kassian [UF 41 The modern state of research in the Hattic language is reflected in the publications of O. Such an alternation is very frequent in known Hattic texts. -t. especially in his brilliant monograph HWHT. 200 of them are established with different degrees of reliability (for the list of Hattic lexemes see Soysal.2 Hattic consonantism p t ʦ f m w s n l. Now we can postulate ca. 2010. 274 ff. *dh. -tt. wupu and for the cases where we see an alternation of W. 300 Hattic roots and stems.

aspect 2 negation “opta. e. še. /ʦ/ is expressed by the signs of Z-series. an equivalent solution here. particles taš / šaš / teš / šeš ta / te fa u. laryngeal) fricative. wa waa h. which originates from the Semitic voiceless uvular fricative *χ . in Hittite graphical h covers velar/uvular spirant (Patri. /s/ is written by the signs of Š-series. haš.. interdental fricative /θ/ is. In some morphemes (both root and auxiliary) we see a free alternation of Tand Š-signs. š. k. of course. ka. i tu / šu ta.3 Hattic morphosyntax.. h(a). I postulate something like /č/ for these cases. t. 107 ff. te. še / te ai? up (uf?) if(a) fa / fi aš / iš √ šu / tu n i 1.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 313 point we should postulate only two labial phonemes in Hattic—/m/ and /f/—and eliminate /p/ and /w/ from the table above. ha. In Akkadian Ḫ-series reflects a phoneme. zi u le. n k(a). Sporadical usage of S-signs (OS+) may reflect the second sibilant (e. zaš?. expressed by the Ḫ-signs. g. g. w and f as one phoneme. /š/). tu kaš. In the etymological studies below I am impelled to treat p. fa. zi f(a) √ u e a ma. e.4 Hattic morphosyntax. un a? ai. /h/—velar or post-velar (e.. p. but the available data are too scant. 2009. i fe. Nominal wordform (main slots) –5 particles –4 (?) –3 locative preposition –2 possessive pronoun –1 number 0 root 1 case 2 particles ma / fa a. 1. g. pi. pi (=fi?). Verbal wordform (main slots) –9 –8 tive” –7 –6 ? –5 direct object –4 locus –3 locus –2 locus –1 ? 0 root 1 mode. w(a). but. m. za.). aš / at .subject tense.

. 3800 BC. 3) Ubykh. 1996). advocated by various scholars: West Caucasian and Kartvelian. Ubykh and Adyghe-Kabardian ca. The 50-wordlist includes the 50 most stable items from the “classical” Swadesh 100-wordlist.3 2 Previously proposed West Caucasian attribution The West Caucasian family consists of a relatively small number of languages: 1) Abkhaz. The modern West Caucasian reconstruction was made by S. family (fig. 1997/2007. maybe some nodes will be corrected as a result of further researches. Abadet. 1980 tries to show the specific relationship between Hattic and Cassite or Hurrian. 1989 / 1999. Kassian [UF 41 1. 4 For this kind of glottochronological procedure see detailed in Starostin G.314 A. The procedure consists of the subsequent reconstruction of corresponding wordlists for intermediate proto-languages and screening of synonyms at every stage. The tree has been compiled by the author as part of the ongoing research on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical Tree of the world’s languages (within the “Evolution of Human Language” project. 2) Adyghe.dbf).5 The genetic attribution of Hattic is debatable.dbf. Caucet. g. E. but I must accede to Soysal’s criticism of Fähnrich’s comparisons (see HWHT. languages. branch. The next tree (fig. The tree is based on “classic” 100-wordlists and compiled according the “standard” procedure. According to the glottochronological procedure. There are two main theories. The following tree of the NCauc. later it was verified and partly modified by V.). family. Some important details were more explicitly stated in Starostin. supported by the Santa Fe Institute). The tree on fig.4 The primary lexicographic data which were used can mostly be found in the database section of the Tower of Babel Project. Fähnrich. Starostin (see NCED. Chirikba (Chirikba. 2 is preliminary. 2) is based on 50-wordlists of the majority of modern NCauc. 2010. . Kabardian. For the general principles of the Swadesh wordlist compilation process now see Kassian et al. 640 BC.. the North Caucasian protolanguage split into East Caucasian and West Caucasian branches ca. Abaza. 5 For this kind of glottochronological procedure see Starostin. In its turn West Caucasian split into Abkhaz-Abaza.. 34 ff. but it gives the general frame of the NCauc.5 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 3 Sometimes more exotic attributions are proposed. 3) represents the WCauc. 2010.

Glottochronological tree of the West Caucasian branch (100-item wordlist-based) 315 . Glottochronological tree of the North Caucasian family (50-item wordlist-based) Fig.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language Fig. 3. 2.

1994—Hattic roots. Ivanov (in a number of publications. Ivanov’s publications definitely got the problem of Hattic etymology off the ground and serve as a good start point for subsequent studies. 1985 for the summed up list of Hattic roots and auxiliary morphemes with WCauc. Ubykh wa-šχʷa ‘thunder and lightning’6 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 6 Not ‘god’. and immediately the comparison with Hattic zi.1 Attested Hattic chronologically is more ancient than the late ProtoWCauc. which can be assuredly reconstructed for the Proto-WCauc. languages. 32. An example. 89 f. so we must reconstruct WCauc. *V ‘bottom. Chirikba (Chirikba. Forrer (1921. e. 425 compare fa-šhaf with the Adyghe–Kabardian and Ubykh compounds of WCauc. An example. *wa ‘sky.1 General remarks 2. Despite the fact that I do not agree with the West Caucasian attribution of Hattic. 1996. As a matter of fact Abkhaz–Abaza *a-/*ǝ. № 37 and Chirikba. 2002—Hattic local prefixes).‘under’. g.1. 2. forms.becomes phonetically unlikely (for regular NCauc. 414 compares Hattic zi. 27 ff. The following difficulties arise when one attempts to compare Hattic with WCauc. under (preverb)’ here (< NCauc.—grammatical features). 1960. Diakonoff (Дьяконов. 25.‘from down’.has doubtless cognates in the other WCauc. 1979—grammatical features).—Hattic affixes). 1996. lower part. etc. Therefore it is possible to compare Hattic forms only with the WCauc.1. structural features). 1996.(a nominal prefix with ablative semantics. used to propose etymological comparisons like follows (e. *ǝ. lower part’. * ~ Hatt. g.‘under’. Russian–German): pri-nes-i ‘bring!’ (2 sg. see Шагиров. god’ + *šʷəχʷa ‘grey. Vjač. Иванов. languages: Adyghe–Kabardian *a. language by almost 1000 years.) ~ bringen Sie or u-bi-l ‘he has killed’ ~ übel and so on.. I. Kassian [UF 41 For the first time the structural similarity between Hattic and West Caucasian languages was noted by E.. 1985. Chirikba. Von Mészáros. It must be noted that after the outdated von Mészáros’ list of cognates it was Ivanov. 1922. ‘from top-down’) with Abkhaz–Abaza *a. Later J. 1977 2. Ubykh -a ‘bottom. 1961. . powder’: Adyghe–Kabardian *wa-šχʷa ‘sky’ (< ‘grey sky’). Further the idea of the West Caucasian attribution of Hattic was supported by I. the first Indo-Europeanists of the XVIII c. 172 ff. Vl. Viach. Дунаевская.. 406—Hattic roots and affixes. l see below). 1934. level. Ardzinba (Ардзинба. von Mészáros (1934.316 A. 2. Unfortunately some of the authors mentioned above get caught in the same pitfall. who for the first time made an attempt to prove the West Caucasian hypothesis by a scientific approach.2 As is known. Браун.) gave the list of grammatical and lexical isoglosses between Hattic and Ubykh. cognates). 134 f. *Hŏnŭ ‘bottom’). 1967. 229). Dunaevskaja (Дунаевская. and Jan Braun (Браун. see Иванов. The Hattic well-attested lexeme š(a)haf ‘god’ has a regular plural form fa-šhaf ‘deities’.

forms. On the other hand. polysynthetic verbal morphosyntax is characteristic of some other branches of Sino-Caucasian macrofamily. 173 compares Hatt. Abzakh verbal scheme in Paris. languages (cf. madhv-ád. it is clear that the Hattic verbal wordform does not coincide directly with attested WCauc.2 Structural features and morphosyntax 2. malhip ‘good. see Шагиров. today we can operate with modern Abkhaz– Adyghe paradigms only. Hatt. e. fa-/fi.). sometimes scholars operate with incorrect WCauc.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. not only of the WCauc.3 Third. 2. We see the same situation with some previously proposed Hattic– WCauc. 2. verb tuh ‘to take’ is compared by Chirikba. Examples. etymologies.1. 20 compares Hatt. where *tǝ is a standard locative preverb and *χǝ means ‘to take’ (< WCauc. since Hattic is almost 3000 years distant from the split of the Common Abkhaz–Abaza proto-language (see fig. 1979. 272). 2.(plural of the nominative and oblique cases) with Abkhaz -wa (a plural marker of the animate class). 1996. and the same phenomenon in WCauc. 2. but in reality Abkhaz -wa forms the names of races (both in singular and plural)..2. This comparison is not reliable. Such a comparison can hardly be accepted. 1967. An example. which in fact is a recent Arabic loanword (Arab. fortune’.2 Second. 1999 for the Proto-Yenisseian verbal reconstruction.4 A great part of previously proposed comparisons must be rejected now with certainty. In his turn Браун. subbranch.2. see Hewitt.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 317 (< ‘heavenly blasting powder’). 1994. since they were based on erroneous and out-of-date interpretation of the Hattic data. 149. Дьяконов.2. 419 with Abkhaz *tǝ-χǝ ‘to take from inside’.‘Süßes essend’ (said of birds in Rig-Veda). We can speak about typological similarity only and suggest monophonemic comparisons between some Hattic and WCauc. *medv-ědь ‘bear’ (< ‘one who eats honey’) and OInd.1 All the authors mentioned above note the similarity between the Hattic polysynthetic verbal wordform. 1977 1. But despite the exact phonetic regularity it is hard to reconstruct such a compound for the Proto-IE level. property’. *xǝ ‘to take’). favorable’ with Adyghe mǝλkʷ ‘property.1.. since tatpuruṣa madhv-ád. As a matter of fact. the reconstruction of Proto-WCauc. affixes. schemas. g. 2. where prefixation prevails. 3 above) and we know that local preverbation is a living and productive model of forming verbal stems in the modern Abkhaz–Abaza dialects. morphosyntax is the task of future research. . 1989. See Решетников.3 There is an old comparison of Slav. mulk ‘ownership. 196 ff.

*-nV (ablative. 232 f. innovation.. 1996. we cannot say that the most part of Hattic auxiliary morphemes finds its counterparts in WCauc.on phonetical grounds.cannot be compared with WCauc. we must suppose that polysynthetic verbal morphosyntax with prefixation 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.–WCauc. 1972 for morphological relicts in the languages of the Sino-Tibetan family. transformative case).9 An appreciable part of Hattic–WCauc. *V. Yenisseian. b. On the contrary. 412 ff.does not exist. 7 . 97 ff. On the contrary. super’. Burushaski and Na-Dene schemas are also rather similar to the known Hattic verbal wordforms. An example.and fe. therefore we cannot speak about exclusive Hattic–WCauc. Common NCauc. The Hattic genitive marker -n is standardly compared with WCauc. and it is impossible to speak about exclusive Hattic–WCauc. Av. Nominal zi.318 A.4 Fourth. family or in other families of SCauc. 2002 make attempts to etymologize the system of Hattic local prefixes integratedly. adjective and participial suffix . translative). *-nə (ergative and general indirect case. languages. 2000. connection in this case. Quite differently Chirikba./ za. macrofamily. genitive suffix *-nV: Nakh *-n (genitive.and *Łʷa. 9 Chirikba. a and forthc.~ WCauc.‘in .-And. elative.are unknown (see HWHT. for Tanacross. Cf. infinitive). the authors mentioned above operate with individual affixal comparisons and fail to reconstruct hypothetical Proto-Hattic–WCauc. and Браун.are not less probable than Narrow WCauc. while Pre-Proto-West Caucasian developed into an isolating (Chinese-like) formation. 2.. Kassian [UF 41 Berger. isoglosses in these cases. The meaning and function of Hattic ni. suff.7 and was seriously rebuilt in the East Caucasian subbranch8). who claims that ProtoNorth Caucasian was an analytic language. Lak -n (dative I. the same concerns the morpheme kil. which has been arbitrarily singled out from kiluh ‘runner-spy’ [33’] by J. e. the majority of reliable Hattic–WCauc. Braun. ha. 1960 for the rests of the verbal prefixal polysynthetism in the ECauc. possessive case. affixal comparisons possesses cognates in East Caucasian sub-branch of the NCauc. isogloss in their lists is the Hatt. 1998 1. Чикобава.). g. Verbal li..is found only in the totally opaque compound ištarrazil ‘earth’ [22’] . must be rejected now. forthc. 163 ff. ones. preverb *tV. e. for similar conclusions about this ECauc. verbal local prefix ta. lative. which possesses verb structure typical of Na-Dene languages. *-nə goes back to the Common NCauc.and ka. 104 for the Burushaski verbal wordform (Hunza-Nager dialect) and. ––––––––––––––––––––––– See Benedict. affixal comparisons. temporal. sets of grammatical morphemes.2. g. since they are based on the incorrect interpretation of the Hattic grammatical system. languages. The morpheme šta./ nu. On the contrary. *-n (genitive. etymologies for Hatt. of adjectives and participles. infinitive). 2008. but I do not understand on which positive evidence Chirikba’s syntactical theory is based. Lezgh. Holton. As a matter of fact WCauc. In reality the only reliable exclusive Hatt. which were previously proposed. On the other hand. 8 See Bengtson.

g. g. known at that epoch from East Caucasian languages to Ancient Greek dialects. second. But in this case we must compare Hattic directly with the NCauc. verbal root looked like =VCV(R). isogloss. 2.. since the Hittite cuneiform gives no reliable data for such an analysis and. 82 ff. nominal root had the shape CVCV.).1 We may assume that the reduction of the root structure in ProtoWCauc.5 Chirikba. ergative (e. 1968).2.. where C can be a combination of consonants. The phenomenon of unmarking plural in nouns is known from other Sino-Caucasian languages: for the Yenisseian family see Castrén. g) Some listed Hattic phonetic features cannot be included in the comparison. 1858. with Yenisseian (see Цивьян. it cannot prove genetic relationship. 2000. proto-language. 407 ff.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 319 terminative. 2010). but unfortunately almost all of them do not seem persuasive.2. 16 ff. 1968. C—an obstruent consonant or a combination of consonants. dialects. the neighboring Hurrian language). 2. In its turn the standard Hattic root (both nominal and verbal) is CVC. where C is a consonant or a combination of consonants. proto-language. 1988) or active language (for split activity theory see Goedegebuure. It is an open question whether Hattic was a nominative-accusative. the normal Proto-NCauc. g. (the Tanacross language). R—a sonorant (see NCED.3 Hattic–WCauc. but rather represent an areal feature (cf. lists structural parallels between Hattic and WCauc. Taracha.3. languages. 2.is a common areal feature. the standard ProtoNCauc. These structures were seriously rebuilt in the WCauc. ergative). where the prevailing shape of nominal and verbal roots became CV. where “=” is a class marker.3. there are three hypothetical ways to compare Hattic with ProtoWCauc. 235 ff... we know too little about the Hattic morphonology and phonetic sandhi. Thus.. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 10 E. a) The grammatical system of Hattic is debatable. Топоров /Цивьян. the schema above). 2. for Na-Dene Holton. c) The role of word formation compounding in Hattic is comparable rather with East Cauc. root etymologies As is known. . b) The Hattic case system is not so “rudimentary” from the typological viewpoint (cf. languages and some other Sino-Caucasian languages10 than with WCauc. 157 ff. not with the WCauc. language took place after Hattic had set apart. d) For verbal polysynthetism with prevailing prefixation see above. e. Although an ergative pattern seems most probable for Hattic.. f) The restriction on initial r. e) Unmarked nominal plural forms which are sometimes attested in Hattic texts is the same case as verbal polysynthetism—it is not an exclusive Hattic– WCauc. 1996.

female’ (further to SCauc. 20. go’ (< WCauc. for which see 2.4 Conclusions 2. where a. g.. wǝ is a frequent verbal root ‘to enter.4. *wjV (~ sṭ-. *wŏjV (~ --) ‘woman.2 We can divide Hattic roots into C. enter’). relationship. *-zV is not an isolated form. Ivanov’s and J. Ubykh bza.2–2. *pə-zV ‘female. 1994. 22. Браун. release exhaustively’. An example. Браун. 2. 2. since they are based on incorrect and out-of-date Hattic data. cognates. therefore such comparisons cannot prove an exclusive Hattic–WCauc.or madhvad-pitfalls. loanwords in Hattic. . 2. Even if we undertake a monophonemic etymologization of Hattic CVC-roots.2 Indeed.3.320 A. Иванов. root zuwa. *=rƛŬ ‘to go.3 above. 2. for which see Section 7 below. Grammatical Hatt. Hattic possesses a number of monoconsonantal roots which can be compared with WCauc. sub-branch cannot be proved. while -la is a regular exhaustive suffix. prefix *pǝ-). № 45 compares Hatt. In reality WCauc. and the direct Hattic–NCauc.1 Hattic cannot be directly compared with WCauc. but goes back to NCauc.5. the genetic relationship to the WCauc.1.4. 2. 50. Иванов.root nucleus with some consonant extensions of unknown nature. Kassian [UF 41 proto-language as it is today reconstructed on the basis of known WCauc.4. to let in’ with Ubykh a-wǝ-la ‘to let. 58. bitch’ (Abkhaz–Abaza *pəsə. roots have reliable NCauc.3. № 11. Adyghe– Kabardian *bzə.in suffixed zuwa-tu ‘wife’ with WCauc. šul ‘to let. 1994).4.3 Finally we can compare Hattic roots with compounds or inflected forms from the modern WCauc. Of course. comparison is self-suggesting. 104).–WCauc. since the regularity of phonemic correspondences in monophonemic comparisons must be established by a solid corpus of cognates that is not the case. but in almost all these cases proposed WCauc. 2. however. This method is accepted in a number of Vjač. due to the fundamental difference in root structure. but it is clear that it is the way to nowhere.3. ~ --) ‘female’).is a preverb used with verbs of motion (Vogt. A great part of Hattic–WCauc. 1985. 1985. An example.4. 1963. data. isoglosses are also rather weak. Braun’s etymologies (e. isoglosses which were previously proposed need to be left out. and so on. dialects. 2.or CV.1. a small number of probable WCauc. walk.4. *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ < NCauc. dialects. with such approach we immediately get caught in bringen-Sie. with the frequent Proto-WCauc. 19 compares Hatt. It is worth noting. or Hattic–SCauc.

the regularity of the assumed phonemic correspondences between Hattic and Proto-SCauc. g. *wim. * ~ Hatt. Starostin (pers. *p ~ Hatt. but without much success—for the criticism of Gabeskiria’s studies see HWHT. The tree has been compiled by G. SCauc. SCauc. cognates. As in the case of the NCauc. Some other papers by the same author. 4. and therefore can be regarded as common innovations. 33 f. cognates. *ƛ ~ Hatt. *k ~ Hatt.‘to hear’. comm. tumil and šam(a) possess reliable SCauc. and we must treat these etymologies as chance coincidences. Note that Hatt. SCauc. f. consonant cluster simplification) are very typical of the other daughter proto-languages of the SCauc. *č ~ Hatt. genetic relationship cannot be established by a couple of comparisons (even if they belong to the Swadesh wordlist). 1986.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 321 3 Previously proposed Kartvelian attribution Girbal. t..‘to rain’ and Hatt. it is very likely that Hattic represents a separate branch of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily. 1998 attempted to add some new Kartvelian cognates of Hattic lexemes. 2007 (both in Russian and English). Below I list a number of Hattic root and auxiliary morphemes with probable SCauc. The highly preliminary Sino-Caucasian etymological dictionary is available as Sccet. 2) the following preliminary SinoCaucasian tree is based on 50-wordlists (see com. 2 above for detail). tumil ‘rain’ ~ Kartv. 1982/2007. Of course. For the preliminary comparative phonetics of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily see SCC (this work was not finished and therefore remains unpublished).dbf. *sem.) as part of the ongoing research on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical Tree of the world’s languages (within the “Evolution of Human Language” project. SCauc.1 Sino-Caucasian (or Dene-Sino-Caucasian) macrofamily For the first time the genetic relationship between three proto-families—North Caucasian. family (fig. Gabeskiria.)’ ~ Kartv. SCauc. can be found in Старостин. It is important that the percentage of the so called basic vocabulary in my list is relatively high. l.. cannot be proved due to the scantiness of Hattic lexical data. attribution of Hattic is improbable. dedicated to the Sino-Caucasian problem. macrofamily. two of them are striking : Hatt. b) some special types of phonetic developments (e. šam(a) ‘to hear (vel sim. g. 4 Sino-Caucasian hypothesis Although the WCauc. supported by the Santa Fe Insti- . Yenisseian and Sino-Tibetan—was partially substantiated on the ground of regular phonetic correspondences in Старостин. Of course. t~š (/č/?). 160–163 proposes four Hattic–Kartvelian root etymologies. k and so on). but it should be noted that: a) the main part of the proposed phonemic correspondences are trivial (e. on fig.

unfortunately S. 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 fig. Starostin did not manage to finish SCC—in particular it concerns the phonetic charts. They possess relatively welldone comparative grammars (especially phonetics) and etymological dictionaies. 1995 and Werner.—these cells are marked by footnotes. Pace the work Diakonoff / Starostin. family—Старостин. where Hurro-Urartian is traditionally included into the ECauc. but it is clear that Hurro-Urartian belongs to the NCauc. lit. stock of the NCauc. 1982/2007 and Yenet. family.–Na-Dene one. macrofamily. 4. and add the Hattic column with suggested Hattic counterparts.322 A.dbf. based on Старостин. redundant. Starostin himself tended to lean towards the same conclusion). which I corrected.). not to the STib. therefore I do not use Na-Dene data in my paper. stocks. Starostin with the exception of few cells important to us. . family—Caucet. but it must be stressed that the tree cannot be regarded as a final solution. based on Peiros/Starostin. on the contrary.–Burush. branch. The correspondences are illustrated by the Hattic examples taken from sections 5. it is very likely that this cluster represents a separate branch of the SCauc. STib. but seriously improved. Kassian [UF 41 tute): fig. which has been published as NCED (w.–Yen. family—Stibet. 1986. 2002 with additions and corrections. The Na-Dene branch on fig.dbf. 4. daughter families this schema will probably be improved. 24 ff.11 The tree gives the general frame of the SCauc. 1996 (w. Despite this fact.). lit.1. Sino-Tibetan and Yenisseian. As it was said above.1 and 6. and some isoglosses may prove the specific relationship between the Hurro-Urartian and Yen. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 11 Position of the Hurro-Urartian proto-language is not quite clear. Isolated Burushaski and Basque also do not provide considerable help due to natural reasons. 4 does not include the Haida language.2 Phonetic correspondences Below I quote phonetic charts from SCC. The Proto-Na-Dene reconstruction is not done (or not published) yet. 2010 for some details. See Kassian. 4). whose cells are sometimes incomplete or. Yen. NCauc. the tables are quoted as they have been compiled by S. During the continuing studies of SCauc. Three main proto-languages are the basis of the SCauc. reconstruction : North Caucasian. macro-family (at the beginning of the 2000s S.dbf.

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language Fig. 4. Glottochronological tree of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily (50-item wordlist-based) 323 .

e (ä). m -. -f-./ w-. (-m-) f/p/w Hattic . ǝ a. (-l-) t. o a (ɔ).2 Consonantism Below for Hattic I use cuneiform notation: š for /s/. a. o Yen. m w-. lip . -r-. (u) u Consonant cluster simplifications may cause a preceding vowel change: SCauc. b b m w () t ṭ d n r STib. *p *ṗ *b *m *w *t *ṭ *d *n *r NCauc. *t[e]mb-Vĺ. ɨ a. ph-. ǝ ǝ.2./ w-. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] Yen. *ānp ‘tongue . NCauc. (i / e) i/e a. i (ɨ) a. u o. p p b m b-. ǝ. i a. t~š for /č/. p ṗ. w /  d d t d-. ɨ a o. a) a. u u. r1 Yen. -t n r p b p b. ǝ o (ɔ).‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63] 4. o (u) Hattic i / e. o ǝ. Kassian [UF 41 4. *i *e *ä *ɨ *ǝ *a *u *o i. u STib. i a. ǝ i. -p p-.2. Burush. ǝ u. e (ä). e i. e (i) u. r n š-. (u) th t./ p. e e. i / e a. o a. e ɨ. -t t. ṭ (ḍ) t. a i a. -u-. a a./ t-.1 Vocalism (a very preliminary schema) SCauc. e i o. n ʔ. i ä ɨ. SCauc. (ae. e. ǝ e (ä). -p p. z (_i) f. z for /ʦ/. -t t. ph. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock ./ p. i. e e. ṭ (ḍ) n d-. Burush. ǝ. ph. ǝ. a. to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1] SCauc. th. -p m w/ th.324 A. r.

s / ś( / ṣ) d-. ś. ĺ d-. h ć. d-(Vʔ) ʒ ć..(_i). ŋ j r(. -ź ć / . -t ch. ć / . h.(_i) š-~t-. lt / l lt-. s  s / ś.. h ć. -k / -ŋ ƛ. lt / l lt-. -z. -k l. d-(Vʔ) ŕ ń. -t ć. s s. .~ ṣ-. -š- t-./ ʒ-. l. ʒh s ( / ch). ld l l r. s s. -ł. χ j-. s ʒ. z-. l.  lt-. (l) l l -Yen. ƛ l-. Hattic 325 t-.  j-.(lṭ-). ǯ ǯ s.  / ʒ. r ń-. - rj1. r1 ś / ṣ. h. s s d-. s 12 s. z. r 13 d-. ś / ṣ() šBurush. z. *c * *ʒ *s *z *ć * * *ś *ź ? *č * *ǯ *š *ŕ *ń *j *ƛ * *Ł *λ *ł *l NCauc.L). - ǯ-. -ššt š ––––––––––––––––––––––– 12 13 Updated cell. ć / . s ś. l. -ź . -t s ( / ch).2009] SCauc. Updated cell.  ś-. r(. c  ʒ s z ć   ś ź č  ǯ š r n j ƛ  Ł λ ł l Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language STib. l ~ r. -l r č-( / ǯ-). r1 j-. -ź ś / ṣ. ch / s. -t ć. s č. - s c. r n j. t-. -k ƛ. n j. l. ĺ r. lt / l lt. -t-. d-(Vʔ) ǯ ć. -t C. c ǯ-. r1.(_i / e). ć / . -ź ć(h).L).  s/ś/ṣ d-. l.

-gk x. ŋ ˙m-. k / -ŋ χ. x χ. - g ŋ qh-.. Kassian Yen. -k. -n / -m h- ––––––––––––––––––––––– Updated cell. ŋ q(h). () h f-. ɣ q(h). ɦw > j-. ʔw > ʔʷ. w.~ ɣ . q / G q-. χ ~ G q~χ b-. ʕw > ʔʷ . ʔw > h/x ʔ-. ʡw > h/x ʔ . -k / -ŋ Gh-. - G-. ʔw > h/x ʔ-. qhʷ-. qh-. ħw > ? m ŋ ŋ ŋ A. ʡw > χ(ʷ) . ŋ q-. ɣ. j. w-)  . q . G-. χ 14 ʔ-. q-. ɣ h /ɣ /h/j /h/j /h/j /h/j /h/j /h/j  h. ħw > h/x w-. k ḳ g x ɣ n q  G χ ʁ ʔ ʡ ʕ h ɦ ħ f x m f STib. q/G χ. -j / -w  (ʔ) . k(h) k g h h k [UF 41 Hattic k *ʡ *ʕ *h *ɦ *ħ *xm ? *xŋ ? *ŋw *xŋw 14 () b-.(/ʔʷ-)  . g. k-. G ʔ-. *k *ḳ *g *x *ɣ *ŋ *q * *G *χ *ʁ *ʔ NCauc. j . -k. hw > h/x ʔ-. [G(h)-]. ɣ. . gh. -ŋ q. -k k-. j . -kg-. n Burush.  . j . j. -k kh. ŋ b-. -k χ-. x-.326 SCauc. ɣ q(h). q / G x-/χ-. . hw > ʔʷ (/ ɣ-.

2. lip. x k t t t ? ? t t t t g h-.2009] SCauc. h h k h k Burush. ɣ k. g qh. -z. . -s ch / s ś ~ h ć ć. *bŭt) > puš-an ‘to blow on’ [43] ––––––––––––––––––––––– 15 Updated cell. ɣ. ɣ. *[p]ūH ‘to blow’ (STib. (ʁ) Gw ʒ c  ʒ c  ǯ č  Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language STib. x. but can hardly be distinguished due to the imperfect and inconsistent cuneiform transcription: SCauc.~ gh~ qh-. -ŋ. g. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ > kip ‘to protect’ [18] SCauc. x 15 x. g q. *xg *xk *xḳ *xq *xqw *x *xw *xG *xG*w *sd *st *sṭ *śd *śt *śṭ *šd *št *šṭ NCauc. *[p]ārē ‘lightning . -k k. k~q. g. h 327 4. -q k. -t(s). -q qh.2. *ānp ‘tongue. χ q-. kh g.-q-. *ṗ. q k. -k k-. to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1] SCauc. *b merge in Hatt. g χ ḳ q qw  w G. q / G (ʔχ) q. G. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39] SCauc. kh. χ. x x.(_i) t k. (k) k. χ.-ɣ qh.  ? ćh t-. χ. q. Hattic k.1 Labials SCauc. Ćh ć  ? Yen. g q. -k k. kh ghw. h) c c ( ~ ) ch ? ? ć(h). brilliance’ > paru ‘bright’ [33] SCauc. kw c(h) ch / s. f/p/w—in all likelihood more than one phoneme. g qh. χ q. g c (~ ch.-k k-. -k gh. *p. ɣ.

(for the distribution see SCC. *b-/p-/w. for which see Старостин. *bVN. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37] SCauc. to close’ ~ štip ‘gate’ [49] STib. An exact parallel to Hattic are early records of Kottish. ph. *bhăr ‘abundant.in the Yen. languages is the late distant assimilation Yen. *Pr-ŋ ‘country’ ~ fur ‘country. Yen. are Russian. f-/p-/w-: SCauc. *mt ‘to eat. *p yields p/ph /pf /h in known languages.> Yen. loanwords.‘often’ ~ fute ‘long (in temporal meaning)’ [44] Yen. tawa-nanna ‘lady’ [52] Yen. *cp (~ ć-) ‘bitter. numerous’ ~ far ‘thousand’ [31] SCauc. *ǯīp ‘to cover. Arin and Pumpokol. pf. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak.‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63] Yen. etc. The second source of m. where SCauc. nasal *-m. pungent’ ~ zipi-na ‘sour’ [66] Yen. to plug. Nenets. salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34] SCauc.16 Synchronically Hattic possesses a number of stems with initial m-: ––––––––––––––––––––––– 16 Roots in m-. *tĕp (~ d-) ‘fear. *bħĕr ‘a k. pray’ > fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] NCauc. *b > b/p /v. dead’ > fun(a) ‘mortality’ [40] STib.).in the medial position is retained: NCauc. listen’ ~ šam(a) ‘to hear’ [48] Labial m > n before a dental consonant is without doubt a late (synchronic?) process in Hattic: SCauc. *[]mbi ‘superpower’ > tafa-r-na ‘lord’. *m. swallow’ ~ puš ‘to devour’ [42] The process of denasalization in the initial position is paralleled by the Yenisseian branch. attested in the synchronic Yen. labial stops and yields Hatt. . Kassian [UF 41 SCauc. 1982/2007. *ɦmjwV ‘sour. 149 f. to be confused’ ~ tafa ‘fear’ [53] STib. stay’ > *(a)mti > (a)nti ‘to stand’ [28] But in the initial position SCauc. *t[e]mb-Vĺ. *HmoŋV ‘to die. *bēŁ ‘cattle-shed’ ~ fael ‘house’ [30] STib. were f. *mor ‘grain’ ~ fula ‘bread’ [38] SCauc. 37 f. while Yen.328 A. SCauc. f/p/w resembles the Yenisseian reflexes of SCauc. labial stops. *mVn ‘to perceive.coincides with SCauc. *bot. *mlćwV ‘to blow. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ ~ kap ‘moon’ [15] The situation with Hatt. p and even b freely alternate. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent. languages. population’ [41] STib. to think’ ~ pnu ‘to look’ [36] STib./ *wVN > mVN which occurs in some auxiliary morphemes. *=mV(r) ‘to stand. *m. wind’ > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] STib.

*ma(ʔ) ‘take!’ (the comparison is possible if we suppose the loss of the final consonant in Yen. bed stone’ [56’]. some of these prefixes have variants with initial f.(that resembles similar phonotactical process in Hittite): SCauc. 230 f. lady. *ṭ. chanter. In addition cf.)’ [54’]. leave’ > ti ‘to lie. clown?’ [51’]. chanter. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to take’ > ku ‘to seize’ [19] In one case we see the dissimilative nasalization *-uw. mistress (vel sim. cognate may be Yen. does not contradict our theory. luck’ (with lhip for the palatalized labialized lateral *ʷ).2. 165. milup or lup?? ‘bull. base.2 Dentals SCauc. maššel ‘cult performer. however. *maʷV ‘good. Dfazulla. 230 f.> -um. slash’ [50’].2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 329 ma /fa ‘and’ [47’]. *čVwV ‘to pour. mistress (vel sim.). *dHV ‘to grow. On the other hand. the same concerns conjunction ma ‘and’ [47’] and noun mu ‘mother. SCauc. mar or kamar ‘to slit. 911 w.). miš ‘to take (for oneself)’ [53’].: SCauc. mistress (vel sim. fruit?’ [57’]. which is probably the same deity as Dmezulla.2.(for the list see HWHT. possessive pronoun) [77] SCauc. An interesting case is Hatt.(see HWHT. allegro forms)—an exceptional case of preserving m. which alternate with variants fa and fu respectively (note that mu /fu ‘mother. This fact. *t. Its SCauc. lady. mṣl (māṣilu) ‘cymbal player’. *wV ‘thou’ > we ‘thou’ (2nd person sg.‘thy’ (2nd person sg. None of these roots possesses a reliable SCauc. *lw ‘to be able’ ~ lu ‘to be able’ [25] SCauc. personal pronoun). Hatt. relating to tree. muš ‘smth. favorable’ [49’]. muna-muna ‘foundation.in Proto-Yen. *d were merged in Hatt. clown?’ [51’] < WSem. when auxiliary morphemes violate common phonotactical rules. t (~ tt). ox’ [52’].)’ [54’] is attested only as the second element of compounds). maššel or paršel ‘cult performer. Second. u. At least for two of the mentioned stems the source of borrowing can be established: malhip ‘good. and cultural terms clearly prevail in the list. known from Hittite texts (HWHT. lady. mai(u) ‘a valuable cloth’ [48’]. put’ [55] SCauc. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > *tuwil > tumil ‘rain’ [62] 4. etymology. malhip ‘good.)’ [54’]. is not so rare in the word languages. lit. wet’ > tefu ‘to pour’ [57] STib. miš ‘to take (for oneself)’ [53’]. belonging to the basic vocabulary. Hattic possesses a few grammatical prefixes in m. Cf. favorable’ [49’] < WCauc. *=ătV ‘to put. *w is generally retained in Hattic: SCauc. big’ > te ‘big’ [54] . muh(al) ‘hearth’ [55’]. since the situation. mu /fu ‘mother.). so we can threat all these words as loans.

female’ > *limhu-t > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27] SCauc. *[p]ārē ‘lightning . population’ [41] SCauc. r: SCauc. *hn ‘now’ > anna ‘when’ [2] SCauc. The same assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/ is observed in the reflexes of SCauc. incrustation. *tĕp (~ d-) ‘fear. *mVn ‘to perceive. shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] . *ɦrwĔ ‘wide’ > harki. *t[e]mb-Vĺ. *-nV. *štɦrV ‘crust. -c) ‘old (attr. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ ~ han ‘to open’ [8] SCauc.(~ *dək-) ‘to fall’ ~ zik (< *tik) ‘to fall’ [65] It seems that /ti/ became /ʦi/ (graphical zi) in Hattic. genitive [74] In one case we see *n > m before a labialized guttural: NCauc. wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7] NCauc.)’ ~ katte ‘king’ [17] Yen. skin. to think’ ~ pnu ‘to look’ [36] STib. *bot.‘often’ ~ fute ‘long’ in temporal meaning [44] Yen. 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. *λɨnɦV ‘woman. *kaʔt (~ g-. *nŭ ‘to tread. Kassian [UF 41 Also with an unidentified dental: STib. which standardly yield the stop phoneme /t/. genitive ~ -n. SCauc.. non-initial *-r. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37] STib.‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63] An important case is Hatt. *=Hǯ(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > eštan ‘sun’ [5] SCauc.‘wide’ [9] STib. Together with the dissimilation /u/ > /um/ this process of assibilation finds its direct parallel in the Proto-Hittite historical phonology. pray’ > fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] SCauc. *də(ʔ)q. numerous’ ~ far ‘thousand’ [31] SCauc.2. affricates. see’ > kun ‘to see’ [21] STib. *xnɦ (-ŭ) ‘water. brilliance’ > paru ‘bright’ [33] SCauc. go’ [29] NCauc. *Pr-ŋ ‘country’ ~ fur ‘country. trace’ ~ nu ‘to come. see 4. but affricate /ʦ/ before /i/. *bħĕr ‘a k.2. *bhăr ‘abundant. to be confused’ ~ tafa ‘fear’ [53] Yen. dental stop: Yen.3 below. tiuz ~ ziuz ‘rock’). g.standardly yields Hatt. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak.330 A. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look. z for SCauc. nasal *n is a stable phoneme: SCauc.

g. *wēχV ‘stick. I suppose that SCauc. *mt ‘to eat.2. cf.in other positions. were SCauc. *č-..2.‘heart’ [47]. voiceless alveolar affricates *c.> Hattic š-. voiceless alveolar (*c. see 4. Initial r. Initially: SCauc. etymologically singled out in some nominal and verbal stems). SCauc.. swallow’ ~ puš ‘to devour’ [42] SCauc. Despite this irregularity the comparison can hardly be rejected: SCauc.2. *rĕḳw ‘breast. *č > Yen. ziha-r ‘wood’ [64] STib. *bħĕr ‘a k. *) and palatal (*č. *r/r1 with unknown distribution. *r1 gives l-reflexes in most attested languages (Старостин. *wjV (~ sṭ-. *s. timber’ ~ zeha-r. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37] STib. z-reflex of SCauc.in the initial position and Hatt. *=V ‘to eat.> Yen.. *x(w)Vr ‘old. * remains without explanation.. *-r.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 331 There is one example for SCauc. drink’ > tu ‘to eat’ [59] Non-initially: SCauc. *=ĕẮ ‘to put’ > eš (~ et?) ‘to put’ [4] SCauc. t. The comparison seems reliable despite the fact that the standard way to eliminate initial *r. 4.in SCauc. e. ~ --) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68] . *[p]ūH ‘to blow’ (STib.in other positions. daughter-languages is > t-/d-.> Hatt. which is in all likelihood a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/. SCauc. SCauc. ripe’ > hel ‘to ripen’ [11].is strongly prohibited for Hattic root and auxiliary morphemes (an exception is the fossilized r-suffix. *cp (~ ć-) ‘bitter. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62] SCauc. post-alveolar and palatal affricates Reflexes of SCauc. -l-: SCauc. This process of fricativization in the medial and final position runs parallel with Proto-Yen.3 Alveolar.2 above: NCauc. The closest analogy is Proto-Yen. while Yen. 1982/2007. pungent’ ~ zipi-na ‘sour’ [66] In one case Hatt. *) affricates are similar: Hattic stop or affricate in the initial position and Hattic sibilant -š. heart’ > šaki. *bŭt) > puš-an ‘to blow on’ [43] Some roots show Hattic z. *-r. *r. 156). * yield Hatt. -š.2.

run’ > tuk ‘to step’ [61] Non-initially: SCauc. *ɨšV (~ č-) ‘stone. *s.in the initial position and Hatt. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock.may cover /č/ here. *) ‘to let come.(~ x-) ‘temple (part of head)’ ~ kaš ‘head’ [16] .(< SCauc. Of course Hattic t.2. voiced palatal affricate *ǯ > Hatt. mountain’ > ziš ‘mountain’ [67] NCauc. t in all positions: SCauc. *ɦmjwV ‘sour.in other positions.4 Other front consonants SCauc. since it is possible that spelling variants with š. *=Hǯ(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > eštan ‘sun’ [5] Yen. *ǯīp ‘to cover. *ćH ‘to govern. wet’ > tefu ‘to pour’ [57] SCauc. *ČQV ‘to step. mountain’ > *tiš > ziš ‘mountain’ [67] SCauc.are merely unattested for some morphemes. the SCauc. Initially: SCauc. t~š (/č/) or t. * yield Hatt. *ɨšV (~ č-) ‘stone.2. št in both initial and medial positions: SCauc. to shave’ > taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] SCauc. Kassian [UF 41 The SCauc. *ʔēč. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] Yen. listen’ ~ šam(a) ‘to hear’ [48] SCauc. *čVwV ‘to pour. š (/s/): NCauc. let enter’ ~ aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] In one case a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/ is observed : SCauc. *ĆŏH) ‘to take’ > tuh ‘to take’ [60] STib. to close’ ~ štip ‘gate’ [49] As opposed to the aforementioned affricative phonemes. lord’ ~ šai-l ~ tai-l ‘lord’ [46] SCauc. *ćH ‘to work. plural of the accusative case [70] Yen. *čxqV ‘to scratch. to build’ ~ teh ‘to build’ [56] SCauc. *=ắčw (STib. scrape.332 A. tawa-nanna ‘lady’ [52] In one case we see a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/: SCauc. stay’ > *(a)mti > (a)nti ‘to stand’ [28] SCauc. *ʔa-KsV. *š are retained as Hatt. voiceless palatal affricates *č. -š. sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45] STib. to plug. salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34] SCauc. * yield Hatt. post-alveolar voiceless affricates *ć. *mlćwV ‘to blow. *=mV(r) ‘to stand. plural stem marker ~ aš-/iš-. *[]mbi ‘superpower’ > tafa-r-na ‘lord’. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent. *-š:w. *čäłHu ‘earth. wind’ > *peti-l > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] 4.

*λɨnɦV ‘woman. Velar stops: SCauc.2. search’ > hukur ‘to see’ [13] SCauc. season’ > liš ‘year’ [24] SCauc. hapalki ‘iron’ [12’] < WCauc. ~ --) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68] 4. Hatt.2. *ānp ‘tongue.2.‘heart’ [47] SCauc.. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > luizzi-l ‘runner’ [26] SCauc. l: 17 SCauc. l as well as r. *wjV (~ sṭ-. 17 . to entrust. * merge in Hatt.2. favorable’ [49’] < WCauc. *ƛăjV ‘time. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock. SCauc. *lw ‘to be able’ ~ lu ‘to be able’ [25] STib. malhip ‘good. assign . *bēŁ ‘cattle-shed’ ~ fael ‘house’ [30] STib. velar and uvular voiceless stops *k.6 Velar and uvular consonants SCauc. scatter’ ~ hel ‘to strew’ [10] STib. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to take’ > ku ‘to seize’ [19] ––––––––––––––––––––––– It is interesting but not surprising that Hattic renders lateral obstruents by lh / lk in the borrowings from Proto-West Caucasian: Hatt. *. *l > Hatt. bolt’ > *halu ‘bolt. to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1] NCauc. to administer’ [14’] SCauc. to hand over. assign . *rĕḳw ‘breast. *ł > Yen. *rołH ‘light’ ~ leli ‘light’ [23] 4. *rołH ‘light’ ~ leli ‘light’ [23] One case of the occasional distant assimilation must be noted : NCauc. luck’ . where SCauc. *q. hir ‘to allocate. sleeve’ > her. hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12] ? SCauc. lock’ [6] STib. Cf. lateral affricates *ƛ. similar situation in Proto-Yen. *ḳ. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62] STib. *maʷV ‘good. *mor ‘grain’ ~ fula ‘bread’ [38] SCauc. *re ‘to dislike’ ~ le ‘to envy’ [22] STib. *Hōk ‘to look. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose. k. *l ~ *r1 ~ *r with unknown distribution. *j was lost in the intervocalic position : SCauc. heart’ > šaki. *Iʷə-ʷV ‘iron’ or rather *Iʷə-pəə ‘copper’. *Ł merge in Hatt. *χłHé ‘arm. female’ > *limhu-t > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27] SCauc. *ł yields Hatt. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39] SCauc.5 Laterals SCauc. lip. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water). l: SCauc.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 333 SCauc. year.

*q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water).)’ ~ katte ‘king’ [17] Uvular stops: SCauc. run’ > tuk ‘to step’ [61] Yen. dead’ > fun(a) ‘mortality’ [40] 4. 1st person sg. leopard’ > take-ha ‘lion’ [51] SCauc. -c) ‘old (attr. wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7] NCauc. if the comparison is correct. *hn ‘now’ > anna ‘when’ [2] SCauc. *ʔa-KsV. female’ > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27] But SCauc. *ħwir ‘water. timber’ > zeha-r.): SCauc. *h drops: SCauc. velar and uvular voiceless fricatives *x. *λɨnɦV ‘woman.(~ *dək-) ‘to fall’ ~ zik ‘to fall’ [65] Yen. ziha-r ‘wood’ [64] NCauc. Kassian [UF 41 Yen.334 A. *kaʔt (~ g-. *ŋV ‘I’ > fa.‘I’. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37] An example for SCauc. scatter’ ~ hel ‘to strew’ [10] SCauc.13 below.2.(~ x-) ‘temple (part of head)’ ~ kaš ‘head’ [16] Yen. initial nasal *ŋ. *ɦ standardly yields Hatt.7 Laryngeals SCauc. see 4.‘wide’ [9] STib.> *m. . n: SCauc. *bħĕr ‘a k. *xnɦ (-ŭ) ‘water.2. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ ~ kap ‘moon’ [15] SCauc. *ħw >  could be: SCauc. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ ~ han ‘to open’ [8] SCauc. h: SCauc. f.2. *ɦrwĔ ‘wide’ > harki. lake’ > ur(i) ‘spring. h: SCauc. *χ yield Hatt. *ħ is: SCauc. The only example of SCauc. *sṭnV ‘panther.2. *ɦ drops in initial/final clusters.(the development is exactly paralleled by Proto-Yen. well’ [109’]. *wēχV ‘stick. *ɦrwĔ ‘wide’ > harki.> Hatt.‘wide’ [9] NCauc. *HmoŋV ‘die. nasal *ŋ > Hatt. subject [75] In other positions SCauc. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ > kip ‘to protect’ [18] SCauc. *də(ʔ)q. *ČQV ‘to step.

*H (an unidentified laryngeal) > Hatt. *čäłHu ‘earth. *=Hǯ(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > eštan ‘sun’ [5] SCauc. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39] Of course one can try to explain it by the influence of an old labialized consonant. ~ --) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68] SCauc. *Hōk ‘to look. *dHV ‘to grow. lord’ ~ šai-l ~ tai-l ‘lord’ [46] SCauc. speak against such a supposition. dead’ > fun ‘mortality’ [40] 4. ziha-r ‘wood’ [64] SCauc. to build’ ~ teh ‘to build’ [56] SCauc. big’ > te ‘big’ [54] STib. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water). where labialized velars/uvulars completely lose their labial element without vowel change. salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34] SCauc. : SCauc. *rĕḳw ‘breast. Starostin) lose the labial element in Hattic. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock. *ćH ‘to work. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] SCauc. sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45] STib. *HmoŋV ‘to die. scatter’ ~ hel ‘to strew’ [10] SCauc. see’ > kun ‘to see’ [21] SCauc. *H (an unidentified laryngeal) > Hatt. *ɦmjwV ‘sour. hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12] In a few cases Hattic shows unmotivated u-vocalism: SCauc. h: SCauc. plural of the accusative case [70] The same with velars/uvulars: SCauc. As a matter of fact five examples above. *-š:w.2.2. *wjV (~ sṭ-. guard’ > (a)ku ‘escort’ [20] SCauc. *ĆŏH) ‘to take’ > tuh ‘to take’ [60] SCauc. They yield reflexes which coincide with their non-labialized counterparts: SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 335 SCauc. *ɦrwĔ ‘wide’ > harki. *ćH ‘to govern. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ ~ han ‘to open’ [8] STib. search’ > hukur ‘to see’ [13] SCauc. plural stem marker ~ aš-/iš-. . heart’ > šaki. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > LÚluizzi-l ‘runner’ [26] NCauc. timber’ ~ zeha-r. wind’ > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] NCauc. labialized consonants (treated as Cw-clusters by S. *mlćwV ‘to blow.‘wide’ [9] NCauc. *=ắčw (STib. *HŭxqwĂ ‘to preserve.‘heart’ [47] SCauc. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look.8 Clusters with *w SCauc. *wēχV ‘stick.

lock’ [6] SCauc. k or h without evident rule of distribution. *xq > Hatt. that coincides with the Proto-Yen. *čxqV ‘to scratch. *xw > Hatt. k: SCauc. *x(w)Vr ‘old. h.10 ST-clusters SCauc. hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12] SCauc.2.2. *HŭxqwĂ ‘to preserve. scrape. hil ‘to ripen’ [11] SCauc. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] SCauc. h: SCauc. see’ > kun ‘to see’ [21] SCauc.2.2. k: SCauc. incrustation.9 xK(w)-clusters SCauc. *štw (with a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/): SCauc. *xqw > Hatt. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look. bolt’ > *halu ‘bolt. skin. to shave’ > taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose. *št: SCauc. *t). *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock. k: SCauc. guard’ > (a)ku ‘escort’ [20] SCauc. SCauc. *x > Hatt. k: SCauc. *sṭ : SCauc. *xgw > Hatt.336 A. clusters of the ST-type yield Hatt. h. Kassian [UF 41 4. reflex (SCauc. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock. ripe’ > hel. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39] 4. *xḳ > Hatt. shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] SCauc. SCauc. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > *luiti-l > luizzi-l ‘runner’ [26] . *ST > Yen. t. leopard’ > take-ha ‘lion’ [51] SCauc. *štɦrV ‘crust. *sṭnV ‘panther. h: SCauc. clusters of the type *xK(w) (where K—velar/uvular) yield Hatt.

*=mV(r) ‘to stand.2.2. branches except NCauc. 84). *mlćwV ‘to blow. *bħĕr ‘a k. see SCC. SCC.. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock. branches except NCauc. *ħ > STib. *ł is lost in combination with some unidentified laryngeal: SCauc. branches except NCauc. 191). of predator’).11 lC. *łɦ.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 337 4.. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39] SCauc. has regular *r/r1 < SCauc. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] For r in combination with * see comm. sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45] Such a development is paralleled by STib. . tawa-nanna ‘lady’ [52] Yen. 19.‘root’ ~ tup ‘root’ [63] Such a simplification is standard for all SCauc. *l and *r in combinations with velar/uvular (note that all SCauc. *t[e]mb-Vĺ.. * (SCC. where SCauc. 87 f. lip. *čäłHu ‘earth. Note that Yen. *ɦrwĔ ‘wide’ > harki. *łħ > *ɦ. *lH/łH (SCC. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62] But SCauc. STib. retain the nasal. where Yen. on p(a)raš ‘leopard’ [37] (< SCauc. *[]mbi ‘superpower’ > tafa-r-na ‘lord’.2.. Quite surprising is the fact of retention of SCauc.12 NC-clusters SCauc. to lick’ > alef ‘tongue’ [1] SCauc. *l is dropped in combination with post-alveolar and palatal affricates (this process is normal for all SCauc. SCauc.2. 39 ff. 48 ff. but there is a significant number of examples. stay’ > *(a)mti > (a)nti ‘to stand’ [28] Note that the retention of the nasal in such a position is not typical of SCauc.): SCauc. 4. wind’ > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] SCauc. *ānp ‘tongue. standardly lose the sonorant in such clusters). *l is retained: SCauc.and rC-clusters SCauc.. nasal drops in combination with labial: SCauc. languages.‘wide’ [9] In combination with *ɦ SCauc. and Burush. Combination with post-alveolar affricate *m > *mt > *nt: SCauc.

bolt’ > *halu ‘bolt. incrustation. *λɨnɦV ‘woman. heart’ > šaki. The standard shape of SCauc. nasal: SCauc. lock’ [6] SCauc.338 A. wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7] In the medial position laryngeals can be retained : NCauc. *λɨnɦV ‘woman. *štɦrV ‘crust. *bħĕr ‘a k. incrustation. *rĕḳw ‘breast. branches except NCauc. Normally Hattic retains this structure as CVCV or CVC (with unknown rules of the final vowel drop).2. salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34] SCauc. leopard’ > take-ha ‘lion’ [51] In combination with *ɦ Hattic retains the SCauc. *sṭnV ‘panther. *štɦrV ‘crust. 1 ff. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock.2. shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] SCauc.13 Clusters with laryngeals In the initial and final positions Hattic loses laryngeals in clusters: SCauc. female’ > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27] SCauc. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62] SCauc. SCauc. brilliance’ > paru ‘bright’ [33] SCauc. *[p]ārē ‘lightning . *čäłHu ‘earth. wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7] SCauc. nominal root was CVCV (where C can be a cluster). *xnɦ (-ŭ) ‘water.3 Root structure For the general discussion see SCC. skin. sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45] 4.‘heart’ [47]. Cf. wave’ > han ‘sea’ [7] NCauc. female’ > nimhu-t ‘woman’ [27] 4. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37] SCauc. *xnɦ (-ŭ) ‘water. *ɦmjwV ‘sour. Kassian [UF 41 In combination with guttural the nasal drops (a standard development in SCauc. *xnɦ (-ŭ) ‘water. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock. *HmoŋV ‘to die. shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] CVC: SCauc. dead’ > fun ‘mortality’ [40] SCauc. CVCV: SCauc. the following selective examples.): SCauc. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] . skin.

Since the reconstruction of NCauc. *b[]k.or =HV-. *=VCVR instead of *CVR). *čVqV ~ Yen.-centric. taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] SCauc. which serves as a spacer between ECauc. class exponents (“=”) and root. ripe’ > NCauc. Yen. verbal proto-roots. a sonorant or a consonant cluster. verbal roots is more complicated. kip ‘to protect’ [18] SCauc. *ku ~ Yen. *ČQV ‘to step. to shave’ > NCauc.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 339 The situation with SCauc. It should be noted that Hattic does not show traces of these =V-/=HV. thus conforming in it with the STib. *baŕ. verbal shapes were: CVCV CVC VCV(R) CV where C can be an obstruent. CVC: SCauc. *H[o]kV ~ STib. level (e. large’ ~ Hatt. scrape. huku-r ‘to see’ [13] SCauc. *p(r)wH ~ Yen. In most cases S. *čxqV ‘to scratch. search’ > NCauc. ripen’ [11] SCauc. *ṣo ~ Hatt. I adopt Starostin’s reconstructions of individual roots. I suppose that the main SCauc. reconstruction in general is NCauc. CVCV: SCauc. sub-branch?) adds an initial =V. run’ > STib.~ Hatt. CVCV > Hatt. *bar ~ Hatt. *Gāp ~ Yen. fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] SCauc. CVCV > Hatt.~ Hatt.“spacers”. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak. he accepts SCauc.. SCauc. hel ‘to grow. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ > STib. Starostin projects such a “spacer” onto the Proto-SCauc.~ Hatt. *qepVn. since the actual SCauc. g. *x(w)Vr ‘old. pray’ > STib.~ Burush. and SCauc. morphosyntax is the task of futher research and is not a goal of my paper.. Very often NCauc. *Hōk ‘to look. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ~ Hatt. but sometimes in a polysyllabic structure a final vowel may have been lost (as in the case of nominal roots the rules of a final vowel drop are not clear). *=ĭrwĂ ‘to ripen’ ~ STib. *ćəw ~ Burush. Burushaski and Basque branches. language. tuk ‘to step’ [61] . but it is clear that the structure of some types of verbal roots was seriously rebuilt in the Proto-NCauc. Standardly Hattic retains the shape of SCauc. *=ǟwčĂ ~ STib. *čɔʔq.. *čVwV ‘to pour. wet’ > NCauc. tefu ‘to pour’ [57] SCauc. *ćek ~ Yen. *grĭ ‘old. (or rather its ECauc.

tu ‘to eat’ [59] 5 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons Entries are arranged in the following alphabetic order: a. word. CVR: NCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose. k. n. *di(j) ~ Hatt. *=V ‘to eat. =V-CV > Hatt. *=VmVr ~ STib. *ānp ‘tongue. see’ > NCauc. VCV > Hatt. VCV: SCauc. *ʒha-H ~ Yen. leave’ > NCauc. han ‘to open’ [8] SCauc. *=mV(r) ‘to stand. cognates 1. to say?’ = Hitt.1 (reliable root comparisons) is continued in section 6.~ Burush. *=igwVł ~ STib. *=ǟḳĂw ~ STib. u. Hattic data. ku ‘to seize’ ‘to seize’ [19] SCauc. to lick’ > . her ‘to hide’ [12] SCauc. stay’ > NCauc. 5. *sī. (a)nti ‘to stand. → Comments and references. e/i. √ Proposed Sino-Caucasian etymology.2 (dubious root comparisons). = Hittite equivalent in bilingual or quasi-bilingual texts. EME.~ Basque *ecan ~ Hatt. put’ [55] SCauc. *koj (~ -l) ~ Basque *gal. The numeration in section 5. *kʷēn ~ Yen. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ ~ Hatt. √ SCauc. ti ‘to lie. *=ătV-r ~ STib.1 Roots with reliable SCauc. VC: SCauc. VCV > Hatt. The same concerns the numeration with character stroke (’) in section 5. eš ‘to put’ [4] SCauc. =V-CVR > Hatt. hide’ > NCauc.1 (reliable grammatical comparisons). kun ‘to see’ [21] SCauc. *=agwV ~ STib. š/s. t. Kassian [UF 41 SCauc. *ćhi-H ~ Hatt. *=ătV ‘to put. m. l. *śi/*ṣi/*ṣu ~ Hatt. h. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look.~ Hatt. lip. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to take’ > NCauc. *=ĕẮ ‘to put’ > NCauc. The entries have the following structure: No. stay’ [28] SCauc.2 (dubious grammatical comparisons).340 A. alef (alep. *=VV ~ STib. f/p/w. which is continued in 6. *dhăH ~ Yen. *=iĂ ~ Yen. z. alip. CV: SCauc. drink’ > NCauc. *qo ~ Hatt. aliw) ‘tongue. *ʔes. *Khu ~ Hatt.

pronouns/adverbs. Dargwa *han. henni. suffix. na ‘year(?). STib. aša ‘komm (herein)!’ = Hitt. Kachin (H) na. ‘as. *ʔen ‘now’ > Ket ēn.should go back to SCauc. Untenably Браун. *ʔa. not ‘now’. 1985. Tib. these WCauc. let enter’ > Ket ɛ:te. when’ > Chin. *. If so. Lushai niaʔ ‘at the time of. 1985.). . E. *hin-čV ‘today’. -r1-. *ʔēč. hini ‘now’.in the compounds listed is ‘when’. čəna ‘to extend in time’. elep.+ ‘God. further to NCauc. Hurr. → Yen. Yen. or abl. Tsez. infix -an. aš ‘to come (here)’. and’ (?).6 ‘tomorrow’ (an. age. *ʔen-ŋa > Kott. Arin áĺap. als’ = Hitt. *ʔen-ŋa appears the closest parallel (*ŋ > n seems regular for Hattic). 3. *nə. Abkhaz aná ‘there’. → An exclusive Hattic–Yenisseian isogloss. ‘sobald. WCauc. then. Kachin (H) šiŋ-lep ‘tongue’. speech. ani ‘that’. Urart. Similarly Иванов. *ƛep ‘tongue. Иванов. *ʔalVp (~ -ĺ-. that’. stem *h[ä]nV ‘now’. The Ablaut form *ʔan. as opposed to NCauc. STib. № 2 compares Hattic anna with some WCauc. adverbial/pronominal forms of the shape an-. 1994. 85). when’. morphemes go back to WCauc. *h[ä]nV ‘now’ > Nakh *hin-ca/*hin-ʒa ‘now’. Lezgh. and so forth. Yen. *ipu (~ -ɨ-. → Double nn in the Hattic form may point to an old cluster.‘today’. The Hattic meaning corresponds to Yen. Since their temporal semantics is not paralleled by the corresponding ECauc. *(a)č:ʷV ‘word. Yen. stage of life.(a former class-prefix?) exactly matches the Hattic onset. gźab ‘to lick’. According to NCED. Lezgh. *nV ‘(a demonstrative stem)’. at that time (alors)’ (Vogt. covering a large spectrum of demonstrative meanings. Yug en.(~ ḳ-). + WCauc. eaŋa ‘now’.‘now’. + Yen. anna ‘when’. to lick’ > Tib. despite semantic difference and vocalic alternation. Arin iŋni ‘today’. *n[ǝ] ‘time or place of. sky’). it is possible that part of the WCauc. 而 *nə particle by verbalizing. when’. 21 (Hatt. to say. 1963. g.‘here (là). forms listed above originates from the same NCauc. *-č. √ SCauc. mān. ehu. cf. instrument of or for’. *hin. although the vocalic correspondence is not very clear. na loc.̃ -). . *nV ‘this.. *amp. Yug -ɛ:h. -na ‘the place of or where. *ānpV ‘lip’ > Tsez.‘morning’). № 1 (Hatt.‘when’. Yen. alup. and yet.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 341 NCauc. -b) ‘tongue’ > Kott. *hn ‘now’ > NCauc.‘to let come. 2. apparently the basic meaning of an.‘now’.in compounds > Yug an-es5. √ Yen. an-bɔksɨ 5 ‘tomorrow’ = Ket anɔkś 5. and STib.6 ‘morning’ (an. to swear’). Ubykh aná.+ *pVk. imp.

qä-diń ‘holiday’. DUTU. breath . drag’).‘to pull. *ḳuł /*łḳu ‘lock. to put (with preverbs)’. √ SCauc. Yug ɛsiɛ-saŋ6. *=V:Vn(~ -:-). Burush. ‘засов’ = Hitt. to put down’. bolt. *=ĕẮ ‘to put’ > NCauc. *=i. 楗 *garʔ ‘door bar. *ʔia. Lezgh. Yen. lock’. key’ > Av. Incorrectly Иванов. STib. 6. Yen. bolt’.). 1994. *ʡămsa (~ -ə. → Note the vocalic correspondence in the first syllable between Hattic and Yen. √ SCauc.. arrange’ + Yen. *=āčŋ. ćajh ‘to stop. cloud. reimburse’. *čāŋ.). → The Hattic meaning corresponds to Yen.-And.‘to pull. ones. quiet (of weather)’ > Ket ɛt4 / ɛŕ4. -ɨ) ‘sky. *ća (~ *č-) ‘to go. Sun-goddess. 霽 *ćjs ‘clearing sky’.‘clear. Yug χέīn ‘holiday’ etc. WCauc. → The comparison is reliable if the SCauc. *āŋ. half-clear (of sky). *halu in redupl. to clear. cf. dai-. Lezgh. STib. Kassian [UF 41 Браун. to lead’ < SCauc. rest (tr. onset was *xḳ-. it) ‘to put’ = Hitt. Yug ɛ:h. Hurr.‘to compensate. √ SCauc. № 11: to NCauc. Burm. soul. *ān. 5. walk’ < NCauc.-And. lead’ (NCauc. WCauc. sky’. 4. *ʡắmsɨ ‘soul. *ḳul (~ -o-). *ḳulV. Lushai kalʔ ‘to be locked or fasten’. *ləḳʷə. eš. *Ćj (~ -l) ‘clear (of weather)’ > Chin. Kott. Perhaps with an initial reduction *ǯin ‘bright day’ in Ket dīń ‘bright day’. and Basque attestations. + STib. not to the NCauc. Basque *ecan ‘to lie down. bolt’ > NCauc. god. as weather’. 1985. Lak ḳula. to stop (of rain)’. WCauc. *=iĂ ‘to give. to put’ > Av. as raining or sound. śi-ćei.-And.342 A. breath. day?’ = Hitt. *V ‘to lay eggs. The loss of *-n in Hattic is unclear in this case. forms. *ʔes. aštan ‘sun. *=Hǯ(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > NCauc. № 17 (Hatt. *ćăŋ ‘to bring. hešmi ‘clear.‘to put’ > Ket ɛśa6. . hattalwaš GIŠ-ru. *=HuǯV-n ( ~ --) ‘to clear up (of weather)’ > Av. lock’ > Chin. bright’. 1985. Similarly Иванов. god’ < SCauc. + NCauc. Lezgh. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock. 21: to WCauc. *ʡo:Vn-. halu-halu ‘wooden bolt.‘to give’. *ʔēǯ. eštan. *aŋ ‘clear (of sky).. iš (and maybe et. *kălH ‘bolt. as opposed to NCauc. compensate. *=āčĂn ‘to go. Note that the Hattic vowel of the first syllable corresponds to the STib.

2009]

Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language

343

7. han ‘sea’ = Hitt. aruna-. √ SCauc. *xnɦ (-ŭ) > NCauc. *xnɦ ‘water’ > Nakh *χi, Av.-And. *λ:inʔi, Tsez. *λ:, Lak š:in, Dargwa *xin, Lezgh. *λ:än:, Khin. xu. STib. *χĭw(s) ‘water, moisture’ > Tib. hus ‘moisture, humidity’, Kachin khoʔ 2 ‘to spill’, Lushai huʔ ‘wet’, Kiranti *kù ‘water’. Yen. *xäń (~ ʔ-) ‘wave’ > Ket āńbɔk1, Kott. en, *ēn. Burushaski *hán-chil ‘water from a wound ; watery (tea, soup)’. Basque *u-hain ‘wave’. → Phonetically Hattic exactly matches the Yen. forms. 8. han ‘to open’ = Hitt. haš- ‘to open’, and da- ‘to take’(?!). √ NCauc. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ > Av.-And. *=aχʷVn; Tsez. *=[ã]ʁ:-. 9. harki-mah ‘to be(come) wide’ = Hitt. palhi- eš-. √ SCauc. *ɦrwĔ ‘wide’ > NCauc. *ɦăr[w]Ĕ ‘wide’ > Av.-And. *a-b-, Tsez. *e-, Lak u-t:a-, Dargwa *-aʕu-, Lezgh. *hIarɨ-, WCauc. *bə(ʷ)V. STib. *qʷāŋH ‘wide, broad’ > Chin. 廣 *kʷāŋʔ ‘wide, broad, large’, Kachin (ə)wuŋ2-waŋ2, ‘to be wide, ample’, Lushai vāŋ ‘to be broad, wide’, etc. Yen. *χiG-Vĺ (~ *χiχ-Vĺ) ‘wide, broad’ > Ket qīĺ, Yug xe:ĺ /xejĺ 3, Kott. hīgal. → Yen. shows the ĺ-suffix. 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. išhuwai-. √ STib. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water), scatter’ > Chin. 澣 gʷārʔ (~ w-?) ‘to wash’, Tib. skjur-ba ‘to throw, throw into water, cast’, Lushai vorʔ ‘to scatter, throw up, toss’. → STib. *q(h)ʷ- originates from SCauc. *qw, Gw-, χw-, ʁw- and so on (SCC, 89–93), while *-r- < SCauc. *-l- and *-r-. 11. hel, hil ‘to grow, ripen’ = Hitt. mai-. √ SCauc. *x(w)Vr ‘old, ripe’ > NCauc. *=ĭrwĂ ‘to ripen’ > Av.-And. *=i-, Tsez. *=i-, Lak =ija-, Dargwa *=iur-, Lezgh. *ʔi(r)ʷV, WCauc. *ṭəʁʷa- (~ -Gʷ-). STib. *grĭ ‘old, large’ > Chin. 耆 *grij ‘old’, 祁 *grij ‘great, large’, Tib. bgre

344

A. Kassian

[UF 41

‘to grow old’, Burm. krih ‘to be old; be big’. → The correspondence Hatt. l ~ SCauc. *r is strange, cf., however, Yen. *r/r1 as reflexes of SCauc. *r with unknown rules of distribution (Yen. *r1 yields l-like phonemes in the majority of daughter languages). 12. her (also hert?) ‘to hide, conceal’ = Hitt. munnai-. √ SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose, hide’ > NCauc. *=igwVł ‘to lose, get lost; to steal’ > Av.-And. *golV (~ -a-) ‘thief’, Tsez. *gʷVl- ‘thief’, Lezgh. *ʔik:ʷäl- ‘to lose; to get lost; hidden, secret’, Khin. dugun- ‘to lose’. STib. *koj (~ -l) ‘to hide’ > Burm. kwaj ‘to conceal, keep out of sight’, Kachin məkoi1 ‘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. *ł ~ Hatt. r, cf. SCauc. *ł > Yen. *r/r1 with unknown rules of distribution. The Hattic meaning is closer to STib., rather than to NCauc. Иванов, 1985, № 7 compares Hatt. her(t?) with an isolated WCauc. form: Ubykh qarda- ‘être assis, caché’ (Vogt, 1963, 164). 13. hukur ‘to see, look, notice’ = Hitt. auš-. √ SCauc. *Hōk ‘to look, search’ > NCauc. *H[o]kV ‘to look, search’ > Tsez. *hak- (~ ħ-), Lak uI=či-, Lezgh. *ʔakV-/*ʔokV-. STib. *ku (~ g-) ‘to seek, choose, understand’ > Chin. 求 *gu ‘to seek, ask for’, Tib. sko, bsko ‘to choose’, go ‘to know, understand’, Burm. (Naxi) *kh[ua] ‘hear’. Yen. *b-[]k- (~ w-) ‘to find’ > Ket bʌ:ɣə4, bʌɣ4, Yug bʌ:hk, Kott. bapukŋ. → The (verbal) suffix -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 verbal stem known to us, where we can suspect an r-suffix. 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 ur- ‘to look’—an isolated Georg. root, which theoretically may be related to Kartv. ur- ‘ear; to hear’, see Schmidt, 1962, 141.

2009]

Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language

345

14. kaiš ‘horn (anatomic 18)’ = Hitt. SI. √ SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock; horn’ > NCauc. *ḳəlčwi ‘forelock, plait; horn’ > Nakh *ḳu ‘forelock, tuft of hair; mountain top’, Av.-And. *ḳʷi (~ *ḳiʷ) ‘forelock’, Lezgh. *ḳalč/*kalč ‘horn; plait, woman’s hair’. STib. *khaj ‘horn, a pair of horns’ > Chin. 觭 khaj ‘one horn turning up and one down’, Lushai ki ‘horn’. Burush. *ɣuy ‘hair’. → The loss of l in combination with an affricate is regular for all SCauc. subbranches except the NCauc. one (SCC, 87 f.). Hattic probably shows an interesting development *l >  here. 15. kap ‘moon’ = Hitt. DSÎN. √ Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ > Ket qīp, pl. qi:ń3, Yug xep, pl. xejfɨn1. → For the meaning of the Hattic term see HHB2, 173, 412 f., 416 ff., 464 fn. 948 and Soysal, 2004, 364. An important Hattic–Yen. isogloss. The second Yenisseian word for ‘moon’ is *(ʔV)suj (Kott., Arin, Pump.), which probably possesses an external etymology (SCauc. *wŋŏ ‘moon’), whereas *q[e]p (~ χ-) seems an inner Yenisseian innovation. 16. kaš, kiš ‘head’, ‘Kopf, Haupt’ = Hitt. haršan-, SAG.DU √ Yen. *ʔaKsV- (~ x-) ‘temple (part of head)’ > Kott. axšei, further see Yenet.dbf #11 and Старостин, 1995, 180 with possible Ket–Yug cognates and the general discussion. → An exclusive Hattic–Yen. isogloss. Yen. *ʔa- appears to be a fossilized class prefix, causing a secondary reduction of the root vowel, as, e. g., in Yen. *saq- ~ *ʔa-sq- ‘guilty’ (< SCauc. *cVrqV). An alternative, semantically more persuasive etymology is SCauc. *q ‘head’ (NCauc. [only WCauc. *SqIa ‘head’] ~ Yen. *c[ɨ]ʔG- ‘head’ ~ Burush. *-ćáɣanes ‘back of head’), if one assumes a consonant metathesis in the Hattic root. Cf. Sum. SAG̃ ‘head’ (an unclear coincidence?). 17. katte ‘king’, katta-h ‘queen’ = Hitt. LUGAL, MUNUS.LUGAL. √ Yen. *kaʔt (~ g-, -c) ‘old (attr.)’ > Ket kaʔt, pl. kateŋ5, Yug kaʔt, pl. kateŋ5. → An exclusive Hattic–Yen. isogloss. Hattic shows a very common semantic
–––––––––––––––––––––––
18

O. Soysal, pers. comm.

Lushai hup (huʔ) ‘to cover. *=ik:ʷ-. Khin. *ɦĭxŋwV ‘to graze. *gāp ‘to thatch. 逑 *gu ‘to assemble. An alternative cognate of the Hattic verb is NCauc.. Av. conceal. Tsez.. *q[ä]pV ‘to cover’ (reconstructed as *HápE in Sccet.-Urart. to lie’). 1996. and STib. Kachin məgap2 ‘to cover’. Lezgh.dbf adds NCauc. *ḳə ‘to catch. Hattic shows a common semantic development ‘to cover/wrap’ > ‘to protect’.)’. STib. kip ‘to protect’ = Hitt. guard’ > NCauc. attestations. to envelop. Lak l-i=i. a cover (of a car)’. to take’ > NCauc. Hurr. *ʔiqɨ-. take. Yug di-χέfɨnābdi ʔ ‘ich mache es zu’. Yen.(~ χ-) ‘to close (door)’ > Ket qeńgej6. Dargwa *=ujk:-. to (be) put together’. cap’ (Av. -əw) ‘to take out. crumble’. → It seems that the NCauc. also SCauc. collect’. *=oχ:-. Semantically the Hattic verb is close to the WCauc. Kassian [UF 41 shift ‘old’ > ‘elder’. boiled rice out of a pot)’. *=Vḳ-/*ḳV-b. Kiranti *ʔkp ‘cover’. fall’ > Nakh *=ēḳ. Chirikba.-And.. to take. conceal. *ɦĭfV ‘to guard. Interesting.. . *Gāp ‘to cover’ > Chin.) here that is implausible since forms like KAPV (/PAKV) ‘hat’ are clear wandering words. Lepcha kap ‘to cover over. Cf.dbf)> STib. whose elements are unclear. grab’. l-ɨ=ḳ‘to hide. guard’. epp-. catch’ (> Av. *=oḳʷ. khuh ‘to take out (e. WCauc. gab ‘to hide’. Lezgh. *qepVn. establish’. → Sccet. extract’ > Chin.‘to fall down. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to put (together).‘to put together. *Khu (~ -ua. *HapE ‘hat. bku ‘to extract (to make an extract of a drug by drawing out the juice)’. *=iqwV ‘to hold. χέfɨne. to cover’. Dargwa. ku ‘to seize’ = Hitt. to lie. Tib. Tsez. *ḳew. cf. to choose.‘to put’. √ SCauc. WCauc. to hide. √ SCauc. hold.‘to put in. Tib. 19. to fall down. *ʔeḳʷɨ. conceal’. katte with Abkhaz–Abaza compound *qa-da ‘chief (adj. to graze’ ~ STib.‘to steal. Tsez. to put’. imper. Lezgh. *ŋ[u]a ‘gamester. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to put.‘to put’. Lak. Dargwa *=aḳ-/*=iḳ. bkab ‘to cover’. 18. to lie. forms reveal more than one proto-root (‘to take’ and ‘to put. pahš-.-And. accumulate’ (?).-And. 蓋 *kāts (< *kāps) ‘to cover. Burm. 424 compares Hatt. to wrap round as garment’.B ‘to fall. to gather. but phonetically unsatisfactory (k ~ *ɦ). put over’.346 A. g.

Burm. *=oχ. ones. *re ‘to dislike’ > Kachin nri4 ‘to be annoyed. Lushai khon ‘to regard. preserve’. √ STib. see’ > NCauc. *HŭqwĂ ‘to graze. 仇 *gu ‘mate. Kiranti *ku ‘look after’. Иванов. kun with unclear Adyghe–Kabardian *ʁʷə. ja-xa-ldi ‘I see’. to envy’. 421 (Hattic + WCauc. Lushai hreʔ ‘to dislike. khrol-po ‘sparkling. waaku). *χIʷV ‘to graze (intr. guard’ > NCauc. Burm. 救 *kus ‘to help. handsome’. ləkhu ‘to guard. root is closer to the STib. *=[e]gʷ. lustre. *HŭxqwĂ ‘to preserve. √ SCauc. . pay attention to’. preserve’ > Tsez.(~ -ʁ:-) ‘to graze. forms rather than to the NCauc. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look. 21 (Hatt. + WCauc. isogloss (STib. protect’. *ḳə). Kachin khuʔ 2 ‘to become friends’. displeased’. № 23. STib. № 21 compares Hatt. 22. (H) gəri ‘to regard as undesirable’. Lak k:ʷa=k:ʷa-. form: faku (paku. *=agwV ‘to see’ > Nakh *gu-/*=ag-.)’. √ SCauc.A. Tsez. ʷ-)). *r goes back to SCauc. ku ‘help’. → A Hattic–STib. 1994. le or ale ‘to envy (vel sim. escort (vel sim. 23. (H) məkhu friend. Dargwa *gʷ-/*=irg(ʷ)-. ku (or aku) ‘soldier. Yen. and trans. *:Iʷa). and Chirikba. 21. attestations. ‘neidisch sein. 孌 *ronʔ ‘to be beautiful. √ STib. Tib. → Morphologically the Hattic form is close to the STib. aršaniya.-And. 睊 *kʷēn ‘to glance at’. 1996. STib. but this comparison does not explain the Hattic u-vocalism. shining’. brilliance’. auš-. companion’. lalukkima-. dazzling’. 1985.)’ or rather ‘subject(s of the king)’.)’. → Semantically the Hatt. Lushai *ku ‘help’. kun ‘to see’ = Hitt. *:Iʷa (~ʷ-. friend. *kŭ ‘to help . *kʷēn (~ gʷ-) ‘to glance at. 1985.‘to be angry (at). *leli in leliyah or leliyahu ‘source of light. 20. Attested only in pl. *r or *l). WCauc.)’ = Hitt.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 347 WCauc. guard. relieve’. to regard’ > Chin. Иванов. Pump. *rołH ‘light’ > Chin. *ʔak:ʷä-. companion’ > Chin. *qo (~ χ-) ‘to see’ > Ket d-ba-ŋ-sɔ-ʁɔ. object to’. *ʔoχIʷɨ ‘to guard. Браун. *-Vg-. Lezgh. Lezgh. Yug di-ba-ŋ-s-ɔ. save. beneiden (vel sim. feed’. Av. khrolkhrol ‘bright.(found in some compounds like ‘mirror’) with the possible meaning ‘to look/see’. glistening. An epithet of the Sun-goddess = Hitt.

and female suffix -ah [125’].‘to run (away)’. 24. Kiranti *l[o] ‘time’. *hilčwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > Tsez. Yen. *ʔoʔĺ ‘hull. ‘скороход’ = Hitt. *V ‘year. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > NCauc. The vocalic correspondence between Hattic and STib. Kachin lu2-na3 ‘to can’. stem with NCauc.KAM). present. season’. *:ʷa ‘to run. Sccet. (comparing it with yah ‘heaven. make run.dbf #705 adds here Chin. gallop’. be experienceable’. season’ > Chin. Kassian [UF 41 hrwanh ‘to be clear. → An exclusive Hattic–STib. ‘imstande sein. year. *tut. MU(. merged in some languages. № 15 (proposing *yah ‘bright’) and O. drive’. 26. consider’) and unites this STib. to walk uncertainly’. *ćhōʔ ‘to run. lalukkima-)—another epithet of the Sun-goddess. season’ > NCauc. 25. *hišʷä. is not clear. *ƛăjV ‘year. blo ‘mind. leš ‘year’ = Hitt. čä=p. today’.‘to flee. (H) lu.(*ƛaHi-) ‘year. *ćhoʔ. → The Hattic stem shows the well-attested “masculine” suffix -l. Basque *lar¯u ‘skin’) which seems lame semantically. 1985. Kiranti *lù ‘to feel. > Chin. STib.‘to run away’. *=[ũ]č. -za tarh-. *lw ‘to be able’ > Tib. colour’ (> NCauc. Lezgh. WCauc. in the daytime. 喻 *los ‘to understand . Apparently two different proto-roots. which forms nomina agentis. enlighten’ (if not to STib. liš. pers. WCauc. LÚluizzi-l ‘runner. be affected. *Łŏli ‘colour. *ƛăjV ‘time. Kachin khra1 ‘time. Khin. *ʔolʁwA ‘to think’. comm. Tib. √ STib. to paint’.348 A. sky’). LÚKAŠ4. → Apparently the Hattic stem contains the suffix -ya. bright. Yen. → The element -š is apparently a suffix known from some other Hattic nominal stems. The same suffixal chain -ya-ah is seen in the quasi-synonymous kašparuyah ‘source of light’ [33] (= Hitt.-And. however. thu ‘to be able. *lH ‘year. lo ‘year’. day’ > Av. year’. 走 *ćōʔ ‘to run. *Łli ‘skin. messenger’. können?’ = Hitt. 祀 *lhəʔ ‘sacrificial cycle. to instruct. Lak liI=ča‘to run’. hide’ > Ket tutɨŋ5 /tutiŋ5. √ SCauc. shining’. stem into SCauc. STib.dbf #570 tentatively includes the STib. *ƛaji.‘to run (away)’. Alternatively it is possible to single out the morpheme yah here: thus Иванов. suffusion’. lu ‘to be able’. Sccet. intellect. . isogloss. √ SCauc. *jw ‘to understand.E. ‘to think’ and ‘to be able’. can’. day’. Soysal. to be able’.

√ NCauc. fel. *=arč. trace’ (> Chin. Lezgh. *ʔec:ʷär-. 1996. 在 *hʔ ‘to be at. -m. proto-form. 29. pel?. STib. the comparison seems reliable. stay’ > Chin. Dargwa *bik: ‘cattle herd’. 21. on’. Lezgh.-And. .‘to walk. pai-. *=VmVr ‘to stand. *mt > nt seems regular.is a fossilized class prefix and -śʷə is a diminutive suffix). come’) which is not persuasive either phonetically or morphologically. go (intr. 1985. Although Hattic shows assimilated n. Lak =iza-n. 1985. stay. weel./ =ilc:-. 30. enter’). É(-ir). 421 compare Hatt. in. fil (waael. uwa-. female’./ *ħi(r):-. pub’. → Браун. → -t(u)/-š(u) is a “female” suffix. Kachin kənu4 ‘a pattern of carving or embroidery’. nimhu-t (or nimhu-tu). Not better Иванов. nu ‘to come./ *=eč-. *=i:.before labialized h. *=rƛŬ ‘to go. trample’. Tsez. 19 (Hatt. to stay’ = Hitt. 27. √ STib. go’ (< WCauc. Tsez. + WCauc. Untenably Браун. wait’. Av. gźes ‘to sit. female’ > Dargwa *x:unul ‘woman’. *=HuŬn ‘to go. Lushai hnu ‘to print. and Chirikba. *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ < NCauc.)’ = Hitt. stay’ > NCauc. 1994. wiil. nu with Abkhaz– Abaza *nə-ʷa.for *-n. (a)nti with the isolated Ubykh nt°á ‘door’ which is certainly less probable. sit. also pail?. *pə-χ´ʷA-śʷə ‘woman’. a mark’). *bēŁ ‘cattle-shed’ > Av. 28. *nŭ ‘to tread. *ćhiH (~ h-) ‘to be at. → Hatt. where *pə. *bi:i ‘cattle-shed’. *ṉus ‘to tread. √ SCauc. *λ:ɨn:(ol) ‘woman. containing an unclear element bayna and the root wǝ ‘to enter. stand up’ > Nakh *-ātt-.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 349 The shape of the Hattic stem (u-epenthesis between *l and obstruent cluster) resembles the Yen. *buƛu A (~ -ə) ‘cattle-shed. Dargwa *=ic:Vr. Lak p:al ‘cattle-shed’. ar-. № 58: to Ubykh bayna-wǝ ‘to move off/away’. Иванов. fael. 1994. № 29 compares Hatt.for expected **l-. *ṉuʔ. *λɨnɦV (~ -λ-) ‘woman. nimhu-š ‘woman’ √ NCauc. Note Hatt. (a)nti ‘to stand. *=mV(r) ‘to stand. Tib. walk. ‘(be)hausen’ = Hitt. move’ (a preverb + root *ʷa ‘to walk’ < NCauc. 蹂 *ṉu. to bring? (trans. pil?) ‘house’.-And. perhaps also verbal ‘to dwell’.).

LĪM. *bar ‘speech. Lak par ‘lightning. morning’ > Chin. → An interesting Hattic–STib. *o vs. SCC. wealth. while -(a)h is a female suffix [125’]. *pārē ‘lightning’ > Av. *baŕ. thunder’. word’. waarai. STib. rich.. Lushai pau ‘speech. → In all likelihood one should analyze the Hattic stem as follows: ka-aš-paruya-h. *GwinʡV (~ -ħ-. √ SCauc. word’. prauŋ ‘to be brilliant. An epithet of the Sun-goddess = Hitt. 蕃 *bar ‘to be prosperous. Burush. lustre’. *[ṗ]VrV ‘to speak. 81 ff. *piri ‘lightning’. 繁 *bar ‘abundant’. happiness’. *[b]ōk ‘dwelling’ ~ Burush. abundance. *paru ‘bright. Hatt. Semantically the Hattic root exactly matches Yen.are not rare in nominal stems. *bŭlV (~ -ɨ-) ‘house’ ~ STib. outside room’) is more tempting semantically. waar) ‘thousand’ = Hitt. announce’. waarayu) ‘priest’ = Hitt.(~ -r1-) ‘to pray’ > Ket baĺbɛt 6. taha-ya ‘barber’). *[p]ārē ‘lightning . note that its standard reflexes are STib. → For Hattic nomina agentis in -ya cf. Tsez. brilliance’ > NCauc. pray’ > STib. Иванов. 1985. but not phonetically in view of the vocalic irregularity SCauc. 報 *pūʔs ‘to respond. etc. isogloss. cluster *l. shining’ in kašparuyah (ka-aš-paru-ya-h) ‘source of light’ or ‘luminous’.‘source of light’. welfare. *Iʷəna ‘house’ (< NCauc.-And. Burm. ‘to make a prayer’). Lushai bar ‘very. The suffix -ya forms nomina agentis (like para-ya ‘priest’. LÚSANGA. Yen. *prɨăŋH ‘bright. Lak. fara-ya (paraya.). prawh ‘to speak’. Dargwa *paIr ‘lightning’. Lezgh. dpar ‘glory. . lalukkima. Burm. *p(r)wH ‘to speak’ > Chin. Yug barbɛ 5 (lit. 33. Prefixes ka-aš. although their meaning and function remain vague. *par/*rap ‘lightning’. Tib. numerous’. numerous’ > Chin. splendour. taha-ya ‘barber’ [50]. clear’. baĺvɛt 6. *bhăr ‘abundant. blazing. Kassian [UF 41 → The comparison is reliable both phonetically and semantically. much’. 炳 *praŋʔ ‘bright. parayu. *ĺ. word’. Kiranti *brə(-n/-t) ‘speech. *baltí ‘veranda. far (par. *blV ‘house’ (> NCauc.-And. 31. *k and Yen. -ʕ-) ‘village. √ STib. Ket baĺbe-ś 6 ‘cross’ (“object of prayer”). Also in a compound with *ăj ‘fire’: *ăj-pārē ‘lightning’ (Av. *pɨr ‘lightning. 32. Lezgh. house’) which is certainly unjustified.). perayu. glorious’. √ SCauc.350 A. The connection to SCauc. № 62 analyzes the Hattic stem as fe-l and compares it with WCauc. ae/i (as for the rare SCauc.

87 f. huwant. to breathe at’. angry’ is also discussed). *mlćwV ‘wind’ > Av. salty’ > NCauc. √ SCauc. Lezgh. one (SCC. *čača-lu ‘sour’.‘to be(come) sour/bitter’. which is probably derived from this verb. 34. pize-l. i. Burush. of apple/apricot’ is typologically normal (for the prefix ša. Lepcha măt. .). *ɦwjmV/*ɦmjwV ‘sour. šammalliya. witanu ‘cheese’ [75’]. lye’. 鹼 *ćham (~ ch-. hmut ‘to blow’. mi ‘sour’. šammalliya-. *mlćwV ‘to blow. proto-form.‘sour. pezi-l. Lezgh. fet/fit) ‘to be(come) sour/bitter’ = Hitt. mŭt ‘to blow. Lushai (KC) *tśhum ‘sour. *muč. Lak marč. 111 ff. *močʷi (/*mičʷi).‘wind’. Dargwa *ana ‘vinegar’. verbs šammalešš-.-And. Lushai (KC) *hmut. → The Hattic stem contains the “masculine” suffix -l. -e-) ‘buck. wit (perhaps also pet. while Hittite shows an opposite direction šamalu ‘apple/ apricot’ → šammalešš-/šammalliya.‘rain’ (sic!).‘sour. waazil) ‘wind’ = Hitt. Kachin ǯum2 ‘salt’. STib. *muš:ə A. Tsez.). šammalliya. the only sensible solution is to treat Hitt.. Khin. sŭŋ-mut ‘wind’. The loss of l in combination with an affricate is regular for all SCauc. Hatt. wind’ > NCauc. 238). *[ǯh]ɨam ‘salt’ > Chin.as an occasional loan translation from Hattic with the meaning ‘to be(come) like an apple/apricot’—for the precise translation ‘to be sour/bitter’ see Soysal. Hattic shows the same consonant metathesis as the NCauc. Tsez.see HWHT. šammalešš-. *ćhémil ‘poison’.are attested almost exclusively in the texts translated from Hattic (CHD Š.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 351 The same suffixal chain -ya-ah is found in the quasi-synonym leliyah ‘source of light’ (= Hitt. sour’. 1989 and Soysal. 35. √ SCauc. Note that the derivation in Hattic wet (*fet) ‘to be sour’ → ša-fat ‘a k. For an alternative analysis of -yah (‘bright’ or ‘heaven’) see leliyah ‘source of light’ [23] Semantically Hattic is closer to STib. branches except the NCauc. pizi-l (errors: pzael. Lak uri. *ʷV ‘to get sour. *mŭt ‘to blow’ > Burm. Since we know the Hattic word šafat ‘apple-tree’/‘apricot-tree’ [83’] and Hittite word šamalu with the same meaning. pit. *ɦmVjwĂ ‘sour’ > Nakh *musṭi-n ‘sour’. *ʡimʷV-r/ ʡirʷV-m. STib. salty’. which must be explained by the calqued nature of the Hittite verbs. Cf. 2004. bitter’. 88–92 (in the latter paper an additional semantic development to ‘to be crabby. šammalešš-. also heu. Kachin (Ben) mut ‘to blow’. WCauc. Kiranti *mùt ‘to blow’. rather than to NCauc. e. wet. → Hitt. lalukkima-)—another epithet of the Sun-goddess. salty’.

If so. to smell’. which is an exclusive feature of the STib. ušk-. The Hattic word cannot be a NCauc. → SCauc. Kassian [UF 41 Vocalically the Hattic word is closer to the NCauc. 88). 20: to WCauc. Yen. Dargwa *be ‘wolf’.TUR. 58. . *bħĕrĭ (~ -ĕ) ‘wolf’ > Nakh *bɦor ‘wolf’. № 33. loanword in view of the root structure and semantic difference: the shift ‘wolf’ < > ‘leopard’ is possible in the case of long separate language development. *λwłʔV ‘wind. 1985. 1994. 37. *pəλ:ʷa ‘wind. one. √ STib. The Hattic root can be paraš (with an occasional reduction paraš > praš in the prefixed form) or praš. but not quite reliable in view of too general semantics. 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).‘rain(?)’ (found in compound). Arin ṕhjástap. Untenably Браун. Tsez. compound : NCauc. WCauc. *bħĕr (~ -ĕ) ‘a k. to perceive. *boo ‘wolf’. look’ = Hitt. → The Hattic root was probably **pVnu with a reduction of the medial vowel in prefixed forms. clusters r + affricate in Hattic. PÌRIG. 36.352 A. *bɔə A ‘wolf’. hyena’ (a Proto-WCauc. prefix *pə-). № 63. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’. an a-anaptyxis in the old cluster is paralleled by an u-anaptyxis in the old lx-cluster as illustrated by puluku ‘leaves’ [39] < SCauc. 1985. to blow’ (< NCauc. 1996. and Chirikba. to blow’ with WCauc. *pe(ʔ)s-tap (~ -b) ‘wolverine’ > Kott. of predator’ > NCauc. feštap. In the case of praš Hattic shows development *CVRC > CRVC. pnu ‘to observe. *bVga ‘fox. isogloss. Not plausibly Иванов. → A rather interesting case. 421 (to WCauc. Lak bar ‘wolf’. *mVn ‘to perceive. Unconvincingly Иванов. fēštap.-And. branch (see SCC. Av. praš or paraš ‘leopard’ (attested form: ha-praš-un) = Hitt. to think’ > Chin. *bVgV-bVV ‘jackal. In the case of paraš one should suggest a retention of sonorant in the SCauc. An interesting Hattic–STib. *bA ~ *p:A ‘to see’). jackal’ + ‘wolf’). to get to know. Basque *oćo ‘wolf’. 聞 *mən ‘to hear. Kiranti *min ‘to think’. proto-form than to the STib. where the Hattic element zil is compared with unclear Kabardian ə. pheštap.

of zo (rice)’. Burush.-And.in πάρδᾰλις. 11. Kachin maŋ1 ‘a corpse. Tsez. √ SCauc. root is not connected with SCauc. *phak (~ bh-) ‘leaf’ > Burm. leopard. Lushai maŋ ‘to die’. ? WCauc. carcass’. Yug boŋ. 12. 1985. *bilágur ‘a k. *HmoŋV ‘to die. Grk. *p:əǴə (~ b-) ‘leaf. (LB) *mhaŋ ‘corpse’. but the exact source of borrowing can hardly be established. Persian pārs ‘leopard. isogloss. *boŋ ‘dead man’ > Ket bōŋ. where šne [89’] means ‘offering’ (cf. *HabuḳV ‘burdock’. see Николаев. Hitt. παρδ-/ πορδ. tree. *ʕemu(a) ‘burdock’. Untenably Браун. greenery’ = Hitt. Yen.–Yen. dying’.+) as well as Iranian forms like Sogd.–Hattic stem is widespread in Eurasia as a Wanderwort with the meaning ‘leopard’. πόρδᾰλις ‘leopard’ (Hom. δ. → An interesting Hattic–STib. lahhurnuzziyant-. + WCauc. In all probability the STib. *HmérV ‘a k. paršana. № 8. leaf(?)’ > Av. praš ‘leopard’ [37]. Kiranti *phk ‘leaf’. animal. *palIʷ ‘burdock’. pwrδnk. → Hattic fulašne should be analyzed as a compound fula-šne. fun (pun. 40. Lezgh. Dargwa *heul(i) ‘burdock’. *mor (~ -u-) ‘grain’ > Burm.‘leopard’. of berry’. puluku ‘leaves. Lepcha jă-mór-zo ‘a spec. 38.’ probably originate from some Anatolian Post-Hittite language. tefu-šne ‘libation’ [57]). *fula ‘bread’ in fula-šne ‘bread. 薨 *smŋ ‘to die (of king)’. foliage. origin (with regular NCauc. but semantically corresponds to the Hattic stem. wuuna) ‘mortality. etc. of rice’. bread offering’ √ STib. dispute). 39.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 353 This NCauc. dandukeššar. Lepcha mak ‘to die (said of man. used in ritual action. * > Grk.). Burm. pars ‘tiger. 68 ff. *mŋ ‘to die’ > Chin.in paršna-. wuun) or funa (puna. phak ‘leaf (of tree)’. of weed’ → For an anaptyxis between l and velar in the Hattic stem cf. Kachin phaʔ 2-lap 2 ‘tea. 1994. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > NCauc. *ʕapālwĔ (~ ɦ-) ‘burdock . dead’ > STib. 20 (Hatt. also ‘leopardman (a cult functionary)’ (OS+) is very similar to Hattic except for the root structure CVRC. parš. fire. munʔ ‘bread’. tea-leaf’.from the phonetic viewpoint speak for the NCauc. . Lushai hmor-hāŋ ‘name of a sp. mortals’ = Hitt. 33). panther’ and numerous Turkic forms brs. √ SCauc. to open (of leaves)’. STib.

*-t/-ṭ /-d as well as to SCauc. blow up .And. people. Cf. Since there is no another evidence for Hattic–Proto-Dargwa contacts. Lushai phuʔ ‘to blow out of the mouth’. fur (wuur. √ STib. *mt ‘to eat. Yen. who compare the Hattic root with WCauc. √ SCauc. *-t can go back to SCauc. *wV ‘person. the Hattic terminus technicus exactly matches the STib. sbud ‘bellows’. *Prŋ ‘country’ > Chin. 秣 *mhāt ‘to feed grain to horses’. The STib. also p(a)šun ‘breath? . to blow’. Yug duap-pē. 43. Burm.354 A. 42. → An exclusive Hattic–STib. Tsez. bladder. fan (a fire or burning materials)’ = Hitt. persons’ and WCauc. *ʁʷV ‘person . puš or puše ‘to devour. → The Hattic form apparently contains the suffix -an. 弗 *pət ‘gust of wind’. g. № 66. ãbud ‘to blow’. ? Burm. KUR(-e). *bŭ. prań ‘country’. proto-form shows a frequent reduction of the medial vowel and the common suffix -Vŋ. state’. I suspect that we deal with a chance coincidence here. swallow’ > Chin. forms both phonetically (STib. root. Kott. utne. to whistle’. pur. parai-. bubble. *[p]ūH ‘to blow’ > NCauc. swallow’ = Hitt. bŭt > Chin.. It is interesting that in the Dargwa group a similar root is observed: ProtoDargwa *puš(a) ‘bellows. 210). *puʔ. 41. soul? . 20. mid ‘to swallow’. 邦 *prōŋ ‘country. breath’. which is known from some other verbal stems (e. Kachin əphot2 ‘to blow in puffs’. šam ~ šaman ‘to hear’. 1994. mwat-sip ‘to be thirsty’. *-c/- and *-ć/- /-. *pɨ-ƛʷ. *päršwA (~ -l-) ‘bubble. phəwʔ ‘bellows’. HWHT. *phu ‘to blow’. to swell’). pɨ ‘air. Burush. Av. WCauc. and Браун. to swell. *-t/-ṭ /-d as well as from SCauc. population’ = Hitt. śifu. 1985. Tib. → STib. further cf. *pV(j) ‘to blow’ > Ket ugij.‘to blow. lung?’ [71’]. blowing’ > Nakh *hu(:)p ‘to blow. Khin. puur) ‘country . ed-. *p:Vwa (~ b-) ‘to breathe. blowing’. Tib. Despite the fact of the onomatopoeic nature of the SCauc. . *-c/- and *-ć/- /-) and semantically. Burm. isogloss.‘to blow’. utniyant-. bladder’ (< NCauc. √ STib. self’. puš-an ‘to blow on. STib. *-t can originate from SCauc. *pūHV ‘to blow. Kassian [UF 41 Unpersuasively Иванов.

si-t ‘lady?’. belief’. → Caucet. STib. dust. Lezgh. braŋ ‘chest. WCauc.> Hattic š-.. Hurr. 69–70). Basque *śolho ‘meadow. *bot. igi ‘inside’. *rĕḳw ‘breast. *jirḳʷ. futi (wuute. bottom (e. talugi. where š:aI. *č:il ‘earth .can originate from SCauc. wuuti. egi. *ʔrŋ/*ʔrk ‘breast’ > Chin. field. Also found in the compounds like zihar-tail ’Holz-Meister’ (= carpenter). Tsez. cf.dbf proposes the NCauc. 45. breast’. Burm. sand’ > Nakh *č(ɦ)il (~ -ī-) ‘ashes. tíke. √ SCauc. Lushai eŋ ‘breast’. slime’. earth.-And. Burm. initial *r. *š:VlV ‘silt. Probably the same stem without the “masculine” l-suffix šai(u) ‘lord’ and with the “feminine” t/š-suffix še-t. 47. ćəwh ‘to govern. Lak š:aIlu/š:aI. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’ > Nakh *doḳ. re. 臆 *ʔ(r)ək ‘bosom’. huzza-šai ‘Herd-Meister’ (= smith). queen. rule. tekan. Basque *śorho also speaks for the *čäłHu variant. master’. Tib. fur-šail ‘Land(es)-Herr’.‘often’ > Ket bōt. proto-form *čHäłu with reference to the pharyngealization in Lak š:aIlu as an indicator of NCauc. As a matter of fact Lak has doublets š:aIlu ~ š:aI-. ground’. *roḳʷo. ški-l. floor’. minister’. Lezgh. *H. šaki-l. *ć. Yug tʌga5. *čHäłu/*čäłHu ‘dirt. *ćH ‘to govern. Dargwa *ʔurḳi. of the sea)’ = Hitt. √ STib. ground’. Lak daḳ. ŠAG ‘heart’ (an unclear coincidence?). Av. *dak ‘hope.-And. 46. → A Hattic–STib. direct’. royalty’. raŋ ‘breast’. ung. Yen. → An interesting Hattic–Yen. g. ŠÀ(-ir). also Sum.(eš-). Kachin (H) ǯau ‘to rule’. ćawh ‘king. se-t. field (prepared for sowing)’. √ SCauc. Av.‘earth. . fute. Burush. dust’. ground. Note the simplification *łH > hh in Hattic.‘earth. √ Yen. puti) ‘(to be) long’ in temporal meaning (usually in the collocation “long years”) = Hitt. STib. isogloss. heart’ > NCauc. → SCauc. *ǵʷə. 宰 *cʔ (~ ć-) ‘steward . dust. also without the “masculine” l-suffix : aški ‘heart’ = Hitt. Cf. Tib. šahhu/tahhu ‘ground. ground’ > NCauc. Khin. *čHäłu/*čäłHu ‘dirt. lord’ > Chin.points to the protoform *čäłHu (for the phonetic development see NCED. isogloss.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 355 44. o ‘lord. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ > Ket tʌga5 /tʌɣa5. aški-l. *ć/  /  and *č/  / ǯ. šai-l/tai-l ‘lord. earth. Pump. *rɔḳʷə A. master’.

KÁ. para-ya ‘priest’. data. scrape. to fidget. 162 compares Hatt.‘to scrape’. a similar situation with Hatt. Lezgh. 49. taha-ya ‘barber’.–NCauc. verbal stem: reduction of the medial vowel and metathesis -CR. *sVs(Vn). Yug i:hp4 ‘to cover. *iχ:an. 2004. 1986. The Hattic meaning exSoysal. *χ:Vč. but I think that we deal with a compound wordforming here: kašku ‘gate building’ [29’] + štip ‘gate’.dbf. Dargwa *=urs. Kassian [UF 41 48. Afaset. 20 In many compounds this verbal root has the meaning ‘to split. *sem. hāran-čex ‘to hack. → A Hattic–Yen. ha-čīp ‘to cover’. *čxqV ‘to scratch. A borrowing of such a basic term from Akkad. šemû ‘to hear’ (< Semitic *šVmaʕ. LÚŠU. 205). listen (> to talk)’ > Av. to listen’. *smen ‘to listen (to)’. Lezgh.’ among the Yenisseian languages.‘to scrape. Yug ou3 // o:. etc. *čãχ:. rub’ > Av. 1998. -dup ‘to close’. šam(a) (and perhaps sam-an) ‘to hear. 2002 1.dbf. Kott. Dargwa *=išq. Kott. Yen. **sVmV (with regular morphonological processes in the Proto-NCauc. silent’. listen (vel sim. štip (probably not tip19) ‘gate’ = Hitt.> -RC-. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ > Ket dɔ:3. *ć/  and *č/  / ǯ.(~ -ʁ-) ‘to write’. to plug.may originate from SCauc. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent. 167). scrape’ > NCauc. due to the scantiness of the NCauc.‘to hear’ < Afro-Asiatic *sim. √ SCauc.)’ √ NCauc.‘ear’) is not probable. but the basic meaning of the plain stem is ‘to shave’ (see Yenet.(/ =us-) ‘to say. *ʔasV ‘to be silent.‘to scratch. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 19 .356 A. however.-And.‘to hear’. *čVqV/*qVčV ‘to scratch. This comparison is exact both phonetically and semantically. close’. The Hatt. 50. form may originate from virtual SCauc. ‘Barbier (ein Kultdiener)’ = Hitt. 163.‘to be quiet. Werner.I. tumil ‘rain’ [62]). → The Proto-NCauc. to tear’. 1 f. possessing reliable Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic cognates (Kartet. *ǯīp ‘to cover.dbf #836 .20 Burush. to peel. isogloss. Hattic shows a very common semantic shift ‘cover’ > ‘door’. Girbal. but proceeding from general reasons we must treat it as a mere accidental coincidence (cf. comparison is somewhat doubtful. *qhaṣ ‘to rub’. → For Hattic nomina agentis in -ya cf. Tsez. to close’ > Ket -dɔp ‘to plug’.‘gatehouse. šam(an) with Kartv. although the binding vowel change u > a remains unclear. hack. Yen. make notches. see SCC. *ǯ. Klimov. bevel’. to tear’.). √ Yen.-And. 370 proposes that the Hattic loanword in Hittite Ékaškaštipa. tell’. rub. portal’ is a reduplicated formation *kas(k)-kas(k)-tipa with the suffix -tipa (known as -šepa / -zipa from other Hittite stems).

proto-form as *čqV (~ -xq-) which seems unjustified. 2009. bćom ‘pride. *ch-. mercy. tawaarna) ‘lord’. to scrape’ (< NCauc. *ir:V ‘lynx. Sccet. leopard’ > NCauc. 18 ff. № 50 compares Hattic ta-ha-ya with WCauc. (f) tawananna ‘lady’. ounce. (kjah)-sać ‘leopard’. 2003a. leopard’. Dargwa *um ‘pity’.and ftawananna. the title of the Hittite king . branch. UR. takiha. UR. leopard’. Burm. → The suffix -(e)ha in take-ha remains without clear parallels among known Hattic stems (it can hardly be identified with the feminine -(a)h [125’] as in katta-h ‘queen’.-And. Tib. *ćūm ‘honour. *:VbV ‘mercy. authority’ > Chin. proto-form as *nV (~ sṭ-). pity’. root. hero’ = Hitt. priest’. Sccet. arrogance’. *chi(ə)k ‘leopard’ > Tib. takiha-l ‘lion. the title of the Hittite reigning queen = Hitt. 2005 w. 宗 *ćūŋ ‘to honour. porcupine’. 229 ff. grace’. Lak ini ‘tiger. √ SCauc.dbf reconstructs the SCauc. *mbi ‘god. *hrĕgwē ‘comb’) which is not persuasive either phonetically or morphologically. *V ‘to comb . The theory of borrowing such regal terms from Luwian or Hittite into Hattic (and Palaic) is not very probable proceeding from general reasons. master’. go to pay court. STib. Hattic origin of tabarna) vs. and Melchert. lit. √ SCauc.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 357 actly matches the Yen. lit. (for the Anatolian origin of tabarna and tawananna).dbf reconstructs the SCauc. haughtiness. ancestor. panther’ > Nakh *ō ‘ounce. 146 f. ‘Herrscherin’. gćom. *ǟnV ‘lynx. snow leopard’. Av. snow leopard’. . Yakubovich. gzig ‘leopard. tabarna. The simplification *nK > K seems regular for Hattic as well as for the other SCauc. daughter languages except the NCauc.SAG(-i-). Иванов. STib. labarna-. 52. see now Soysal. tafarna (tabarna.MAH. *[]mbi ‘superpower’ > NCauc. mercy’ > Nakh *ēbV ‘idol. (both scholars advocate non-IE. w. but *sṭ. and EDHIL w. scil. god . previous lit. *sṭnV ‘panther. Despite this fact the comparison is reliable both phonetically and semantically. heathen deity. etc. takeha. 1985.). Kachin čum ‘authority’. lit. w. Av. 2008. We know several dozens of Hattic loanwords in Hittite21 (especially concern––––––––––––––––––––––– 21 For the list see now Goedegebuure.is more preferable in view of STib. also with the “masculine” l-suffix takeha-l. Dargwa *ir ‘panther’. → Widely discussed Hattic words. Kiranti *sík-ba ‘tiger. 51. Lak imi ‘grace.And.

see Neumann.‘to rule’ lacks IE etymology. prefix wa-./daβara/ or /δaβara/ ‘power’. sad. The second and more probable solution is to divide these forms as Wada-pra-.‘mighty’ (cf. Wala-pra. Wa-lapra-. adjective dobrъ ‘good’ (ЭССЯ 5. Kassian [UF 41 ing cultic and regal terminology). 23 Note that Luw. First. Garelli. since waša seems unetymologizable within Luwian . e. and an explanation of athematic tabar. A postulation of a hypothetical Luw. Further Yakubovich refers to early second millennium Cappadocian onomastics in an attempt to find some evidence for Luwian **tabara.. they can be Hattic names with the frequent Hatt.per se does not look like a “normal” Anatolian verbal stem. 2003a.24 Note that Yakubovich is compelled to postulate two unique Luwian phonemes (/δ/. substantive **tabara. 2007. 24 Yakubovich inserts an “epenthesis” between labial and r because of the Lyc. loanword (for the discussion see sub v. 36). He quotes four PN-s—Wa-dapra-.22 If the term tabarna functioned in Hattic as a Hittito-Luwian Exotismus referring just to the Hittite king (like Καῖσαρ refers to the Roman emperors in Ancient Greek texts). g. 1963. Λαπαρας (PN Λαπαρας is known from some other Grk. Hurr. The formal difficulties associated with the Hittito-Luwian origin of the term tabarna are more serious. e. 68) or with Slav.‘to rule’ as a “backformation” are totally unprovable. the previous paragraph). but not a single Hittite–Luwian loanword in Hattic is revealed up to now. 22 . sources. *stā. Slightly differently Yakubovich (2002. Šupi-lapra. origin and morphology of Lyc.358 A. Hurrian: cf. 2009./daβara/ or /δaβara/ ‘power’ as a starting point of t/labarna which seems ad hoc also.(for their second element cf. The comparison with Germ. But the meaning. from which the adjective tabar-na. 2003a. morphologically doubtless Cappadocian PN Šupi-pra.. An analysis of tawananna accepted by Melchert. 146). tabar.).is inexplicable within Luwian (as was correctly noted by Yakubovich himself: 2009. tabri ‘atri––––––––––––––––––––––– The only candidate is the widespread cultural term zinar [118’] ‘lyre’ which could indeed be identified as a Luw. There are two ways to analyze Cappadocian Wa-dapra-. 216). 45) is untenable both semantically and morphologically23. and I really doubt whether this form can prove anything.‘to rule’ > tabar-na. 2003. but a Luw.‘to stand’) is not persuasive either. 2) The Luwian morphological pattern of nomen actoris in -na (tabar. adjective *đapraz ‘heavy.). A personal name dapara = Grk.‘one who rules’) is unique. 229 ff. equally well it can be.‘mighty’ has been derived (as per Melchert. Wa-lapra-. 18 ff. /β/) in order to explain the forms in question. The third name Wašatapra may be either Luwian or not. Wa-lapra. As a matter of fact the first element of Wa-dapra-. it is strange that we find this term in Hattic archaic formulaic passages. A dapara are unknown. downcast’ (Orel. Waša-tapra. 1) The Luwian athematic verb tabar. who proposes not an adjective. (to IE *stā-. adjective **tabra..). 18 ff. g.—and attributes them to Luwian.

stable spelling labarna clearly contradicts Melchert’s phonetic theory).in Luw. not **tabarna. as proposed in Valério. 26 For the latter cf. postulates the new Luwian phoneme /β/ for this case (/daβarna/).‘to rule’.> Luw. while t/labarna is uniformly spelled as labarna in CLuw.-Luw. postulating of Luw. /δaβar/ with a unique phoneme /δ/. 247). also hypothetical Linear A -du-pu2-re ‘master’. šuppi‘clear’. 3) The Luwian verbal stem tabar. tafarna can hardly be explained if one assumes a loan nature of this lexeme in Hattic. can hardly be justified from my point of view. A hypothetical one-example scenario proposed by Melchert. l-. tabar. which was being transcribed 25 .) never show t/l-alternation. 2002). (not Luw. In any case. 2009. which was rendered by t. The same concerns the idea that [δ]—when conjectural [δ]apra became a Mediterranean wandering onomastic root—could preserve its unique phonetic characteristics in the course of millennium and continue to be spelled either as l or as d in non-cuneiform traditions (cf. λαβύρινθος . On the contrary. 29.25 or even to the more archaic term λαβύρινθος = Myc.27 ––––––––––––––––––––––– The Carian city and Zeus shrine Labraunda.= Grk. dapu/pu2-ri-to. To sum up the onomastic discussion. but it is not obligatory due to the absence of a vowel between labial and r in tapra (cf. A PN dapara = Grk. but by l in the title labarna and the onomastic element lapra. Finally. *T. Lyc. advocating the Luwian origin of Hattic tafarna.(see Yakubovich. for which see below. injunction’. the fourth name Šupi-lapra. etc.‘to rule’ (with various Hitt. derivates). l.seems Hittite. tabar. we know an opposite occasional process Anat. With some difficulties in Cappadocian personal names we can reveal morphemes tapra and lapra. also possible Hurr. 230 fn. t. 18 ff. 4) The alternation tabarna ~ labarna can hardly be explained within HittitoLuwian phonology. since the element šupi well attested in Cappadocian onomastics can be rather assuredly identified with Hitt. Λάβρανδα) or the epithet of Zeus in Cyprus Λαβράνιος.26 On the other hand tapra can be identified with Luw. which is known in some divine epithets of the first millennium BC or later. 5) /f/ (waa) in Hatt.< Luw. Note that we do not have any positive evidence that tapra and labra represent a single morpheme. for Hitt. Λαπαρας). whose origin and meaning are vague. one can attempt to connect lapra to the Mediterranean morpheme λαβρ-. known from some ancient Greek authors like Herodotus or Strabo (Λάβραυνδα. texts. 27 Yakubovich. da-pu/pu2-ri-to.with derivates as well as their Hittite counterparts (tabarija.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 359 but de divinités’ (GLH. Of course.‘order.!) adj.in Luwian loanwords in Hittite is not supported by any positive evidence and looks too complicated and factitious (note that the CLuw. Yakubovich’s examples: Myc. 2003a. 2007. cognate of tapra above).

2005. for statistics). lick’. 2009a). etc. Thirdly. it is unclear to me why Hitt. *cp ‘bitter’) and probably kurkupal [39’] ~ kurkufen-na [40’] (if nna < lna). 2005. suffix known from some other Hattic stems. The conditions of this phonetic change are unknown. Note that even if we discard tawananna from the comparison. allappahh. tappa. A morpheme -r. but as far as I can judge. PN ta/i5-ta/i4-mi must be read as ala-ali-mi (see Hawkins. ta. timber’).is a Luwian loanword. Rieken / Yakubovich.360 A. but with different conclusions. I do not understand. *T.’. 2003b. alef ‘tongue’) and the personal name Hitt. etymology (see above) is exact both phonetically and semantically. 2005. I suppose that we can regard Hattic tafarna and tawananna as paronymous words and single out the Hattic root tafa/tawa-. 191 ff. There is an alternative phonetic explanation of the lambdacized form labarna.in tafa-r-na is a rather common SCauc. which is unknown to Hattic. The function of the sign BA in the Hittite cuneiform tradition is the task of further research. fn.by l. Firstly. 28 Despite Yakubovich. Yakubovich. Secondly. not **alabarna. whose SCauc. 21. BA was being used by Hittite scribes merely as an occasional graphical indicator of loanwords (Hurrian. HLuw. *Hōk ‘id. Despite the fact that tawananna never occurs with the spelling waa or pa. where it competes with the proper variant tabarna (see Soysal. *wēχV ‘stick . Dhatipinu ‘(a female deity of the Hattic– Hittite pantheon)’—see Soysal. One can propose that the Hittites and the Luwians understood ta. l-. it does not seriously affect my conclusions. ta/i5ta/i4-mi. even if we accept these examples.‘to take’ ~ CLuw.‘to lap. 2010 . 29 Melchert.‘to spite’ ~ CLuw.28 Further and less obligatory examples are: Hitt. 289–90 . 2008. 181 claims that the Hittites can render initial t. 24. Kassian [UF 41 Almost all these difficulties are avoided if we treat tafarna and tawananna as proper Hattic stems. but attested in Hittite texts.’) and nominal (zeha-r ‘building wood’ [64] ~ NCauc. on which positive evidence Yakubovich’s theory is based. but the correspondence Hitt. 199 ff. His examples are: Hitt.in Luwian loanwords. Hattic. la.in tafarna as a feminine morpheme and attempted to replace it by the masculine la.’ can hardly be rejected. The nominal suffix -na is also attested in Hattic: cf.29 On the ground of this phonetic ––––––––––––––––––––––– as the sign BA by the Hittites in the Hittite word and as WAA by the Hittites in the Hattic word. Akkadian. incense(-resin)’ ~ Luwoid? lu(y)essar ‘incense(-wood)’ and Hitt. malalimi ~ HLuw. allappahh.‘id.after the model Dhalipinu ‘(a male deity of the Hattic–Hittite pantheon)’ vs.’ (maybe < IE *lap. the form in question is labarna.. tuwarna‘to break’ ~ Luwism :lawarriya. Luwian. Meanwhile the lambdacized form labarna. since we know that in some cases Anat.‘id. tuhhuessar ‘smoke-substance. zipi-na ‘sour’ [66] (~ STib. . but note that the Hittite term used in archaic rites of Hattic origin also resembles Hatt. both verbal (huku-r ‘to see’ [13] < SCauc.‘id. may be a result of false etymologization.yields Luw. Certainly the queen title tawananna (never attested in a lambdacized form) has not been affected by such etymologization.).

. A rather satisfactory etymology of Myc. g. 2007 (§C. e. But reanalysis according to the grammatical patterns of the source language is also sometimes observed. mother’. The fact that tabarna/labarna was the throne name of the first Hittite king (the founder of the dynasty) is unhelpful. which has been adopted by Hittite king as a throne name. But the second scenario is not less probable: tafarna was a Hattic regal term. German family names Kaiser. typologically cf. Off. 239).. As for the second element of tawa-nanna. verbal root *dbr ‘to lead. however. 251). Thus. see DUL. Yakubovich’s (2009. probably Arab. SCauc. da-pu/pu2-ri-to. Yakubovich. λαβύρινθος has been recently briefly proposed by Яцемирский.. the name of the USA company “Keds” has been borrowed into Russian as sg. verb could be the WSem. Yakubovich 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.. ked. kedy ‘sneaker(s)’. since both solutions are equal. tabar. 2008. 165. Herzog etc. Hebr. Except for λάβιρος.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 361 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). Aram. g.. pl. An assumed compound ‘honoured/powerful mother’ as a queen title fits Hattic matriarchal culture very well.‘to rule’ looks like a modern folk etymology.. 2009. cf.‘to rule’ together with other Hattic terms of government and kingship. 231) criticism of Soysal’s morphological scenario.30 but they seem much more probable than Melchert’s one (for which see above). Caesar). trench. Of course both explanations (morphological and phonetical) of the t/l-alternations in Hittite are not self-evident.. (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.= Grk. βαλλιρός / βάλε30 . we can assume that originally tabarna/labarna was a proper name and thereupon became a regal title in Anatolia (cf. where -s has been understood as the English plural ending and loped off. First. or pit dug in the ground’. there are no clear examples for the suffix -ιρ (cf. the linguistic fate of Lat.31 ––––––––––––––––––––––– Cf. from my point of view the derivation of tabarna/labarna from Luw. The nature and the origin of the Mediterranean scarcely attested onomastic element laB(a)r/TaB(a)r remain vague. etc. The second hypothetical source of the Luw.2). On the other hand. E. HJ. 31 For the Greek substrate suffixes -υρ and -ινθ see Beekes. see Goedegebuure. λάβιρος · βόθυνος ‘hole. force to walk’ (Ugar. 110: Hsch. *nǟnV ‘female breast. 263. 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. in all likelihood nanna reflects the universally spread nursery word ‘mother’.. 2009. thereupon the Hittites borrowed labarna from Luwian and began to use it equally with the proper form tabarna..

*tip ‘scared stiff.+) ~ λίσκος (Hsch. Second. *tĕp (~ d-) ‘fear. The connection between Hattic tafa ‘fear’ and tufi ––––––––––––––––––––––– ρος / βαλῖνος [Arist.) ‘tree’.found in the similar collocation far-fa-šhaf/tafar-fa-šhaf ‘thousand deities’ (from šhaf ‘god’). № 53 analyzes Hattic tawananna as a compound tawa-nanna. i. Schuster’s idea): ta-far-na from the Hattic roots far ‘thousand’ [31] and na ‘?’. Although the elements of the Adyghe compound nǝ-wa are not entirely clear.. the virtual collocation ta-far-na lacks the expected plural suffix fa. наужъ) ‘old woman’ and Hatt. but one can draw here a parallel with the Pre-Greek suffixes -ιλ / -υλ or -ινθ / -υνθ which are well-attested in their both variants: cf. nanna with WCauc. mummy. ἄβλαροι (Hsch. Tib. mother’). As for the fluctuation d~l in the Pre-Greek (scil. in fur-un-katte ‘king of the land’ (land-GEN king) for *fur-un-te-katte (land-GEN POSS-king). 2007 (§B.] ‘a bird’ ~ κίσσιρις · εἶδος ὀρνέου [Suid.). 慹 *tep. other Furnée’s examples in Beekes. isogloss. tafa (tauwaa) ‘fear. nǝ-wa-ź (ныо.5. the lateral affricate). √ STib. granny’ (< NCauc.-S. Soysal (pers. Tordylium officinale’ and maybe μυστλη ~ μιστύλη ‘crust of bread scooped out to the form of a spoon’ (the examples by S. e. g. to the fact that auxiliary morphemes can sometimes be dropped out in Hattic compound proper names like. comparing Hatt. It is possible that the primary function of the Linear B voiced series (i. κᾰλᾰμίνθη ‘name of “a good-smelling plant”’. comm. First. d-series) was rendering of some special phoneme of the “Minoan” language (e. tawa. → A Hattic–STib.7): Myc. huzza-šai ‘smith’ (hearth-master). pers. g. especially the doublets like τόρδῡλον ~ τόρδιλον ‘hartwort. tafa with Adyghe and Kabardian nǝ-wa. tafarna as ‘(lord of) thousand na-s’. 2005 (following H. Kassian [UF 41 Quite differently Soysal. *nǟnV ‘female breast. Ὀδυσσεύς ~ Ὀλυσσεύς.].362 A. comm. old woman. comm. weridema-. Yatsemirsky. 53. ka-da-mi-ta ~ Grk.e.+) ~ Pergaean λάφνη (Hsch. 1985.is improbable both phonetically and morphologically. “Minoan”) vocabulary.32 Third. fright’ = Hitt. pers. Such an analysis is rather factitious from my point of view. the elliptical construction ‘(lord of) …’ appears unparalleled by known Hattic data. Cf. also δίσκος (Hom. to be confused’ > Chin. ныожъ. e. But I suspect that in the case of possessive exponent omission we deal with the general principle of the Hattic compound word-forming. the examples by S. to be in a hurry’. *nanV ‘mother.) points. tree’ ~ βδαροί (Hsch. δάφνη (Hom. Ivanov’s etymology of Hatt. the root na is not attested elsewhere in Hattic (except for Soysal’s theoretical ta-wanan-na ‘(lady of) wanan na-s’) which makes this monoconsonantal analysis doubtful. rtab ‘to be confused. cf. however. this phenomenon does not seem an exclusive feature of λαβύρινθος. 32 O. Иванов. without possessive proclitics zihar-tail ‘carpenter’ (wood-master).) ‘wood . Yatsemirsky.). frightened.) ‘quoit’..] ‘a kind of carp’ and κίσιρνις [Hsch.) ‘sweet bay (Laurus nobilis)’. stupefied’. 慴 *tep ‘to fear’. . fur-šail ‘lord of the land’ (land-master) etc.

a reduplicated stem in Adyghe–Kabardian *d-da / *dá-də ‘most. + WCauc. Burm. *tɨʔj. *-´t. leave. to stay. Lezgh.-And. 54. Yen. Yug tɨjiŋ. set up’. much. very much’. Yug di/diʔ ‘to put. 1994. much’ > Chin. ti. Kiranti *dV ‘big’. Girbal. 1986 compares the Hattic fem. only: Georg. *tV ‘to be inside. ś-tə ‘frightened’. *ti ‘great. set’. ki-. 428 (Hatt. *=ătV-r ‘to let. Иванов. load’. loanword (cf. and Yen. most.) √ SCauc. Similarly Браун. g. Lepcha tí. № 52 compares the Hattic compound tafa-tufi ‘fear (and) horror’ with WCauc. Khin. 1996. Kachin theʔ 2 ‘and’. Lepcha tho-m ‘to place’. Av.. Tib. forms. Dargwa *=atVr. to be’ (Abkhaz -ta-/-t(ə)-. form tete with Kartv. → Hattic matches Yen. at all. many’.‘to get cold’ with a further semantic development into ‘fear’ in some WCauc. √ SCauc. be there’. to get cold. ti with WCauc. *dA ‘big. *thrājʔ ‘be great’. -te suffix denoting plurality. 處 *thaʔ ‘dwell.‘big’ (South Kartv. also zi? ‘to lie. and Chirikba. to put (with preverbs)’. stad ‘to put on. let. Burush. e. -tɨj. leave’. place. position’. 1994. te. to be there’. to stand.‘to leave’. lay on’. 21 (Hatt. Lushai teʔ (< *teiʔ ?) ‘much. 哆 *thajʔ. Kachin da3 ‘to put. te-ti (fem. deliver up’. Doubtfully Браун. *te. Lushai daʔ ‘to put.). Kabard. > WCauc. *=ătV ‘to put. to stay’ > Nakh *=it. eš ‘to put’ [4]). → Phonetically the Hattic form is close to the STib. -tij. large. place’. 421 compares Hatt. 55. *dhăH (/*thăH) ‘to put. at. leave’ > NCauc. STib. *jatär. thah ‘to put.‘to be there. + WCauc. which can be a WCauc. 多 *tāj ‘much.‘to grow’ > Ket tɨjiŋ5.) and te-te. gtad ‘to lean upon. place’. phonetically. t-m ‘to be great.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 363 ‘fear’ [102’] is unclear. . taj ‘very’. put down’ > Ket dij ‘to put. 1985. etc. *ƛ:ʷA ‘to sleep’ (< NCauc. big’ in te-li (masc.‘to leave’. WCauc. *di(j) ‘to lie down. load’. Adyghe–Kabardian *ətə.‘to leave’. freeze’ > Abkhaz–Abaza *ə-ta ‘cold (adj. *thiajʔ. Laz). *trājʔ. place’ > Chin. *=HVwĀn) which is impossible phonetically. big’ > NCauc. təiʔ sign of the plural. *did. attestations. gda ‘to be. *=it.‘to do.). at all’). very’. Lak =ita. place’. stay.‘to let. *V ‘to lay eggs. 1996. *dHV ‘to grow. for which see Hatt.. Chirikba. 20.)’. 署 *ḏa(ʔ)s ‘to place. Megrel. make. Burm. to lay?’ = Hitt. *ə ‘cold . The comparison in not persuasive. big’.‘to leave. *tajH ‘big. be available’. Yen. STib.

*ćəw (-t) ‘water. the Kachin and probably Lushai cognates). Lak =i=či. envelope. *təʔlap. fell-cloak’ = Hitt. Kiranti Limbu cwaʔl ‘water’ Yen. mould’. √ SCauc. also Hurr. to vomit’ > Nakh *l-ēbč. . moist’. fula-šne ‘bread offering’ [38]). Khin. KUŠNÍG. → Hattic tefu-šne should be analyzed as a compound. liquid’.)’ → A Hattic–STib. *=ṭwV ‘to pour. prepare’. to jump. to build. ãćhu ‘to ladle or scoop (water)’. juice. The phonetic similarity with Hurr. Tsez. ones. Lezgh. to wash. STib.‘to pour’ > Ket átij. *štɦrV ‘crust. ćhu ‘water’. skin.‘to grow up (of children)’ seems accidental. serve.‘to found (metal)’. isogloss (for the semantics cf. 仕 *rəʔ ‘to work. a k. sap’. further to SCauc. to vomit’.(~ -r-) ‘bread crust’ > Ket tʌla:3. office’. pl. teh. wet’ > NCauc. pour. to rinse. Yen. *=ačʷ. Burush. *ṣo ‘to wash’.(~ -o-) ‘to splash . Lushai čiau ‘wet and dirty’. and Yen. tʌlafɨn5. Kachin (H) ča ‘to pile or lay. as scaffold’. 事 *rəʔs ‘affair’. tih ‘to build’ = Hitt. forms. wet. cream. strew. *ʔäča. tʌĺaŋ5. to soak’. where šne [89’] means ‘offering’ (cf. fly. *čVwV ‘to pour. to be scattered about’. to bathe. shoes’. *ǯʷə ‘to vomit’. Yug atčej / ačej.‘to to pour. 57. *ć/  /  and *č/  / ǯ. Kassian [UF 41 56. išpantuzzi-. sour cream. incrustation. Av. pour. peel’. offering’ = Hitt. √ SCauc. 1995/2007. *čɦrV ‘skin. 632 connects the Hurrian term to NCauc. ćəw ‘to be wet. ǯar ‘sour cream’. tera-h (probably not štera-h) ‘leather covering. WCauc. STib. *ć. *č:ar(a) ‘(milk) skin. wede-. *tefu ‘to pour’ in tefu-šne ‘libation. bćud ‘moisture. Tib. Tsez. shell’ > Nakh *ʡōr ‘skin. while semantically—to the NCauc.‘to vomit’.‘to flow. malt[eššar]. teh. shell’ > NCauc. as stone-wall.BÀR. *ʔa-č.-And. Yug tʌlap5 / tʌla:p3.‘to bathe. pl. ãćha ‘to make. of Tsez. *šɔrV (~ š:-) ‘lamb’s skin (for making hats). Cf. and Burush. as stones. Lezgh. tab/w.can originate from SCauc. shell.364 A. Burm. to throw’. √ STib. to scoop’ > Tib. *=[ṭ]wV ‘water’). to flow. čo2 ‘spoon’. *ʔeč. Phonetically and morphologically the Hattic stem is close to the STib. Kachin ǯo3 ‘to pour into’. to build. ? Lushai sa (sak) ‘to build or erect (as house etc. *ćH > Chin. *=ǟwčĂ ‘to emit. 58. whose similarity with the Hattic root can be a chance coincidence (Старостин.

1996. ãu ‘to seize’. 61. № 59. *=VV ‘to drink.-And. to take’. → Note the similarity between the Hattic and STib.in Hattic. hold. šig ‘Speise’. to gulp. Burush. 1985. Lushai fa ‘rice’. while NCauc. graze’). too. *ʒhaH ‘to eat’ > Tib. the same process as in Yen.‘to gather. coverlet’ which is less satisfactory both semantically and phonetically. rice for eating’. carry’. WCauc.> t. *=ač. za ‘to eat’. to keep?’ = Hitt. Pump. *ʔačʷɨ. sogo ‘to eat’. Иванов. Burm. № 41 compares terah with NCauc. shows a further semantic development. collect. Tsez. For the Hattic suffix -(a)h see HWHT. Burush. Lezgh. Lezgh. Kiranti *ʒo (? /*ʒə) ‘to eat’.‘to give’ (< NCauc. *ṣu). STib. Kachin ša3 ‘to eat’. tiya-. Arin šau ‘Speise’. faʔ ‘to feed with the mouth’.‘to eat’ > Ket sī ‘to eat’. to eat’ > Av. ? har(k)-. 59. *ɦĭfV ‘to guard. Basque *eući ‘to take. 1994. envelope’. √ SCauc. šat2 ‘boiled rice. and Hattic retain the primary meaning ‘leather covering. tuh ‘to take.‘to find’. ed-. √ SCauc. 419 compares tuh with Abkhaz–Abaza *tǝ-xǝ ‘to take from inside’ (where *tǝ is a locative preverb and *xǝ means ‘to take’) which is unconvincing. Tib.(~ -o-) ‘to carry’. run’ > . who arbitrarily singled out the Hattic root u[f] and compared it with WCauc. 1985.‘to eat’. STib. *ČQV ‘to step. Improbably Иванов. 216. Dargwa *=uč. √ SCauc. tu ‘to eat’ = Hitt. *ĭrqā ‘carpet. *śi/*ṣi/*ṣu ‘to eat’. drink’ > NCauc. Tsez. *=V ‘to eat. 取 *ćhoʔ ‘to take’.‘to take. № 48 compares the Hattic root with WCauc. Yen.-And. Chirikba. Yen. beistehen?’ = Hitt. Иванов. *ʔVV (~ -:-) ‘to drink’. → The Hattic u-vocalism is unclear (cf. grasp’.‘to drink’. ćah ‘to eat’. the comparison seems reliable. zan ‘fodder. *=a. + Abaza). *sī. Kott. Untenably Браун. *:a. *=Vt ‘to give’) which is unconvincing. 22 (Hatt. gzan ‘to eat. (-za) da-. *fV ‘to eat’ (possibly < NCauc. *tA. *čʷV ‘to take. porridge’. *=aš(:). ‘hintreten. 1985. *ĆŏH ‘to seize’ > Chin. seize. Yug sī ‘to eat’. 60. *=ắčw ‘to take’ > NCauc. to take away. Despite this fact. to bring’. tuk ‘to step’.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 365 → Note the simplification *štɦ. devour’. roots. *=ăčw > Av.

to rain’) which is unconvincing. √ SCauc. *cōjwlɦV ‘autumn.) autumn’. Tsez. cuwa-ž ‘autumn’. 1985. 62. čāganthagākŋ ‘to run’. čaganthak ‘running’. (ã)ćhags ‘to tread. Yen. which is rather common in SCauc. -ʁ) ‘chip. Kott. 秋 *ćhiw ‘autumn’. Tib. tup (probably not štup) ‘root’ = Hitt. 跡 *ćek ‘footprints. šurki-. Note an occasional retention of *m in Yen. Иванов. *wim. Lezgh. Lezgh. and regular cluster simplification in Hatt. *ćek (~ -) ‘to tread. The nominal ĺ-suffix is not rare in Yen. šam ‘to hear’ [48]. spring’. → Note the vocalic similarity between the Hattic and Proto-Yen.. *t[e]mb-Vĺ. Av. 蹟. zihar ‘(building) wood. Megrel. *c:ibirV ‘autumn . Yug čat-tat5 ‘to trot’. winter’. 64. № 56 analyzes the Hattic stem as tu-mil and compares the first element with unclear Ubykh tʷá. to move’. Such a dissimilation uw > um is a good parallel to a similar phenomenon of Hittite morphonology. WCauc. Kott.dbf. *oχ:an (~ *Vχ:ʷan) ‘perch.‘root’ > Kott. *cowɨl: ‘autumn’. isogloss. Kassian [UF 41 STib. thempul. (for such a “non-disappearing” *m in Yen. *iχ: (~ -ɨ-. It could be possible both phonetically and semantically (if we single out the frequent suffix -l from the Hattic stem). tumil. 41). > Chin. lan- . *s:ɨbə(rV) A ‘autumn’. STib. crossbeam’.‘to rain’. small piece of wood’. tenbir. *wim-a‘rain’ (South Kartv. trample’ > Chin. Khin.‘to run’ > Ket tɔq-tət5 ‘to run’. Dargwa *c:eχ:eni ‘beam. heyu-. piece of wood. timber’ > Tsez. winter (rainy season)’ > Nakh *sṭab(ʡ)V/ *bʡastV ‘autumn . 63. winter’. 1986. *čɔʔq. Girbal. *ć:ə (~ *ə) ‘autumn . but the comparison cannot be rejected. to walk. Lak s:u-t ‘autumn’. pole. 1998. only: Georg. zehar. Klimov. see SCC. *sir1. ēmbiŕaŋ. (Sal. wood. Yen. but in all likelihood we deal with a chance coincidence here—the same case as Hatt. Laz. 312). → A Hattic–Yen. √ NCauc. šilpaŋ. Arin ēmbirgaŋ. Yug sīr. *wēχV ‘stick. see Kartet. 162 compares tumil with Kartv. timber’ = Hitt. forms. trample’. → The nasalization *-w. timber’ → Hattic stem contains the suffix -(V)r. GIŠ-ru.> -m.in tʷá-x ‘hail’ (x goes back to WCauc. Basque *asaro ‘November. *thēmpul.in the Hattic form is not quite clear. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > NCauc.366 A. log. beam. √ Yen.-And. *əxʷə ‘to urinate. with a secondary assimilation tumin (also šumin?) ‘rain’ = Hitt. chip .‘summer’ > Ket śīĺi1. Arin šil.

məǯap3 ‘red pepper’. ćhip ‘poison’. *s-/ś-/š-. *də(ʔ)q.dbf #865 with doubts connects Yen. Untenably Браун. . Lushai thīp ‘to smart. e. The Hattic word might have been borrowed into Hurrian as a cultic term. zehar with the Adyghe–Kabardian compound *č:-ɣə ‘tree’ < WCauc. For -(V)r cf. zik with an unclear Ubykh double-morphemic form. drop’. → An interesting Hattic–STib. *n. √ STib.. be bitter (as egg-fruit)’. and double metathesis in STib. 66. Иванов. 65. + WCauc. ćap ‘to be hot. *k(h)rīl (~ -ł) ‘to fall. branch. of tree’) + WCauc.can originate from SCauc. zipina ‘sour’ (substantivized?) = Hitt.‘to fall’ to NCauc. № 81 compares Hatt.). *d. For Hattic secondary z < t before i see the phonetic section above. compound *ʷV-ʷV ‘to get sour. peppery’. 20 (Hatt.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 367 guages. kurkufenna ‘wooden stand (vel sim. enough’) smart is not persuasive phonetically. 1985.. 1985. Semantically unpersuasively Иванов. proposing the SCauc. pungent’ > Burm. EMṢU. sour’ (< NCauc. huku-r ‘to see. especially in the NCauc. 305). *l-/ł-. pungent. Hurr. № 72. *ɦmVjwĂ ‘sour’ + *=wVn ‘to be sufficient. *cp (~ ć-) ‘bitter. and Chirikba. 1985. which is possible only theoretically: we must suppose assimilation ł-r > r-r in NCauc. Although the Hattic suffix -na is not entirely clear. *lĭwŁĔ / *Łĭwl ‘man. № 73 compares Hatt. For the suffix -na cf. *də(ʔ)q. → An important Hattic–Yen.) NINDAzippinni ‘(a k. zik ‘to fall’ = Hitt. mauš-. Kachin ǯap2 ‘to be hot. of tree’ (< NCauc. √ Yen. who compare Hatt.) in rituals’ [40’] vs.and (in the case of Yen. *ʔ-tone) from SCauc. the analysis zipi-na seems natural. Yen.(~ *dək. Иванов. cf. 423. The proto-form with the initial *t-/ ṭ. pungent’. zipina with the WCauc. g. Yug dʌkŋ. *A ‘male. *t-/ ṭ-. (Bogh. *Hă(r)ǯwī (~ -ē) ‘a k.dbf).is the most natural solution here. 1994. The original meaning of Adyghe–Kabardian *č:-ɣə was probably ‘acorn’ (see Caucet. isogloss. of pastry used in rites)’ (GLH. look. isogloss. kurkupal ‘peg’ [39’] (if -nna < -lna) and maybe tafarna ‘lord’ [52]. *=[a]rkVr ‘to fall’ and STib. proto-form *łVkVrV / *rVkVłV. male’). Hatt. 1996. Sccet.?) ‘to fall’ > Ket dʌkŋ 5. notice’ [13]. *:ʷə ‘a k. testiculus’ (< NCauc.

*čəʔ-ŋ ‘rock’ > Ket tɨʔś. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’. *ʔwVʔwVŋ < *ʔVʔwVŋ (SCC.–Burush. Lak c:u.-And. čʌŋa:n3 ‘rock’. WCauc. but probably the Yen. dubia.‘female’. √ SCauc. *=VʔwVn ‘to go’ > Nakh *ʡo-. tʌʔŋ / tʌŋa:n3. *wŏjV (~ --) ‘woman. Similarly Иванов. Yen. and Burush. Kassian [UF 41 67. √ SCauc. *pə-zV ‘female. STib. ah and/or fah (waah. wah) ‘to set. (Sal) grandmother’. watarnahh-. and roots without etymology 1’. DAM. but not very apt either semantically or phonetically. *=VʔVn-. imp. 2’. 68. *čɨʔs may be a singulative suffix (cf. Hurr. set in order.-And. Burush. čʌʔŋ. hejaŋ. № 83 (Hatt. Pump. princess’. Basque *e-oHa-n ‘to go’. *pə-zV). -ŋ) ‘to go’. *:ʷijV ‘female’. + WCauc.dbf #140 unites Yen. *=ʔ-. ehu. forms with NCauc. ziš ‘mountain’ = Hitt. pl. ‘setzen. Av. isogloss. √ SCauc. *ʔʷă (s-. *čɨʔs ‘stone’. Burush. > Chin. 19 (Hatt. . Tsez. travel’ > NCauc. Yug ejiŋ1 . Synchronically *-s in Yen. ana ‘come (here?)!’ = Hitt. 5.2 Loans. *né. paradigm is the result of a secondary morphological reanalysis. Urart. pl. Kott. *sʷə(mə)V ‘woman’). pah. 1985. → A Hattic–Yen.368 A. zuwa-tu ‘wife’ or rather ‘concubine’ = Hitt. STib. *wjV (~ sṭ-. 1994. Sccet. šeŋ. female’ > Nakh *psṭuw ‘wife. → Hattic -tu is the “female” suffix -t(u)/-š(u). *=Vʔwŋ ‘to go. and Браун. an ‘to come (here?)’. Basque *a-ćo ‘old woman. root as *wV ‘stone’) which seems theoretically possible. the protoform of plural). *wV ‘small stone’ (reconstructing the SCauc. kit.SAG. *hejVŋ ‘to go’ > Ket ējeŋ1 / ɛjeŋ5 . Lak na-. 雌 *ćhej ‘female’. to command’. befehlen” = Hitt. Yug čɨʔs. dai-. (ein)ordnen. šīš. bitch’. + East Cauc. HUR. Arin kes. ~ --) ‘female’ > NCauc. Av. mountain’ > Yen. *ɨšV (~ č-) ‘stone. + incorrectly WCauc. Probably *hejVŋ developed from Early Proto-Yen. pl.‘to come’. un-.‘to walk (go)’. 29). pl. cf. Kott. nun.

fn. although the initial m. LÚ-tar. haifenamul (haipinamul. virility. 1985. derived from fin ‘child. timber’ (< NCauc. Dargwa *marga ‘male’. → Morphologically opaque. 59. Иванов.‘to drink’. *morƛ:ɨl/*uorƛ:ɨl ‘man. № 5 compares Hatt. 423. see Soysal. → If genuine Hattic. male child. 1985. root *pʷa (~ p:-. → The stem is apparently derived from the Hatt. haiweenamul) ‘manhood.in Hattic -mul in the non-initial position. 1999. According to Caucet. MUŠEN. ‘to milk’. In this case the second part -mul may correspond to: SCauc. 3’. In their turn. one can see a compound haipina-mul here. 170. *=āmʒŬ. Chirikba.in an inherited root is unlikely. son’). *mħĕrqwĕ (~ -ʕ-.)’ > Nakh *mār ‘husband’. 6’. to milk’. 1983. *mōr[Ł]V ‘male’ > NCauc.and the “masculine” suffix -(i)l. ehu. 5’. then perhaps ha-muru-a with the nominal prefix ha-.(< egu. hakazuel as ha-ga-zu-el. 4’. which theoretically can be the source of borrowing . Chirikba. *mōrŁV ‘male (subst.‘to drink’). ‘кравчий’ = Hitt. comparing zu with WCauc. 1996a. brave man. male. ʷ) ‘wood.‘to drink’ corresponds to ECauc. LÚhakazue-l ‘drinker. *zwA. STib.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 369 → If the comparison is correct. the well-attested noun haippin with an unknown meaning (probably abstract. On the other hand.dbf. WCauc. noun kazue ‘bowl’ [32’] (< Semitic) with the frequent prefix ha. 牡 *m(h)(r)ūʔ ‘male animal’. № 82 unconvincingly analyzes Hatt. *zwA. Phonetically unsatisfactory. Ардзинба. toaster’. Иванов. further to SCauc. cross-beam’. going back to NCauc. For its first part cf. > Chin. It is self-suggesting to single out the “masculine” suffix -l: haipinamu-l. GIŠ. courage’ = Hitt. Lezgh. pišnatar. which is unparalleled by the Sino-Caucasian daughter proto-languages. LÚeguttarra. note the retention of *m. hamuruwa ‘beam. 7. hamuruwa with the WCauc. 7’. used in compounds. -) ‘birch . denoting some wooden instruments. If so.ÙR. ‘(Dach)balken’ = Hitt. *aw ‘to come’(?) in awa ‘come here!’ = Hitt. 1996. rafter’. ašti or šti ‘bird’ = Hitt. hero’. timber’). quote the Abkhaz–Abaza compound *qʷǝ(m)bǝlǝra ‘beam over the hearth. 164–165. Hattic shows the phonetic development *ʔw > . *=āmśd ‘milk.

parallels. who tentatively propose that Hatt. → An unclear compound. cf. Further cf. GIŠhalmaššuitta-. 9’. hanti (hant?) ‘to summon up?’ =? Hitt. galliš. **palki ‘iron (ore?)’ was borrowed as Luw. of metal’ (Reiter. 17.33 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 33 Cf. *=alg[w]Ăn > NCauc. WCauc. if we reject the STib. Turk.as observed in Hurr.’ [12’]. kul.‘to summon up’.BAR. know’. kamurǰ ‘bridge’. timber (in construction of house. → The same word is found in Hittite (habalki ‘iron’) and Hurrian (habalgi/ abalgi ‘iron’). dam. If genuine Hattic. Kassian [UF 41 of the Hattic term. Dargwa *=[a]lgwVn. 399 f. to pronounce solemnly’. 15 . *=alg[w]Ăn ‘to speak’ > Av. *gʷVl-. AN. Arm. Lak =uk:i-. 78) probably via Hurrian with the same loss of h. Nuzi) amrû ‘beam.370 A. then probably ha-palki from the hypothetical root *palk. 351ff. NCauc.’ see an extended discussion in Martirosyan. Ugar. *ħānħV ‘fat’. *ʔalga(n). MAss. The comparison is possible. hapalki ‘id.-And. LÚhantipšufa ‘cook’ = Hitt. hanail.‘to say. GIŠDAG. *köper ‘id. 11’. Lezgh. (D)hanfašuit ‘Throne-goddess. look. δ-) ‘dyke. On similar Grk. 8’. CAD A2. parza ‘iron ore’ and subsequently the Luwian form was adopted by neighboring Semitic dialects: Akkad. etc. borrowed probably via Hurrian intermediation. 2010. brḏl ‘iron’. *hana in hanal. γέφῡρα (~ β-. see below sub kinawar ‘copper’ [34’] for detail (for the first time the idea about the . LÚMUHALDIM. → Cf. The Hattic terminus technicus was borrowed as Akkadian (OB. habalginnu ‘a k. → Apparently a compound: hanfa-šuit.. hapalki ‘iron’ = Hitt. abalgi ‘iron’ < Hatt. hanau ‘food?’ → Cf.) that reflects the same term. 12’. parzillu ‘iron’. ship)’ (CDA. 10’. reconstruct SCauc. Valério / Yakubovich. SCauc. *ga. where in all likelihood it should be regarded as a Hattic loanword. bridge’. *xg[w] instead of *g[w] and treat -ti in the Hattic form as a suffix of unclear nature. 1997.. Hurr. *khān (~ *gh-) ‘to see. Dubious STib. forthc. fn. throne’ = Hitt.

cf. An alternative and more probable interpretation of Myc. **zinar ‘lyre’ < WSem.). ‘metal + red’ (reconstructed on the basis of Adyghe–Kabardian *ʁʷapλá ‘id. κιννάβαρι ‘cinnabar’.rendering the lateral affricate --)”. labialized lateral affri––––––––––––––––––––––– relationship between Hatt. kinawar ‘copper’ [34’] ~ Grk. is virtual Luw. however. lit. 1987. *Iʷə-ʷV ‘iron’ was independently borrowed as Hitt. βαρακίς · γλαύκινον ἱμάτιον ‘bluish-grey cloth’. GIŠkišhit‘chair. z. palatalized labialized lateral fricative *ʷ > Hatt. not as ra-kV) Kazansky’s idea has been accepted by some scholars. 1986. *ḱ > Luw. ‘smaragd. the only case where we can suspect ki > Luw.35 WCauc.and -lk. but Казанскене / Казанский. are totally unsupported by other data. lki (cf. *maʷV with the WCauc. kešhi without the assibilation. w. hapalki to the Proto-WCauc. pa/pa3-ra-ku and Hatt. /rkV/ must be rendered as kV in Linear B. that WCauc. ‘metal + blue’: “it seems very tempting to relate *Iʷə-ʷV to the attested Hatti name for ‘iron’. however. but without phonetic explanation due to the lack of the Luwian link). lhip). On the other hand. the only idea we can discuss is the loan of WCauc. Luw. where the palatalized lateral fricative * is rendered by Hatt.rendering *Iʷ.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 371 On the other hand. 174 f. Ivanov’s theory about a particular relationship between Hattic and WCauc. ha-palki and the Semitic words was proposed in Ancillotti. Hatt.dbf (following Vjač. bluish-grey’ (Hsch. (Luwoid) kiklu(b)-/kikli(b). z can be theoretically explained within the Proto-Luwian process IE *ḱ > Anat. The theory of the Hattic origin of the Luwian term seems rather vague. malhip ‘good. lit. which is phonetically a more probable candidate for the source of borrowing of hapalki despite semantic difference: WCauc. etc. but this etymology is rather hypothetical likewise. from my point of view). κύᾰνος ‘dark-blue enamel. connecting pa-ra-ku to Hatt. Despite the fact that the morphological and phonetical relationship of Myc. and discussion) with alternative rendering of “exotic” phonemes: WCauc. hapalki.‘iron’ (on this stem see HED K. 1997 / 2007. Another problem case is Myc. lit. compound *Iʷə-ʷV ‘iron’. palatalized uvular fricative *Iʷə > ki and WCauc. 35 For meaning shifts in names of metals cf. *Iʷə-pəə ‘(red) copper’. Indeed the development ki > Luw. *kinnar (see below sub zinar ‘lyre’ [118’]). also Hatt. throne’ < Hurr. lapis lazuli. χap/walki (with χVw. *Iʷə-ʷV ‘iron’ > Hattic/Hittite/Hurrian. kuwanna(n) ‘copper (ore)’ ~ Myc. pa/pa3-ra-ku is. barraqtu ‘emerald’. hapalki is quite unclear (clusters like /lkV/. Hitt. Starostin. *Iʷə-ʷV see esp. It should be noted. favorable’ [49’] < WCauc. in all likelihood we deal with a late reanalysis here (ha-palki). 224 ff. 1975. 34 On the phonetic shape of the reconstructed WCauc. if we accept Yakubovich’s theory about the borrowing from Hattic into Luwian.’). whose old conjunctural translation is ‘silver’. In any event. z in a loanword. blue copper carbonate’.34 Since the proposed phonetical correspondences between Hattic and ProtoWCauc. see Melena. pa/pa3-ra-ku. 711–712 (the discussion with Chirikba).) connects Hatt. ku-wa-no. Grk. 66 propose the meaning ‘iron’. . but the change l > r is unmotivated (the late toponymic evidence with the fluctuation l~r can hardly prove anything here. Akkad. languages have another form. Note that aside from parza. since the West Caucasian origin of the Hattic term seems very probable. Caucet.

Eventually one or more of the three WCauc. *xɨre ‘arm’ > Ket ĺ. *Iʷə-λʷV ‘(white) copper’ (‘metal + white’)—spread all around Eurasia: cf. Yen. *χłHé ‘arm.. hatti-li ‘in Hattian language (adv.’. *HarχÚ ‘to speak. maniyahh-. Grk. -wa(r). sleeve’ > NCauc. Av. manus ‘hand’. but the fricativization SCauc. *χĕłHe (~-a) ‘sleeve’ > Av. terms discussed above—*IʷəʷV ‘iron’ (‘metal + blue’).)’ Exoethnonym ‘Hattians’ used by the Hittites (as well as the Old Assyrians: cf. *keʔt ‘man. √ SCauc. male’. Kassian [UF 41 cate *ʷV > klu(b). *HarχU ‘to sound.-And. Pump. → Cf. Hattic (adj. kit. pronounce’. *Iʷə-ʷV ‘iron’ also (as per Старостин. *kʷo-χ:al (~ -ol). also as an enclitic particle of direct speech = Hitt. Lezgh. hatti in Hitt. Kun Chang. lit. SCauc. Thai *hlek ‘iron’. 15’.-And. *geleǵ. √ SCauc.). shout’ > Nakh *ʡaχ-. assign. which corresponds to Lat. 13’.‘to cry out’. 1985/2007.). 14’. ‘metal + white’. but its semantically more preferable source seems WCauc. Balto-Slav. this term may independently originate from WCauc. hit. Arin karam-pat ‘elbow’. who was famous for the preparation of steel). maniyahhis a factitive verb from the unattested nominal stem *mani-. 304. see Старостин. μάρη ‘hand’. Arin ḱit. kārum Hattuš). to entrust.. etc. steel’ (A. h seems irregular (the same concerns the simplification of the NT-cluster). her. 1985/ 2007. to hand over. № 49). *kʷinṭa ‘husband . which can be tentatively reconstructed on the basis of Ubykh wə-sʷá ‘id. Av. person’ > Ket kɛʔt (also as self-designation of Kets). assign.. Hdt. etc. *[k]wn[ṭ]V ‘man’ > NCauc. 1972. → The connection is possible. Lak ka-χ:a. ĺi1 ‘arm’. shout’ > NCauc. bronze’. especially the Ket ethnonym).-And. Tsez. As for Grk. also as an appellative ‘hardened iron. perhaps a self-designation of Hattians.Pr. *=aχ-. Yen. Then the word penetrated (via Hittito-Luwians?) into Ancient Greek as Χάλυψ / Χάλυβος—the Chalybes (a tribe in north Anatolia. *χäla (~ -l:-). *Iʷə-λʷV ‘copper. χαλκός (Myc. *k > Hatt.372 A. to administer’ = Hitt. hero’. tapariya-. *Iʷə-pəə ‘(red) copper’ (‘metal + red’). if we assume for the Hattic verb the same meaning shift as attested in the Hittite counterpart maniyahh-: Hitt. *kwnVṭV (/ *ḳwnVtV) > Nakh *ḳanat ‘young man. ka-ko) ‘copper’. → Semantically very tempting (cf. hir ‘to allocate. boy. halzai. 304 (№ 49). . hu ‘to exclaim. Kott.‘iron’.

謂 *wəts ‘to say. *hun ‘big?’ in hun-zinar ‘a k. 20 (Hatt. Improbably Иванов. *ha-n. 422). *h-. nini(n)k. ‘loskommen. 267 f.. Kachin hɔ ‘to preach’ (an irregular onset in Chin. WCauc. 2002. which is probably secondary due to contamination with some other labialized roots (see Abadet. The comparison with Hattic is possible only if we assume SCauc. hu ‘to speak. *Ia. 1994. Heine/Kuteva. .GAL. hu also functions as an enclitic particle of the direct speech that strikingly corresponds to the aforementioned Abkhaz–Abaza ħʷa. also Yen. root is not supported by Adyghe–Kabardian and Ubykh data. Yen. + WCauc.)?’. № 8. cf. *raχa-. sich bewegen?’ =? Hitt. move (intr. Yug dūɣ. *huxV. showing labialization in some daughter languages (Abkhaz–Abaza ħʷa. *qäʔG ‘word’). *qo ( ~ *χ-) ‘full. however. 16’.‘to cry. *=xV (~ *xHV) ‘word’ (> STib. root with WCauc. № 9 (see below sub zinar [118’]). It is very likely. enough’ (without SCauc. hujei ‘shouting’ (a dprefix in Ket–Yug?). Adyghe ʡʷa vs. talk’. Cf.. Burm.‘to set in motion’. Burush. tell’ and as an enclitic quotation marker. 1985.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 373 *=eχ. Kabardian ʡa. of lyre’. As is truly noted by proponents of the Hattic–WCauc. *ʔōn.). *k(h)a ‘word’. which is used both as a verbal root ‘to say. *χʷV ‘to shout’. SCauc. g. Alternatively Иванов.). shout’ > Ket dūɣə1. Chirikba. speak’. Ubykh a-). cognates. *jw ‘all’ ~ Burush. the Hatt. cognates). that the Abkhaz–Abaza enclitic -ħʷa is the result of a secondary late development in Abkhaz–Abaza. 21 and Chirikba.D)INANNA. Untenably Браун. 1996. 云 *wən. but synchronic y. Kott.(~ -ʁ:-). 422 compare the Hatt. *j. Браун.dbf). Yen. *jṓn ‘all’. STib. → Cf. *χʷV ‘to speak’ > Chin.‘to say’. 1996. theory (e. Probably an onomatopoeic expressive root with an unclear loss of the final cluster *rχ in Hattic. WCauc. 曰 *wat. *jonHV > Yen. hut ‘to get free. ‘großes? Ištar-Instrument’ = Hitt.lacks East Cauc. but can be included into SCauc.is known to Hattic. so I suppose that we deal with a chance coincidence here. Lezgh. GIŠ(.‘to call’ Basque *ean ‘to say’. 17’. since the particle status of this WCauc. *Ia.> Hatt. Typologically such a grammaticalization process ‘to say’ > a quotative exponent is not rare.(~ x-) ‘many’ ~ STib. 1985. 1994.

naughty. Double -rr. wicked. kiniššan. Kachin gəšun3 ‘to coerce.. ‘so. demonstr. Kassian [UF 41 18’. extort. conj. № 13 translates ippi as ‘finger’ or ‘hand’ (ippi-zinar ‘fingerlyre. 2002 for this orthographic rule in the Hittite cuneiform. Lushai sual ‘bad. SCauc. e. Note that STib. . idaluš UN-aš. imallen.‘this’. like. take by force’. tittah-zilat ‘throne’ < ‘great’ + ‘seat’. *i.TUR. *ʔi ‘this’ [> NCauc. śēĺi1. → The anlaut spelling iš-pí. 1985. *sel. it is natural to single out the “masculine” suffix -l from the Hattic stem: išpe-l. imallin ‘this (demonstrative pronoun)’. earthly(?)’.‘earth’ cf. in this way’. GIŠ(. For the second element -Cazi. “kleines? Ištar-Instrument” = Hitt.36 Cf. to criminally assault (a woman). *ʔi ‘this’ ~ STib. ka. SCauc.tagn-. to assault’ > STib. in dieser Weise’ = Hitt.374 A.‘that’] and SCauc. *ippi ‘small?’ in ippi-zinar ‘a k. *mV ‘(demonstrative pronoun)’] 19’. dankui. A unique case of SCauc. comparing ippi with Adyghe–Kabardian ʡa-pa ‘hand. g. to sufficiently poison (a pool)’. Yen. *jmćV ‘earth. ita. stem’ [> Yen. ‘(schwarze) Erde. išpel ‘evil man’ = !? Hitt. *mV ‘he. → -l is probably the “masculine” suffix while the rest of the stem seems to be a compound of the pattern “adjective + substantive”. she’ ~ NCauc. and adv. inta. usurp’ (< *t-srōns?). *ʔĭ ‘this’ ~ Burush. *šVł (~ -) ‘bad . also adv. ‘(eben)so. that’ ~ STib. but ima. demonstrative stems: SCauc. → Иванов. daganzipa-. of lyre’. QĀTAMMA. soil. der Irdische(?)’ = Hitt. 篡 *chrōns ‘take by force. Yug sel/sejl1. ištarrazi-l ‘(dark/black) earth. 22’. 20’. *mV ‘this. 21’. sand’ ––––––––––––––––––––––– 36 See Kassian / Yakubovich.D)INANNA. therefore one can divide it as ištarCazi-l ‘dark earth’ with an unknown sandhi.(~ -r-) ‘bad’ > Ket śēĺ. sinful. ‘in that way(?)’ = Hitt. *wV ‘he. *ś(r)uał > Chin. finger’ which is not likely phonetically (see sub zinar [118’]). *ua should point to an old labial consonant.can be a compound of two SCauc. be in trouble to others through ill health. hand-lyre’). SP-cluster? On the other hand.can merely be a graphical representation of /SP-/.should point to an old cluster. terrestrial. Erdboden. → The element -llin is unclear.

*-g should originate from SCauc.dbf. Athabaskan) *jā ‘sky’. 1994. *VndV (~ -m-) ‘black. dark’. see Semet. etc. Yen. also in Dizzištanu ‘god of the Good Day’ < izzi ‘good’ + eštan ‘sun. *ʡV(n)ǯV ‘good. DUD. *hõže (~ -ž:-) ‘well. № 40 analyzes it as išta-razil and compares išta with WCauc. In this case cf. good’). Abadet. *ṗə-źA ‘clean. erṣetu. Untenably Браун. izzi ‘favorable. Kott. . Иванов. ʔarḍ. 2006. *mĭʒV ‘sweet’). -g) ‘thunder’ > Ket ēkŋ1 / ɛkkiń5 / ɛkŋ5. where *ə goes back to Common WCauc. Ugar. *ĂwnV ‘dark’). 20. the same phonetic process r +  > rr in Hittite. izzi with WCauc. Иванов. ćah ‘to be big (compared to smth. good. 1994. to lead’. № 15 compares Hatt. Lezgh. comparing Hatt.(~ x-. sand’ ~ Yen. big’ > Tib. big’ > NCauc. is-ta-arazil to Hitt. Soysal.originates from the Abkhaz– Abaza verbal stem *ə-ṭa. Both solutions do not seem probable.‘tin’.dbf.)’. As an alternative solution Soysal. *ća ‘great. *araz with Proto-Semitic *ʔar‘earth’ (Akkad.. *jōmćV ‘earth. Yug ekŋ1. 365 proposes quite a different analysis: is-ta-araz-il ‘earth’ from *araz ‘earth’. 1985. day?’ [5] = Hitt. *ə. *=äƛĔw ‘to lie. *ʔa-j[a]k (~ x-. *wirĂ ‘sun’) which is improbable phonetically. ajakan. all right’.‘on the ground’. ćhe ‘great’. Kachin (H) tiŋ-ǯa ‘great’. comparing it with the Abkhaz–Abaza preverb *ṭa. -ʒ-) ‘damp sand’ ~ Basque *hauć ‘ashes’]. Браун. 23’. ýrṣ. 2002. *ʷa ‘black’ (< NCauc. 112 attempts to connect Hatt. ʔere. Burm. Arab. *(mV)-rəʁa ‘sun’ (< NCauc. 1985. but semantically too far.SIG5. → Cf. № 80 compares Hatt. ajak. alternatively he segments it as ištar-azil. nebiš. Браун. *ʡV(n)ǯV ‘good’ > Tsez.‘to lie’ < NCauc. → Not quite reliable in view of too general semantics. + WCauc. to put.dbf). pl. comparing ištar with NCauc. yah ‘sky’ with WCauc. arzili. Probably *ṭa. A more plausible cognate could be Na-Dene (Eyak. 56 and Chirikba. benefit’. Hebr. *ʷə ‘good’ (maybe < NCauc.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 375 [> NCauc. yah ‘sky’ = Hitt. if the Abaza glottalization is secondary). 20 (Hatt. 24’.(or *ə-ta-. *ʔeʔǯ. good’. STib.‘good’. 414 unpersuasively single out an element (i)šta-. 2004. *ʔič:V. √ SCauc. 1985. Иванов. Basque *onća ‘well. see Caucet. The comparison is phonetically acceptable (Yen. 1996. *xQw-claster).

As fairly noted in Haas/Thiel. krk. *karm: Ugar. 1986. 1996 (Hatt. ‘ruin mound’. NCauc. In view of this I tend to suppose that Hatt. of vessel’. Probably a Wanderwort of unknown origin. *o ~ Hatt. Not to NCauc. Cf. barley’ (= Sum. WCauc. 2007. 455). Kassian [UF 41 25’. -εύτρια. kait ‘grain’ is a Hurrian loanword. *k:ʷač:ə (~ -c:-)).]. corn. *Łədwi/*ŁəŁədwi ‘corn’ which seems convincing. Diakonoff/Starostin. etymology for Hurr. cf. *kwərV ‘a k. for which see Afaset. → Can be a reduplicated stem (kar-kar). (see Semet. t and NCauc. 23.can hardly be related here. Hsch. 37 . ai. kait ‘grain. as proposed by Иванов.dbf. scrape’ = Hitt.]) or Hsch. wheat’ (> Tsez. *ǯ ~ Hatt. *qHwōǯĀ ‘corn. Despite Иванов. karm. Similarly Chirikba. yay. see CDA. Poll.‘to rake. and discussion.. ya. M/NAss. grapevine’ etc. of instrument.And. > Hitt. 28’. κοδομεύω ‘to roast barley’ [Hsch. 26’. see GLH. Arab. κοδομεῖον / κοδομήϊον ‘vessel for roasting barley’ [Poll. w. halki-.. № 18.‘rake’).]. Mehri karmaym ‘mountain’.‘vine. 1978. pick?’ (DUL. Dargwa *q:Iʷač:. lit. *q:Vrχ:V—the second element of the Av. The correspondences NCauc. 28 propose a NCauc. ––––––––––––––––––––––– The migratory way of this term might be longer.dbf). karmu ‘heap. krm ‘vineyard’.-And. 135 f.376 A. karam ‘wine’. The Hattic word has been borrowed from some West Semitic form going back to WSem. → Cf. 61 proposes a borrowing Proto-Av. Neumann. grain-crop’ (also deified) = Hitt. obscure Lyc. καδρεμα · σίτου φρυγμός. Hitt. + WCauc. ŠE. hah(ha)r(a). 1985. In fact karkar is very similar to Av. however. hahhariya. perhaps Hurr. *qečV. compound *:iχ:ʷVq:Vrχ:V ‘rake’ [where the first *:iχ:ʷV goes back to NCauc. Ugar. 133) should not be separated from this Hattic stem. ay ‘to give’ = Hitt.]. Николаев. *VχwV (~ Ł-) ‘rake’]. also in LÚfintu-kkaram ‘cupbearer’ → A long ago recognized cultural term.‘roast barley’ (κοδομεία ‘barley-roasting’ [Poll. mound’ (Bab. piya-. A χθθα.. scrape’ (derived from hah(ha)r(a). Phot. Cf.-And. ku-re-ku ‘a k. also deified : Dkade-na. kade—NCauc. Pre-Greek κοδο. 1976.37 27’. 158 f. Aram.). 1985.‘rake’ cannot be kept apart from these forms either. . ‘grain heap’. karkar ‘to rake. further probably to Akkad. karm ‘vineyard’. κοδομεύς ‘one who roasts barley’ [Hsch. kade ‘grain. seem irregular. Suid.. 149). Harsusi kermaym ‘mountain’ with the external Afro-Asiatic cognates.

nimble.LAM. Hence it might be a WSem. → Resembles WSem. 365 tentatively connects Ancient Greek Κύπρος and Hurr. but the origin of toponym Κύπρος ––––––––––––––––––––––– 38 For the Hattic loanword in Hittite Ékaškaštipa.). ḳl ‘courier. also Hurr. red?’ =? Hitt. 2004. 1999. 1996. 22 proposes a typical bringen-Sie-etymology: Abkhaz a-ḳl-χra ‘to take off. (Bibl. (see AHw. katakumi ‘witchcraft. Cf. 459).‘gatehouse. to drag. alwanzena-. kazue ‘goblet. which probably contains the root χa (á-χara) ‘to pull. 632.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 377 29’. Abkhaz–Abaza *qV. 454 . carry’. messenger’. kinawar ‘copper’ = Hitt. LÚNÍ. take out. 164–165. 33’. kab(a)li ‘copper’ to this Hattic term. cup’ → A long ago recognized Semitic loanword: Akkad.E. ks ‘id. Hebr. 700. HALOT). KI. drag’ originates from NCauc. loanword with the (Hattic?) h-suffix. *=HīqV(r) ‘to pull. fn. assuming the development knwr > knpr > kpr. 7).‘to pull. kazza ‘blood red?. Браун.and change l~r can be so easily accepted. 1994. gatehouse’ = Hitt.38 30’.ZU LÚKAŠ4. 370. Ugar. LÚkiluh ‘courier-spy’. *gaǯinV ‘jar. cf. jug’ by Старостин. ‘Läufer-Kundschafter’ = Hitt. forms with similar semantics: Ugar. 1995 /2007. 242 f. κιννάβαρι ‘cinnabar’. magical?’ = Hitt. root *ḳll ‘to be quick. rapid’ (see DUL. which is tentatively compared with NCauc. rapid (said of messengers).) ḳal ‘light. 34’. išharweškiya-.’ etc. DUL. fast riding animal. → An unclear compound? 31’. portal’ see štip ‘gate’ [49]. drag’ with the frequent preverb ḳǝl. . → For the new translation ‘gate-building’ (not ‘Moon god’. but in reality should represent the same areal cultural term (further see Soysal. racer’ from the Sem. (D)kašku ‘(deified) gate building. URUDU. cup’. carry away’. kap ‘moon’ [15] above) see Soysal. → Without doubt the Hattic word relates to Grk.) kaz(z)i/kaši ‘goblet’ (Catsanicos. kāsu ‘goblet. (Bogh. sorcery . I am not sure that both unmotivated loss of medial -n. 32’. A Wanderwort (‘red mineral’)? Soysal. something speedy. 2004.

Semitic-. prev. bronze’ probably does not exist.-And. 4) and Tsezian–Avaro-Andian *kʷibV-l‘a k.dbf reconstructs its virtual ––––––––––––––––––––––– The earliest exploitation of Cyprus’s copper deposits took place during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC (Knapp.) made an attempt to interpret Κύπρος as “copperland”. 76 ff.). however. and connect Alašiya to cuneiform alaš ‘copper’ or ‘bronze’ attested in a Nuzi vocabulary. see also Reiter. 4 w. Sum. kab(a)li ‘copper’. whose language is unknown to us. *kʷɨbu A ‘lead’. see Reiter. of metal’: Av. Tsez. was unknown in the Near East. g. The island name Κύπρος ‘Cyprus’ is known from the most archaic Greek authors (Hom. Ebla ga-ba-lum ‘copper’ (Neu. bronze or iron) attested in the Ancient Near East as wandering stems.) suppose that Alašiya was not an autonym. lit. KPL in the northern area. see discussion in Knapp.39 In fact. 1997. where the name of Cyprus sounded as Alašiya (Alasiya)—a toponym/ethnonym widely used among Hittite-. 1997. Some authors (Neu. (Andian only) *kʷibV ‘iron’.378 A. whose name continues the aforementioned Hurrian term. made of copper’. κύπρῐνος ‘1. 356) and starting from this time the island was always associated with copper in the Near East. 2008. This stem. but an exonym derived from a metal name. kupr. Kassian [UF 41 requires some additional comments. Two easiest etymological hypotheses about Κύπρος can be proposed : 1. 76)... however. Neu. 303 ff. 39 . Hurrian. 166 w. which is well attested both in Tsezian and Andian sub-groups. The similar shift from toponym to metal designation is attested in Latin : cuprium [aes] > cuprum (probably under the Greek influence). 1997. prev. kupr. In Classical and Hellenistic Greek this stem possesses some derivates with the general meaning ‘of Cyprus’: Κύπριος ‘Cyprian’. 1996). 1997. At the same time—especially after the discovery of the Hurrian word kab(a)li ‘copper’—some authors (e. lit. There are three similar shapes of designations of a “default” metal (copper. 2008. made from the flower of Cyprus.and Egyptian-speaking peoples from the late 3rd to the 1st millennia BC (Knapp.was a self-designation of the Cyprus natives. cognates (Caucet. 295 w. The earliest dependable evidence for copper export from Cyprus to Levant as well as to Crete dates back to the early 2nd millennium BC (Knapp. 2.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. 1997. that the real situation is more complex. but lacks external NCauc. κύπριος ‘of copper’ and so on. 1. I suppose. ALAŠ ‘copper. however. This Greek and Latin development ‘Cyprian’ > ‘copper’ took place very late (the beginning of the 1st millennium AD?) and cannot clarify the inner sense of the island name in question. It is presented in Hurr. lit. 2008. 2.+) and perhaps from Lin. B texts (ku-pi-ri-jo/a.

The relationship between Hurr. kabali > Tsez. who connects NCauc. 3. maybe OEng.) and various Semitic forms with the meaning ‘iron’: Akkad. 632. brät ‘iron’. burat.– Av. Bezhta / Gunzib kobo-li-. *kʷibV-l-. -ali was reanalyzed as an oblique exponent. if < *fersum. /ʷi/ which makes the idea of a direct borrowing somewhat suspicious. PRZ in the central and northern areas. *bi/urt-.‘iron (ore?)’ (attested in derivates. et qui tient lieu du frein’. 296 ff. ePSD. for this stem see Valério/Yakubovich. on the other hand. CAD S. the split of the Tsezian–Avaro-Andian proto-language occurred ca. 1987. brass’. The vocalic correspondence between Hurr. g.. Fessel’. see Semet. 1310 . Additionally the following Nakh forms must be included into this nest: Chechen and Ingush borza ‘bronze’. forms remains. The bulk of the Semitic forms was analyzed by Rendsburg. so the oblique stem *kʷibV-l. Gurage brät. /barzillu/. -b-) and Hurr.can be reconstructed at the Proto-Tsez. brzl. Cf. 41 The split of the Chechen-Ingush proto-language occurred ca. guesses about the connection of PRZ-forms with Semitic forms of the shape BRT ‘iron’ or ‘a metal artefact’: Akkad.-And. parza.-And. 1273. also Старостин. Luw. where Hurr. firzil. and Tsez. Aram. bräd ‘iron’. 212 ff.+) ‘bronze’. forthc.dbf). brḏl. that we deal with a wandering stem here. kabali and Tsez. 83.-And. If Hurr. level.-And. DUL. 1995 / 2007. and in the Ethiopian branch—Geez bərt ‘copper.. kabali as inherited etymological cognates. who. although its geographical distribution is rather suspicious and probably the Akkad.– Av. Harari brät ‘iron’.-And.40 2. 2100 BC (see fig. Argobba bräd ‘iron’. The opposite scenario looks similar: Hurr. *kʷibV is uncertain: -(a)l-i is a Hurrian suffix. in its turn the Tsez. 1969). protoform as *kwiwV (~ -ē-. *kʷibV-l-. however.–Av. Tigre brät ‘iron’. Karata kuba-l-). plausibly adds a number of European attestations (Latin ferrum ‘iron’.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 379 NCauc. Artzi.‘hache. parzillu (OA. ESA frzn (CAD P. *kwiwV (~ -ē-. OB+). and Phoen. root *kʷibV forms the oblique stem in -l among the modern Tsezic and Andian languages (e.–Av. on the one hand. 1982.. bərat ‘iron’. but I am not sure that it is justified for such a cultural term. the early 2st millennium AD. Arab.–Av. 236 . Arab. zabar (ME). ZUBAR (ED IIIb+) ‘bronze’. Isolated Modern Svan berež ‘iron’ seems continuing this ancient stem.-And. uncertain: /a/ vs. Amharic bərt ‘metal basin’. Akkad. kabali was borrowed < Tsez.-Arabic isogloss is unrelated to the African terms (the ––––––––––––––––––––––– According to glottochronology. the virtual Proto-Nakh form could be *borza-n41). -b-)). known from some other nominal stems . Sum. Ugar. Chechen borzanan ‘of bronze’ (the word is unattested in the Batsbi language. I suppose. Amor. siparru (OAkk. Godoberi kubi-la-. 40 . however. (OB+) bi/ertu ‘Band.‘anneau en fer qu’on passe dans la narine du chameau. bræs ‘bronze (also brass?)’ and some others) and. flèche’. burt. 2 above). 2006. ZABAR. Hebr. ZPR in the southern area: Elam.dbf. pace Militarev (Semet. see Hinz/Koch.–Av. where these forms are united under Proto-Sem. the foreign oblique marker can have been interpreted by Hurrians as a native suffix. Krebernik. zubar (ME) ‘copper’ (also ‘bronze’?). przl.

Luw. parzillu which further was adopted by other Semitic languages where we find PRZL-forms. EDE 2. where zifin [121’] means ‘grandchild. secondly. There is no any positive evidence. hail’ > NCauc. descendant’ √ SCauc. walnut. grain. The stem bVr (standardly bir) itself with the meanings ‘metal’. Takács. Kassian [UF 41 Ethiopian words can probably be a Coptic loan. 35’. egg. KA.). *wāw(-łV) ‘grain.) are more marginal.BAR = /zabar/ ‘a metal’/‘bronze’. šullai-. does not permit to discriminate between interlingual borrowings and inherited cognates. Chadic. *uV-LV ‘nut. see Afaset. propose the meaning ‘iron (ore?)’ for Luw. The modern state of Afro-Asiatic research. EDE 2. and I tend to suppose that bVr (bir) ‘a default metal’ cannot be projected onto the Proto-Afro-Asiatic level. kuka in the compound zifi-kuka ‘posterity. where the word underwent some phonetic changes and later became adopted by the Greeks as a name of copper-exporting land. Phoenician and other Semitic forms originate from the Akkadian word. Κύπρος. The only scenario one can suspect is the borrowing of one of the aforementioned stems into “Minoan” language with the meaning ‘copper’. descendants’ (< *zifin-kuka with regular simplification nk > k). 36’. remains unetymologizable within Luwian or Indo-European (although the l-suffix can be easily explained within the Luwian morphology) and. seed. Reiter. but rather is an African wandering root (the factual absence of this root in the Semitic branch supports such a solution). ‘silver’ is attested in the all African Afro-Asiatic branches (Egyptian. g. *ʷaʷal ‘nut. EDE 2.dbf sub *bir. 123 ff. however. walnut’. but somewhere (e. Omotic). . somewhere they can be explained as Ethiopian loans.-And. Dargwa *IʷaI ‘grain’.dbf sub *bir. it is rather unlikely phonetically that Ugaritic. supporting such a scenario so far. small stone’.‘metal’ and Takács.‘metal’. Sumerian BAR ‘metal’ seems representing the same term. 1997. parza-. κιννάβαρι above) or KBR (Sum. Cushitic. *wāwV(-łV) ‘seed. 123 ff. however. None of these sound combinations directly matches Grk. ‘copper’.380 A. w. Tsez.and claim that it was the Luwian stem that served as the source for Akkad. Other shapes like KNBR (Hatt. In any case. lit. Takács. forthc.. sub bjꜣ (with a more accurate analysis and discussion). 294 f. in South Cushitic) they are probably derived by native T-suffixes from the stem bir. however. BIRT-forms with the meaning ‘iron’ are also attested among various Cushitic (and Omotic?) subgroups (see Afaset. 124). kitat and? kišat or mere tat/šat ‘to be(come) arrogant’ = Hitt. ‘bronze’ ‘iron’. Back on Semitic PRZ: Valério/Yakubovich. kinawar ‘copper’ ~ Grk. egg’ > Av. parza.

to keep alive (trans.).ZA ‘chair. GIŠarimpa-. which should be treated as a borrowing from the Akkadian language. kurkupal ‘peg’.eš-. GIŠhappuriya-. *ʔākV. 37’. probably reflecting the Akkadian mimation.(~ q-. stool. Burm.)’ = Hitt. g. Yug xɔksl 5 /xɔksɨl 5. dialects. kurkufenna (also kurkupun?) ‘wooden stand (vel sim. of rice’. ksÿ ‘seat. kukkuhu (also kunkun?) ‘to be alive (intr. → Probably the meaning of Hatt. kussû-m. kunkuhu. kuka was ‘seed’. GU.. kušim ‘throne’ → A long ago recognized Semitic loanword : Akkad. kur ‘to stay . 穀 *kōk ‘grain’. g-) ‘to bear. (see.‘to stay’. give birth’ ~ Yen. kusim. Cf. fried eggs. leave’ > NCauc. → Cf. the stem contains the suffix -na (-al-na > -enna). ‘Pflock. throne’. *olo ‘egg . kauk ‘a k. in view of Hatt. *Hrāgw ‘to stay. 38’. throne’. *=HiqwĀ(n) ‘to bear. Note that it is the only Hattic word. give birth’ ~ STib. ar-. kussiu-m ‘chair. *=Hixqw ‘to bear. SCauc. 40’. → Morphologically opaque. Pump. xoxdámon. to be born’ ~ Burush. hušuwant. 460). *kej. DUL. 42’. kurkufenna [40’]. not from WSem. *qoK. Yen. *=argwV-n ‘to stay’ ~ STib. e. 41’. (GIŠ)GAG. → Cf. kurtapi ‘foliage?’ =? Hitt.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 381 Lezgh. to stand?’ = Hitt. Lushai kok ‘grain’. *Ki(j) (~ -e(j)) ‘bear. *rak ‘to lay. In its turn the Sem. place’ ~ Yen.) in rituals’ = Hitt. -m. Nagel’ = Hitt. throne’ etc. Ugar. → From kurkupal ‘peg’ [39’]? If so.(~ χ-) ‘hail’ > Ket qɔgdəm 5. word has probably been borrowed from Sum. . A metathesis in Hattic? 39’. STib. *-´k ‘children’. testiculus’. SCauc. to be born’ > NCauc. *kōk ‘grain’ > Chin.

The WCauc. Hatt. stem has an atypical shape and should be rather analyzed as *koqtV with an unclear dental suffix. Chirikba. luck’.and NCauc. → It is tempting to compare Hatt. conjunction ‘then?. 46’. also fa. 1985. → Иванов.)’ → Cf. brazier’. 446). assuming KT > T in Hattic: Yen. ‘dann?.‘heart’ + -ta ‘place of’). Gemüt’. linen cloth’ = Hitt. lin ‘to drink? (vel sim. 79 unjustifiedly segments the Hattic stem as ku-zan. . 441. form possesses reliable external etymology: NCauc. so daß?’ 48’. therefore the Hattic–Yen. GADA. *=VVn ‘to wash. kuzzan. *=Vŋ ‘to wash’ (> NCauc. etymologies for ku. utensil?’ = Hitt. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’) are not provable. 1985. comparison seems dubious. Probably a WCauc. Yug kɔxtɨ6 ‘das Innere’ (Werner. disposition’ > Ket kōqt ‘das Innere. tete-kuzzan ‘big hearth’ = Hitt. and so?’. As was noted by Chirikba. The meaning shift ‘to pour’ > ‘to drink’ is typologically possible. *wēnλwē ‘luck. very similar to WCauc. lki. *maʷV ‘good. temper. *ăj ‘fire’ for -zan. where the palatalized labialized lateral *ʷ is rendered by Hatt. 1996. Kassian [UF 41 43’. to spill’ ~ Burush. 2002 1. lianu or elianu ‘implement?. aššiyant-. kut ‘soul’ = Hitt.‘to wash’). *ǵʷə ‘heart’ < NCauc. → Morphologically opaque. loanword. core’ (*gʷə. As a matter of fact the Yen. ZI. 44’. *-hált. favorable’ = Hitt. stem. GUNNI. 47’. 1996. to weep’ ~ STib. proposing some unconvincing WCauc. cf. mai(u) ‘a valuable cloth. SIG5-in. lhip. *. good’. representing WCauc. 426 follows Ivanov and adds Abkhaz *gʷə-ta ‘centre. 428. kuzan. also huzza ‘hearth. hašša-. 45’. SIG5-ant-. hapalki [12’] for Hatt. UNŪTEMEŠ. ma. pour. № 22. *ƛēŋ (~ -ā-) ‘to wash (by pouring water over). № 22.382 A. SCauc. 49’. Further Ivanov’s cognates (WCauc. malhip ‘good. The etymology was proposed by Иванов. mane. *koqtV (~ g-) ‘the inside. aššu. conjunction ‘and’. kut with the following Yen.

mṣltm ‘cymbals’ from Sem. Hatt. Yug ma. clown?’ = Hitt. 2009.(!) ‘to put’. 51’.‘to take (for oneself)’. imp. GU4. create’). dai. bullock’ etc. Of course.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 383 Untenably Браун. Ivanov (pers. comparison is possible if we suppose a shortening (the loss of the final consonant) in the Yen. + Arabic loanword in Adyghe42). . muh and muhal ‘hearth’ = Hitt. Ugar. slash’ = Hitt. 50’. The Hattic-Yen. millaw?.ZU9. mar or kamar ‘to slit. 8) advocates a Semitic origin of the Hattic term.43 Браун. ox’. LÚALAN. hašša-.). mulk ‘ownership. Vjač. Ugar. alpu ‘bull. loanword: Ugar. → Initial m. LÚmaššel (or LÚparšel) ‘cult performer. Arin ma ‘tribute’ [the meaning is probably corrupted]).in an expressive lexeme. miš. chanter. me. HALOT). mu. 54’. muhal is rather similar to Sum. meš. milup (also milip?. and Иванов. Purely theoretically can be a Semitic loanword. Bibl. also fu ‘mother. Yen. allegro forms. → Morphologically opaque. -za da. ýlp ‘(head of) cattle. iškalla-. Hebr. 53’. further cf.dím ‘gold or silver smith’ ––––––––––––––––––––––– 42 Adyghe mǝλkʷ ‘property. property’ (Шагиров. 20 (Hatt. com. fortune’ < Arab. (SED 2. (RS) māṣilu ‘(a musician. mis. comm. 332 . *ma(ʔ) ‘take!’ can be an areal form. lady. → If the first sign has the phonetic value MAŠ. → Cf. where. 22 quotes a strange Abkhaz form. 1994. standardly forming craftsman names like kug. Emelianov (pers. miša ‘take (for yourself )!’ = Hitt. *ma(ʔ) ‘take!’ (> Ket maʔ /ma. tinkle’ (see DUL.should point to a non-inherited word. Akkad. nuhatimmu ‘cook’ with serious phonetic corruption). Yen. not PÁR. the stem is a WSem. #4). (ED IIIa+) MUḪALDIM ‘cook’ (probably borrowed as Akkad. mṣl ‘cymbal player’. mä ‘take!’ in various Mongolic and Turkic languages. milluw?) or lup?? ‘bull. performer)’. if one assumes a m-prefixed form (unattested elsewhere) of Common Sem. CAD M1. 52’. as proposed by Vl. ṣll ‘to clink. cf. mistress (vel sim. an exceptional case of preserving m. ox’ = Hitt. one can single out the element -dim (< dím ‘to fashion. *ʔalp ‘cattle’: Akkad. 272). 1994. piš? ‘to take (for oneself)’.)’ 55’. 43 On the other hand. mǝṣiltajim. ma. also mit?. 1977 1. 586 .

pana. ente or (with the reduction of the medial vowel in prefixed forms) nite. Lezgh. → The Hattic stem contains the “masculine” suffix -l. . *wĭmV ‘witness. fa (waa. *ʔĕndū ‘forehead’ > Av. muš or muša ‘smth. *maṭa ‘forehead’. ‘sitzen. bed stone’ = Hitt. nif (and nf ) or nifaš. Kassian [UF 41 (kug ‘silver’). iš. body-frame’. eš-. eyebrow. šamana-. √ NCauc. the idea of Hattic–Sumerian lexical contacts is unsupported by other data and cannot be discussed in earnest. *muna in redupl.(> ni-) ‘his’.( ~ -χ-) ‘to be visible’ ~ Burush. ntel ‘shape.-And. lay. Dargwa *ʔant:a. body. 62’. relating to tree. stand’ = Hitt.dím ‘wood carver’ (iš ‘wood’). fa (pa. true’ ~ STib.cannot be explained as the possessive prefix le/li. zi-ntil(-) = Hitt. *nHǟṭV ‘forehead. The following attestations are known: le-ntel. Meaning shifts ‘face’ < > ‘forehead’ and ‘face’ < > ‘body(-frame)’ are wellattested cross-linguistically. nimah and via a contact dissimilation lmah ‘eye(s)’ = Hitt. muna-muna ‘foundation. WCauc. dai-. *-moq. face’ > Tsez. Or alternatively to NCauc. cheek’). etc. 57’. 1996. *ʔəqa. 59’. → Chirikba. 60’. *mjk ‘eye’ ~ Yen. → Can hardly be compared with SCauc.‘face. fruit?’ 58’. since the known attestations explicitly contain this possessive morpheme: li-nimah. also pa?) ‘podium. 421 proposes a monophonemic comparison with WCauc. *naṭa ‘forehead’. however. witness’ (> NCauc. šakuwa. eyelash’. nfaš ‘to sit’. base. Note that the Hattic onset ni. waa) ‘to put. ha-le-lmah. 61’. pedestal’ = Hitt. paššu-. ešri-. Lak niIṭa ‘face’. etc. 56’. *sǝ ‘to sit’ which is nor persuasive. form.384 A. *hondV (~ ħ-). The root may be nte.dím ‘bow maker’ (pana ‘bow’). *näṭ(a) ‘forehead . sich setzen’ = Hitt. At the present stage of research. *wĕm ( ~ -x-) ‘eye.

‘axe. Dwaašil. *faš(i) in Dwaašul. plenty’ = Hitt. iyatar tametar ‘fecundity and abundance’. *haluka. Hatt. -qq-. Unlikely Иванов. conjunction ‘and. battleaxe’ [Hom. pakku-paku. NB: Sum. ? aššu. then’. for Iranian data see Абаев 1. 67’. *blVgwi ‘hammer’ (> Nakh *barVg. kite’. paraśú. → Probably onomatopoeic. NCauc. Lak waIrq:u ‘magpie’. Striking similarity between NCauc. BALAK ‘spindle’ and Akkad. (OB+) pilakku (~ -a-. → Onomatopoeic? 65’. *paluka. *bəʁIa ‘eagle. wakku-pakku ‘hammer’ = Hitt. Lezgh *p:ul[k] . *bAlka. Turk. -gg-) ‘spindle’ are certainly unrelated here. → If one assumes the reduction of the medial vowel and strange simplification lK > K. 68’. Dargwa *barɣʷi. *ḳŭnʡV ‘handle’). GIŠNÍG. big bird’ > Nakh *mɦāqqVl ‘kite’. → Cf. and Altaic *pằluk῾V ‘hammer’ (> Tung. A universal nursery stem PaPa ‘father’/‘mother’. Mong. daughter languages in the cultural word). atta-. 69’. IE *peleu. namma. № 61.‘axe’ (> OInd. 451). so. waal-waal or waal-waal-at ‘(verbum dicendi)’ =? Hitt. *baba (~ p:) ‘grandfather’. faku can represent a proto-Wanderwort of unknown origin. mema-. where the Hattic root is compared with WCauc. 1985. battle-axe’ [RV+]. -ma. Tsez. *uħālGV ‘a bird of prey. Grk. Lezgh. -(y)a. WCauc. haranili. parnulli ‘a k. . grandfather’. irregular correspondences between NCauc. *babajV and Hatt.‘magpie’. 66’. 64’. nu. *fal in redupl. of aromatic woody plant or its product’ = Hitt. WCauc.dbf). *babVju ‘father’. *babajV ‘father. NCauc. the same as NCauc. grandfather’ > Nakh *babV (~ -ā-) ‘grandfather’. papaiya?) ‘father’ = Hitt. Lak burg. see Altet. abundance. *babaj ‘father.m. *faku in redupl. *ḳʷə ‘handle’ (< NCauc. Dwaašiul ‘(deified) fecundity.GUL. fafaya (waappaya. πέλεκῠς ‘two-edged axe. fama. waawaah-šul ‘in eagle-fashion’ = Hitt.+]. *fafah ‘eagle’ in wapah-šul. GIŠparnulli-. waawaaya. fala.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 385 63’. Dargwa *waIrq:. conjunction = Hitt.‘good’. fafaya may speak for a contact nature of the Hattic stem. Cf.

where *pə. son’ = Hitt. fen (pin.-ɨ) ‘sky. thick’ from the noun *pəśə. 1985.-And.)’ 71’. fat’ with the frequent WCauc. Ugar. 1994. Since the Hattic morphological system has no counterparts of the WCauc. Cf. *=HrjśĒ ‘thick. root *sĭHwV ‘breath. comparing it with the WCauc. *fintu ‘?’ in LÚwiintu-kkaram. *pəsA). Not probable. there are some WCauc. and STib. 1996. from which Yen. ‘Weinschenk. ween) ‘child. 20. soul. dbon ‘grandson. cloud . breath . STib. LÚSAGI. fin. On the other hand. 70’. nephew’) were derived. 8): Sem. 72’. vapour’). Kassian [UF 41 → Note the “masculine” suffix -l in the Hattic stem. g. paštae. fašun? ‘breath? . god’. prefix *pǝ. See Браун. → A compound of karam ‘wine’ [27’]. Браун. DUMU.and the common NCauc. = Hitt. fan’ [43]. however. → Unfortunately the meaning of the Hattic stem cannot be established with certainty. *s:uh. to die’. bn etc. which is analyzed as pə-sA. one can guess only about the borrowing WCauc. lung?’ =? Hitt. wiin. *beʔjiŋ ‘light’ + Yen. On the other hand. 1996. and Chirikba.). to breathe’ (Nakh *sa ‘soul’. 2) WCauc. pintu-kkaram ‘cupbearer’. spirit’. *seŋ ‘liver’. suffix *pǝ-). pšatae (pšattai) ‘cudgel. bludgeon (vel sim. If f(a)šun indeed meant ‘breath /soul/lung’. Av. Cf. dense. + WCauc. e. containing the same prefix *pə. *Poj (~ -u-) ‘to bear. but the borrowing of such a basic term from Semitic is very unlikely proceeding from general reasons. daughter’ (> WCauc. ZI. 1994. *bin ‘son’ (Akkad. Mundschenk’.‘fat’ (< NCauc. *PVn (> Tib. 2009. *ʡămsa (~ -ə. Иванов. *pəśʷA ‘to breathe. → Cf. pašun.is a frequent WCauc. form of a very similar phonetic shape: 1) WCauc. which is. child’). + WCauc. soul? . 19. *puʔb ‘son’.. 424 (Hatt. pen. Иванов. (Ket) beńśiŋ5 ‘lung’.). to get tired . *pHV ‘son. pšun. bīnu. . Ivanov. *pa ‘son’. Lak s:iħ ‘breath. prefix. № 44 treats the Hattic root as šul. *puʔn ‘daughter’. *pəsA ‘soul. SCauc. it finds an interesting parallel in Yen. 73’. while the root *sA goes back to NCauc. Abkhaz–Abaza adjective *pəśə-la ‘fat. > Hatt. puš-an ‘to blow on. 424 (Hatt.386 A.(a former class exponent?).‘to get tired’. in this case. usually explained as a late compound of Yen. also Hatt. and Chirikba. it is possible to see an old Semitic loanword here (as per Vjač.

eš-. *wǯ.(~ b-) ‘to do. do. kid) out (on a flat surface for sacrifice)’ = Hitt. 1996. 75’. put and putu? ‘to be’ = Hitt. to do. to act’. № 4. Arin ša-pi-te ‘I make’. cf. *=Vw-. paw ‘to appear’. WCauc. act’. bgjid ‘to make.IZI[…] or rather KA. pupišet ‘fire…’. to distribute’. puli. Khin. ba-paj-aŋ. *phɨw (~ -i-) ‘to appear’ > Burm.). → Probably derived from wet. → Phonetically unclear. and Hattic forms. NA4..‘to make. → Cf. Tib. Urart. to divide. *wə.IZI ‘mouth of fire’ = ‘fire pit/location’: see Süel/Soysal. to work’. 79’.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 387 74’. happen’ = Hitt. pule. 419 (Hatt. u/or. → Untenably Браун. Yug bɛ:h. 78’. Kachin po1 ‘to appear’. + WCauc. pip ‘stone’ = Hitt. =ar. *=ăhwV ‘to do’ > NCauc. Kiranti *b(h)ó(-ks) ‘to be’. № 67 quotes enigmatic Proto-East Caucasian *uintV ‘sour milk’ without references. distribute’ > Chin. . *ʔaʔa(r)-. Yen. wij ‘to divide. pwuuli? ‘to become. 76’. forthc.AG. witanu ‘cheese’ = Hitt. Tsez. Lak =a-. lamb. Note the similarity between WCauc. *-ih-. Dargwa */-i-r-. 1985. Burm. 20 (Hatt. iya-. 1985. wit ‘to be(come) sour/bitter’ [34]. *qʷ[i]ăj (~ ʔʷ-) ‘to make. + WCauc. STib. pu ‘to do’ = Hitt. 為 *waj ‘to make. putu or put? ‘to stretch (a sheep. STib.-And. Av. kiš-. INIM. and Chirikba. 1994. ‘Feuer(stelle/-stätte)’ = Hitt. make’ > Ket bɛ:ŕi 4. palzahai-. *wə). Yen. Иванов. Kott. Lezgh. 77’. some STib. Иванов. *=ăhwV(r) ‘to do’ > Nakh *=a-. Cf. √ SCauc. to manufacture. A suffixation in Hattic? 80’.. GA.KIN.

Av. 1985. 238. 83’. idalu-. *bVc:ʷV ‘medlar’ here. breath’. for the prefix ša. *ħämč ‘apple’. persimmon’. *ʔimči ‘apple’. mɨč ‘apple’. and therefore cannot be compared with Hattic fat in any way. the phonetic relationship between the Hattic stem and the SCauc. fat with some modern East Caucasian forms. Lezgh. . 133 ff. Despite the semantic similarity. evil’ = Hitt.-And. DIM. medlar’ > Nakh *ħamc (~ -ā-) ‘medlar’. air.388 A. GIŠHAŠHUR ‘apple(-tree)’ or ‘apricot(-tree)’. 柿 *hrəʔ ‘Diospyros. Burm. *ʔẽš: A ‘apple’. (D)šaru. Untenably Браун. Basque *mahanć ‘grape’. DU. 1994. šrr ‘to pour’. Hebr.44 Theoretically Hatt. HALOT). while Tabasaran wič ‘apple’ is the result of a late phonetic development with the labialization of the initial laryngeal < *ħäwč < Proto-Lezgh. → It looks strange. Khin. *mićíl/*bićíl ‘pomegranate’. *ħämč. As a matter of fact. *ʷa ‘apple’). cf. one can suspect a borrowing from WCauc. plene writing can reflect WSem. but this divine name might be a Semitic loanword : Sem. šah (also tah?) ‘bad. ŝəʕārā ‘high wind’. (Bibl. + an Abkhaz–Abaza compound). HUL-lu-. *ŝaʕar > Akkad.) ŝaʕar ‘heavy gale’. SCauc. 1994. ŝʕr ‘to be stormy’ (CAD Š2. WCauc. šāru (OAkk. hinz-uri ‘apple’/‘apricot’. (D)taru ‘Storm-god’ (the standard spelling is ša-a-ru and ta/da-aru) = Hitt.. Hurr. *ćh(r)iH (~ h-) > Chin. SIG5-ahh-. ćhih ‘the jujube. Lak hiwč ‘apple’. but the Hattic ša-prefix remains unexplained in this case. 1191) probably relates to Arab. → Cf. 84’. STib. 20 (Hatt. *ʕämćṓ ‘a k. šafat (šāwaat) or mere fat ‘apple-tree’ or ‘apricot-tree’ = Hitt. *ʕämćō ‘apple. fluctuation t~š reflects a lateral. It seems more probable that šafat was derived from the verb wet ‘to be(come) sour/bitter’ [34]. Иванов. 82’. while the Hatt. 20 (to WCauc. № 6 compares Hatt.see HWHT. Zizyphus jujuba’. proto-form is quite unclear. Kassian [UF 41 81’. of fruit’ > NCauc. Untenably Браун. Burush. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 44 Deir Alla šr ‘heavy rain’ (HJ. Tsez. On the other hand. ʕ.+) ‘wind (also mythologized or even deified). Dargwa *hinc ‘apple’. with b-prefix *bVc:ʷV ‘medlar’. Ivanov’s Avar weč ‘apple’ probably does not exist (the correct form is ʕeč). šaip (or even aip) ‘to make good’ = Hitt.

→ Иванов. mucro nasi’ and Arab. 1994. 20 (Hatt. alhari. shoes’ = Hitt. 88’. KA5. чувяк’. der den Göttern zugeeignet ist’. 147 fn. which can goes back to Sem. . šōr etc. šūru. 87’. šēpu ‘foot’ ~ Soqotri ŝab. Georg.) occurred after the regular anlaut denasalization *m. 2001. 85’. šahaf (šhap. ‘ein unheilvoller Stein?’ =? Hitt. Hatt. šhaf. On the other hand. Ubykh wa-šχʷa ‘thunder and lightning’ < *‘heavenly blasting powder’ (the Ubykh word does not mean ‘god’.SIR. Av. šahaw) ‘god’ = Hitt. ŝaf ‘foot’ and other MSA). jackal’. If the etymology is correct. šabāt. *chwōl ‘fox’ (> NCauc. 112).). Turk. plural form fa-šhaf ‘deities’ with the Adyghe– Kabardian and Ubykh compounds of WCauc. (Anat. and Chirikba. *l ~ Hatt. see SED 2. god’ + *šʷəχʷa ‘grey. 81 and Schwemer. Lezgh. 126. *māčVj ‘boot. 89’. 86’.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 389 An alternative connection to Sem. *hal ‘fox’) is interesting. + WCauc. šep somewhat resembles NCauc.).‘bull. → Similar to some Semitic forms with footwear semantics: Syr. 871.‘soft morocco footwear.‘chaque côté de la chaussure’. 1977 2. šahap.) mest. zn is inexplicable. 19.. shoe’ (> Nakh *māčVj. STib. Differently and untenably Браун. also fapu-šne or pu-šne ‘etwas Nützliches’. *chwōlĕ (~ -ă) ‘fox. *ŝayṗ ‘foot’ (Akkad. see SED 1. Burush. mesṭi etc. *wa ‘sky. Ugar.)’ → Found in compounds fula-šne ‘bread offering’ and tefu-šne ‘libation’. 89 f. № 37. ṯr. para-šni ‘ein Gegenstand. šhaw. Hebr. StBoT 37. *Cri ‘leopard’. ox’ (Akkad. DINGIR(-u-). Certainly unconvincing. Untenably Браун. 1994. KUŠE. *maču(jV) (~ -o-).‘(a k. *šep in redupl. tahafaiu-šni or faiu-šni ‘etwas Nützliches’. šep-šep ‘footwear. *šʷVm(a)) and Osset. of stone?)’. the consonant metathesis in Hattic (the same process as in Proto-Lezgh. šēpā ‘scapus (caligae). *(a)šne ‘offering (vel sim. but SCauc. mest. → SCauc.A. 425 support old Mészáros’ comparison of the Hatt. a Wanderwort. (see Абаев 2. powder’: Adyghe–Kabardian *wa-šχʷa ‘sky’. #269 for the discussion. 1996. Cf. *ṯawr.> *p-. 1985. šezzit ‘a k. seems less apt phonetically. see Шагиров. #241).-And. fn. for which cf. šhezni ‘fox’ = Hitt. Klinger. of stone?’.

*=rƛŬ ‘to go. 1994. 11). KBo 24. 1985. conifer’ or *ṭwēlʔe (~ -ʡ-) ‘stick. comparing Hatt. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 45 I prefer the traditional translation ‘liver’ (see. tarna-. DUL.with a t-suffix. ‘lassen. → Morphologically opaque. ṭǝḥōl etc. where the Hattic nominal prefix ha.GAR. lock’. Kassian [UF 41 90’. see SED 1. 1985. LÚtagulrunail ‘tent-man’. *HläV ‘liver’ that is not persuasive. Иванов. Hardly justified. pBibl.. 104). whereas Soysal (HWHT.GIG ‘liver’ or huišu. OB+). enter’). g. 93’.. GU4.is contained in the Hattic loanword in Hittite: hattalu. . *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ < NCauc. g. where a. *daro ‘tree. → Formally resembles Sem. talfit (talwiit) ‘(a wooden part of building).is a preverb used with verbs of motion (Vogt. šuf (šup. № 45 segments it as š-u-l from the hypothetical root *-u-. e. *=rƛŬ ‘to go. šul ‘to let. Иванов. 22 : to the WCauc. ṣuppu ‘white sheep’ (OA+.should be singled out (ha-talu-).390 A. 1985. 91’. 248). e. walk. 1113. (in ein Gebäude) zulassen’ = Hitt.NITA. ṭḥl. (GIŠ)huimpa-. 94’. lock?’ = Hitt. Hebr. beam. № 49 compares the Hattic stem with NCauc. cross-beam’. 728) interprets it as an adjective ‘raw. LÚ GIŠZA.45 Vs. The same root talf. № 51 compares the Hattic root with NCauc. go’ (< WCauc. walk. 787). enter’).‘bolt. wǝ is a frequent verbal root ‘to enter. ṣp ‘white sheep’ (AHw. which is attested in modern languages with different preverbs. Both comparisons are unprovable. š-u-l with Ubykh a-wǝ-la ‘to let. Ugar. to let in’. 22 ‘further they spray the temple top to bottom from the huimpa’). 92’. → The meaning ‘lock’ seems to be the best candidate for (GIŠ)huimpa.LAM. release exhaustively’.. *ṭiḥāl ‘spleen’ (Ugar. fresh’..according to the known Hittite contexts (cf. šuw) ‘ox’ = Hitt. tahalai[n…] ‘liver’ 45 = UZUNÍG. The Hattic stem should be analyzed as talfi. 1963. → Resembles some Semitic forms: Akkad. while -la is a regular exhaustive suffix. ‘Zeltmann’ = Hitt. HEG T. → Иванов. Untenably Браун.‘raw’. verbal root *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ (< NCauc.

102’. although the nature of the element (i)pi(ala) is unclear. 4-aš šarhuliuš. tataet or mere taet ‘new’ = Hitt. LÚtanišawa ‘sceptre-bearer. tufi (tupi. → Cf. → The connection is plausible. fright’ = Hitt.RA. stone block’ = Hitt. 99’. → The same stem as tafa ‘fear’ [53]? 103’. 104’. LÚGAD. 101’. teatanna ‘hit?. for the list of attestations46). NA4piruna-. 100’. 1998 3. ziuz ‘rock. broken?’ =? Hitt. tur ‘to hit. tuntu ‘to bewitch’ = Hitt. This Hattic root can probably be revealed in the Hittite term LÚtaršipiyala‘charioteer’ (OS. tuhul ‘four pillar construction (an element of house)’ = Hitt. . ––––––––––––––––––––––– 46 The Luwian verb :tarši. 226 f. tiuz. √ Burush. also known as a Cappadocian PN: taršipiala/taršipiali . tuwii) ‘fear. *ćhard ‘stallion’ (see the data in Berger. → Morphologically opaque. LÚ GIŠGIDRU. walhant-. walh-. 97’. uddaniya-. tariš ‘horse?’ =? ANŠE. 98). if one assumes a metathesis of obstruents in Hattic or Burushaski.TAR. 98’. with the NH variant LÚtaršipala-.with an unknown meaning seems unrelated here. herald’ = Hitt.KUR. nahšaratt-. ziš ‘mountain’. 96’. herald’ [95’]. see HEG S. GIBIL. newa-. → Cf. LÚtušhafadun tanišawe ‘(ein Angestellter bei Hofe)’ = Hitt. LÚtanišawa ‘sceptre-bearer. strike’ = Hitt.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 391 95’.

→ Cf. *ri(a)j ‘water’ > Burm. stream. but one can think about its connection to NCauc. initial *ħw. PÚ. pond’. becoming wet. perhaps also relative pronoun ‘what’. just as’. 107’. Yen. uk conjunction ‘as. pond’ > Av. Adyghe–Kabardian *warǝ) which is phonetically not better. 109’. wave. 106’. 20 (Hatt. 108’. GIM-an.‘wet. ‘wie (es ist)’. pond’. Yen. well’).here.dbf lack this WCauc. Lezgh.-And. *ʔin-ħʷVrV ‘lake. for general reasons one could expect Hatt.in Hattic remains unexplained. *ʁHwadVrV ‘river. 426 compares Hatt. Yug ur. jet’ (> Chin. On the other hand cf. Arin kul. pond’. ‘kantig?’ =? Hitt. *ħwirɨ ‘lake.in this case (virtual Hatt.392 A. Kachin npun1 ‘a spring’. LÚtuttušhiyal ‘(ein Angestellter bei Hofe)’ = Hitt. but the loss of *P. h. ūl. kutt-. whirlpool’. . tatrant-. *ʡʷir ‘lake. East Cauc. **hVr)—cf.And. panh ‘to jet. urana ‘angular?’. ‘was’ = Hitt. *[Pŭ]r ‘to gush forth. tuwahši ‘wall?’ =? Hitt. *hur. overripe. Kott. TÚGkureššar. one could expect Hatt. lake’ > NCauc.dbf and Abadet. Alternatively Chirikba. 濆 *bər ‘gush forth’. + Abkhaz). proto-forms). Untenably Браун. STib. hu. stream’ (> Nakh *ʡadurV. 1994. well’ = Hitt. SCauc. ul. 1996. *x-. Kassian [UF 41 105’. gush forth’. cognates of WCauc. Dargwa *q:I(ʷ)art:) with an irregular drop of the medial consonant in WCauc. *xur1 ‘water’ > Ket ūĺ. Lak baIr ‘lake. 110’. upala ‘cut of cloth’ = Hitt. torrent’ (Abkhaz–Abaza *ʕʷarǝ. STib. Lak aItara. Kachin (H) numra ‘water’. ur or uri ‘spring. ? kuit. 瀵 *pərs ‘source. *ʁador(V). gush forth’.(and *ħ-) in Hattic is unknown. LÚduddušhiyalla-. Av. Burush. *Iʷarǝ are not clear (Caucet. *ħwir ‘water. juice of overripe fruits. Pump. Although the fate of SCauc. *Iʷarǝ ‘stream. Burm. ur with WCauc. Dargwa *ħeru-ḳ > *ħerḳʷ ‘river’. (H) kəpun ‘to spring. rij ‘water’. spring.

it may reveal another semantic process in the Yenisseian family. At least about Kets we know that reindeer breeding was borrowed by them from the neighboring Selkups and Nenets in the immediate past (Долгих. g. ura-nnu. CLuw. *musVrV ‘goat (wild or domestic)’. adjective дикий (‘wild’) is substantivized in the meaning ‘dear (both wild and domesticated)’ among many Russian dialects of Siberia. zar ‘sheep’ = Hitt. vigorous’ = Hitt. 1967. ura-zza.to WCauc. Second. e. *šeĺe. in the Russian speech of the modern Kets (Albert Davletshin. 20 (supported by Chirikba. 183 and Yenet..‘great’.dbf #697 *sVr (?).. which lacks NCauc. pers. in Старостин. *wasa ‘price’ is regarded as an Indo-European loanword (Старостин.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 393 111’. later this NCauc. it should be noted that we are not aware of any evidence that reindeer breeding was inherent for Yenisseian tribes. uri ‘strong. com. → Resembles Hittite ura/i. 213 translates the Kottish words as German ‘Wild’ (repeated in Werner. *sēr1e ‘deer’ > Ket śɛĺ 4. while previously the Kets had represented a hunter-gatherer society. who compares Hatt. 1988 / 2007. collect. 1934. Алексеенко. № 69. 48 The connection of Nakh *ʔustiʁ. etc. UDU(-u). 112’. which originates from WCauc. 1994. 2002 2. zar with Abkhaz–Abaza *ə. Starostin. ure. Unconvincingly Иванов. 1996.47 Arin sin.‘goatling’ (sg. *wasa ‘price . 65 ff. 1858. bride price. but the status of the element *mu. > IE which is not likely in my opinion). 426 compares the Hatt. *źʷə (the Adyghe–Kabardian cognate is *źa-jə ‘young. *wasa ‘price. forceful. *šele. 99 f.‘to make great’. since the Russ.. Pump. innarawant-. 78 ff. sheep’ accepted. → Not quite reliable comparison. is very doubtful . 426) unpersuasively compares Hatt. *ə-śə. small’. g. Cf. √ Yen. advocates the contrary direction of borrowing : WCauc. 2009. u-ra/i. 334 f.). e. parallels. Kott. zar with unclear Nakh *ʔustiʁ. etymology was rejected in NCED. Yug sɛ:hr. if the Kottish meaning is indeed ‘wild animal’.48 Chirikba.‘great’ which seems an accidental coincidence. HLuw. Traditionally WCauc. Браун. where the Yen. plural form fa-zar with WCauc. 334 f.). *hn ‘goat’.‘great’. used only as an element of compounds) < NCauc. šeli.)..is unclear.dbf: ‘wild animal’) which appears an erroneous translation of the answer of the Russian speaking informant. 1996. Sccet. Semantically satisfactory. Although the Abkhaz–Abaza collective plural ––––––––––––––––––––––– 47 Castrén.. plur. 1988/2007. 1985. *a-ra). sálat. sheep’ which is morphologically impossible. . Although the meaning shift ‘sheep’ > ‘deer’ seems natural in the case of the Yenisseian culture. form is tentatively compared with NCauc.‘ram’ (Chechen üstaʁ ‘ram (one and more years)’.

1994. 450 f. Иванов. → Both Ivanov’s comparisons (Иванов. Hebr.). → Браун.394 A. zar(aš) with WCauc. lower part. *-r-. plur. *V ‘bottom. → Иванов. GIŠ(. Old Aram. also as a command ‘Music!’ = Hitt. zar or zaraš ‘to exclaim. wai-. ‘mortal. etc. yell. Kassian [UF 41 suffix *-ra has obvious East Cauc.). but not obligatory in view of too general semantics. tilat. wail?’ =? Hitt. of lyre’. 115’. halzai-. squeak. 114’. 1985. Akkad. № 70 compares Hatt.). zari with the Proto-Nakh compound *sṭ-aḳ ‘person. *ǝrǝ ‘to chirp. of harp’ is debatable (cf. Armenian ǰnar ‘harp’. zar with Abkhaz–Abaza *a-ra ‘goatlings’ seems a bringen-Sie-etymology (see 2. zil ‘to cry?. *-r.-And. DUL. under (preverb)’ < NCauc. cry out’ = Hitt. *ʔḳ:V ‘prince’ (without references). *ćwĭjo ‘man. zari. the comparison of Hatt. human being’ = Hitt. → Borrowed as Hittite zinar ‘a k. 8 ff.A. of musical instrument. Ivanov. zari-l.1. 2009. 1985. prop’ (probably from the root a. knr. Av. lists only) ‘a k. of lyre’. 422 compare Hatt. throne?’ = Hitt. kinaru ‘harp. lyre’. zelaš. zannaru (almost exclusively in OB/NB lex. 1996. lit. (see HALOT. *Hŏnŭ ‘bottom’) and enigmatic Proto-East Cauc. etc. 520 .2 above). dandukeššar. zilat (perhaps also dilat. lit. male’ + *HĭrḳwĔ ‘man. w. for kin(n)ar see Franklin.) kinnōr ‘staff-zither’. The connection between this term and the more widespread Near Eastern cultural word kin(n)ar ‘a k. (Bibl. howl’ which is theoretically possible. zinar. . 1999. 2006 w. Ugar. HJ. BALAG. descendant’ (see fin ‘child.‘bottom. 21. kalleš-. zilas) ‘chair. son’ [72’]) 117’. 113’. cheep. person’) which is not persuasive. GIŠŠÚ. and Chirikba. zi ‘?’ (maybe ‘small’) in the compound zi-fin ‘grandchild. zinir ‘a k. № 74) are unconvincing: Kabardian a-t ‘support. peep’ and Abkhaz–Abaza *arǝ/*ǝrǝ ‘to shout. man’ (< NCauc. The most ancient attestations of kin(n)ar come from West Semitic languages: Eblaite gi-na-rúm = Sum. 118’. knr ‘lyre’. From this source the term was borrowed as Akkad. zel.D)INANNA. lyre’ (“Ištar-instrument”). under (preverb)’ < WCauc. zare-l. 116’.. stand. parallels (Nakh plur.

Some facts.49 Arm. genetic relationship. bow and wind instruments (in compounds)’). that Adyghe–Kabardian *p:ǝna reflects the same Wanderwort with the very frequent WCauc. 51 Maybe except for even more dubious Luw.) the scholar adopts a migratory nature of the Adyghe–Kabardian stem. 8 ff.– WCauc. ––––––––––––––––––––––– Cf. First. 1985. (as well as NCauc. zinar might have been reinterpreted as the Adyghe– Kabardian absolutive case ending *-r. kinds of stringed.(a former class marker?) and loss of final -r. (Bogh. where IE *ḱ > Anat.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 395 (Mari. № 75 (supported by Chirikba. but the change ki > zi remains unexplained within Hattic.53 it is obvious that genetic relationship cannot be proven by such cultural terms. contradict this hypothesis. prefix *pǝ. it is very likely that Hatt. Of course. 313–316. Franceschetti. Paris / Batouka 1 / 1. Although this Hatt. k‘nar ‘a musical instrument played by plucking’. whose internal structure and WCauc. the only neighboring language. b) the suffix -r is not productive in Hattic. 2009. for which see sub hapalki [12’] above. Egyp. we do not find any traces of virtual Luw. zinar continues the same wandering word. also Myc. z. zi. the virtual Luw.) LÚkinnaruhuli ‘musician’. LÚkinar-talla.) cognates. Kabardian pšǝna ‘accordion . perhaps tafarna ‘lord’ [52]). is Luwian. (New Kingdom) knnr ‘lyre’. 427) compares Hatt. Third. possibly OInd. Second. of stringed instrument’. ki-nu-ra ‘player of kinura’(?). however. 2008. 1999). parza ‘iron ore’. which can be suspected of a similar phonetical process. it is found in a couple of fossilized stems only (hukur ‘to see’ [13]. Hattic does not show any evidence for such a palatalization.50 In fact. (LXX) κῐνύρα [ῠ] ‘a stringed instrument played with the hand’. Despite Иванов. Grk. 631 (‘musical instrument (in general)’).– WCauc. and so forth. however. 54 The final consonant of Hatt. (very late) kiṁnarā ‘a k. zinar with Adyghe–Kabardian *p:ǝna ‘non-percussion musical instrument (in general)’52 (Adyghe pǝna. zinar might be recognized as a Luwian loanword (similarly Ivanov.. of lute’. > Hattic zinar) is not probable: a) both Adyghe–Kabardian *p:ǝna and Adyghe–Kabardian absolutive case ending *-r lack WCauc. 1996. 53 But in his recent paper (Иванов.51 Иванов. comparison is one of the main Ivanov’s arguments for Hatt.. zehar ‘wood’ [64]. musician’. **zinar (as well as **kinar) in the known Luwian lexicon. One can suppose. RS) kinnāru ‘a k. loanword in Hattic (for tafarna [52] see above). zinar appears to be the only clear Luw. 52 For the proto-meaning of *p:ǝna cf. Hitt. of lyre’. Middle Tamil kiṇṇaram ‘a k. 50 49 . form **zinar is the only example where borrowed ki is rendered by Luw. Hence Hatt. e. g. etymology are unclear.54 A contrary direction of borrowing (Proto-WCauc. *ḱ > Luw. 2009.‘singer. Hurr.

of lyre or accordion’). ––––––––––––––––––––––– Pace Caucet. Further to WCauc. 1985. zizintu. 1985. Samen?’ = Hitt. but unpersuasive phonetically. descendant’ → A compound of zi ‘?’ [116’] + fin ‘child. hašša. *Haṗ ‘paw. Abkhaz–Abaza *na-ṗə ‘hand’. zuh ‘clothing. zulufe (LÚzuluwee) ‘table man’. seed?’. zifin (zipin. compounds like WCauc. despite the irregular development WCauc. ‘Nachfolger? . *HəqwV ‘big’) cannot be compared with Hatt. LÚ GIŠBANŠUR. zifi-kuka (zipikuka. zipen.GÉŠPU ‘Truppen der Körperstärke’. extremity’). where Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa. The second known Hattic compound ippi-zinar ‘small? lyre’ is compared by Иванов. *ṗV ‘extremity’ (< NCauc. garments’ without references. armpit’)55. ziweekuka) ‘posterity. → Иванов. bosom. TÚG. 55 . of knife?’ =? GÍR. *Ia (~ *:Ia) ‘hand’ (< NCauc. 120’. son’ [72’].ṗa > *ʡa-pa as in some other similar cases).396 A. № 78 quotes enigmatic NCauc. 124’. The comparison of Hatt. *w[ǟ]łʔ ‘arm. Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa-pa ‘hand. Kabardian ʡapa-pšǝna ‘a k. zizentu ‘posterity?. Kassian [UF 41 Futher Иванов.dbf and Abadet. compounds hun-zinar ‘great? lyre’ (see hun [16’] above) with the standard Old Adyghe compound pǝna-šxʷa ‘a k. → A compound of zifin ‘grandchild’ [121’] + kuka ‘seed?’ [36’] with the regular simplification nk > k. ziwiin) ‘grandchild. ÉRIN. strong’ < NCauc. finger’—goes back to WCauc. *a-ṗV ‘foot’. assuming reverse order of the elements in the Hattic form. 122’. ‘Enkel (und) Urenkel’ = Hitt. descendants’. hun in any way. *čoqajV ‘clothing.hanzašša-. but Adyghe -šxʷa ‘big’ (< Adyghe–Kabardian *-čxʷa < WCauc. ‘стольник’ = Hitt. of big musical instrument’. 1985.dbf. 121’. № 13 with Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡapa-p:ǝna ‘a k. *ṗ > Adyghe–Kabardian *p (probably the secondary dissimilative deglottalization **ʡa. *čʷəχʷa ‘big. ippi and Adyghe–Kabardian ʡa-pa is witty. of hand musical instrument’ ((Old) Adyghe ʡapa-pǝn. garments’ = Hitt. 119’.MEŠ UZU. finger’ can hardly be separated from Ubykh ā-ṗá ‘hand’ and the other WCauc. 123’.—the first part of Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa-pa ‘hand. № 9 compares the Hatt. zipah ‘a k.

Браун. *-. *q:Ia. h. 168. Alternatively to WCauc. -ä. Lezgh. Tsez.. Yug -kej/-gej ‘locative’ (Werner. cf. → Note that WCauc. 1985. cf. Chirikba. -a.(Старостин Г. *-q:I ‘in filled series’. *-š ‘oblique stem plural’. cognates for the Hatt. imperative > Nakh *-V. nominal and verbal (slot –2) morpheme with locative. 1858. *-ka. 55 propose some alternative WCauc. *k-. -ga ‘dative’ (Castrén. Av. close to’. cognates 69. WCauc. Hurr.). 471 f.-Urart. Dargwa *-ʁI (~ -ʕ-) ‘ad series’. *-.-And. Alternatively to NCauc. plural stem marker > Nakh *-ši ‘plural’. Av. 1996 and Браун. super series’. preverb ‘super. *-o. (adj. -u. *ḱʷə-/*ǵʷə. -aš ‘plural suffix’. *xa-. languages cannot be established. inter’ (thus Иванов. → Chirikba. Lezgh.vs. verbal preverb > Ket–Yug k(i)-. -kai. *-χV. -χ ‘inessive 1 (“about”)’. *-V. Tsez. ha-. Lak -. languages. Yen. 34 ff. ad series > Nakh *-x ‘inessive I. -a.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 397 6 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons 6. Although synchronically the meanings of the preverbs in the described Yen.) comparative’. Kott. *-g-). 55 (Hattic + WCauc. 70. *-š:w. *-k ‘lateral series’. imperative (slot 1) √ NCauc. -kā ‘prelative’. *-V. Решетников. Lezgh. 2002. *-š(:) ‘plural direct stem marker’.-And. 2002. Thus Браун.-And. WCauc.‘lative preverb (towards the speaker)’. Urart. plural of the accusative case √ NCauc. *-GV ‘ad close / in series’ > Nakh *-ʁ ‘terminative (causative) case. 1999. *-qV ‘ad close/vertical series’. nominal and verbal (slot –3) morpheme with locative and dative meaning ‘in. Tsez. 55. 2002 1.) comparative’.). 71. aš-/iš-.). Dargwa *-V. -i. -i. Khin. *-V. Lezgh. *-χ ‘ad series’. Tsez. but rather hard to distinguish. *-g (= *-k?) ‘elative. Perhaps two original morphemes (*-k. -. Khin.).preverb ‘super. Khin. 402 f. -ko-li ‘lative’. Yen. Kott. ad. some locative series > Nakh *-go ‘ad series’. morpheme. 72. *-k-/*-g-. ka-. . 1996. the diachronic comparison between the verbal preverb and the nominal locative suffix seems reliable. ablative and dative semantics √ NCauc. locative case > Ket -ka/-ga/-ɣa ‘locative’. *-χV ‘ad series’. WCauc. (adj. 1995.1 Auxiliary morphemes with reliable SCauc. Av. languages have imperative in - as opposed to Hattic and East Cauc. 2002. 413). 33. inessive I. to’ √ NCauc.

temporal. 462 f.-And. *a. pronoun) > Lak na. → Alternatively Hatt. (d)ŋos ‘I. 1985. ŋaŋ-ma ‘self. Kassian [UF 41 73. 卬 *ŋhāŋ ‘I. 348. Lezgh. Av. subject markers is obviously secondary.may correspond to the Yen. 29 (Hatt. Lezgh. subject (see Старостин Г. Dative semantics standardly is expressed by prepositions like ha. sg. Решетников. 75. plural marker *-ŋ. Lak -n ‘dative I. poss. 357. Dargwa *nu (not a very reliable isogloss). 74. le. translative’.. 我 *ŋhājʔ ‘my. *-nV. WCauc.> *P-. possessive case.(*ʔab-) / *aŋ ‘my’ (attr.). + optionally gen. class marker ‘her’ and fem. *n ‘I’ (1st pers. ŋed ‘I.with the regular anlaut development *l. The enclitic status of the Yen. 1st p. *ba-/*-aŋ 1st person sg. Av. infinitive’. object > Ket b-. Kachin ŋai1 ‘I’. does: *ŋ. Dargwa *-bi. pronoun of the 3rd person sing. -a). Lushai ŋei ‘self’. 2010) √ NCauc. *-nV ‘ablative. Khin. Tib. adjective and participial suffix .> *d-. *-du ‘he’.. of adjectives and participles. STib. → Иванов. *-bV (~ -i. transformative case’.(Abkhaz-Abaza only). Burm. Kiranti *ʔòŋ/*gòŋ ‘I’. suff. elative. 461 ff. subject. 吾 *ŋhā ‘I. Tsez. *-b-. *b. → In all likelihood Hattic shows the same development of initial *ŋ. self’. fem. if one assumes the phonetic development . lative. Yen. as opposed to the possessive proclitic pronoun še-/te. we’. *-n ‘genitive. -aŋ (Решетников. sing.‘her. verbal morpheme (slot –7). Kott. *-bV.).as ProtoYen. *di ‘her’. poss. plural > Nakh *-bi.-And. Kott. terminative. sg. *-nə ‘ergative and general indirect case.etc. subject ‘I’ √ SCauc.). 1999. *ŋā.‘I’. possessive proclitic pronoun of the 3rd person sing. genitive > Nakh *-n ‘genitive. we. an-še. 153. ŋan ‘we’ (C). we’. Yug ap.‘I. *da ‘his’. *-b-. *ŋV ‘I’ > NCauc. we’. 1st pers. *l. 1995. -n. 言 *ŋhan ‘I. its’). infinitive’.> *m. Yen. ŋa ‘I. pronominal prefix. fa-. Yen. *d. 1999.) > Ket āp. Burush. plural of the nominative and oblique cases √ NCauc.‘his’. me’. -e. 76. Basque *ni ‘I’.(both in nouns and verbs). ending -n (for details see Soysal. *-dǝ ‘she’.in the proclitic possessive forms can be explained as *l. (the possessor is probably animate masculine. own’. me’. m-inšo. proclitic fa-/fi. Lepcha kă ‘I’. sing. 148. marker of the genitive case. we’ > Chin. we’. + WCauc. fa-/fi-. √ WCauc. ŋa ‘I’. Arin b(i)-. ergative’.398 A. -be-r.

*-da ‘desiderative. . *-da. u. Khin. past conditional. *wA ‘thou’ (2nd p. pronoun). pr. 415) incorrectly compares Hattic fa-/fi. 79. optative √ NCauc. 33 . pr. 55.POSS-PL-king).‘thy’ (2nd person sg. super’. ǝ-tʷ ‘our father’ ~ a-w-ǝ (> ō-ǝ) ‘our horses’ etc. wɨ ‘thou’ (2nd p.56 77. 1963. In reality Abkhaz -wa forms the names of races (both in the singular and plural). which appears only in combination with proclitic possessive pronouns: ɣa-ǝ ‘his horse’ ~ ɣa-w-ǝ (> ɣō-ǝ) ‘his horses’. [*-da] ‘conditional’. 78. fa. Lezgh.). but this Ubykh feature seems unparalleled within WCauc.‘thou’ (obl. 149. we ‘thou’ (2nd person sg. persons’.preverb ‘in. ta-.with Abkhaz -wa (plural marker in the animate class). *wV ‘thou’ > NCauc. Pump. temporal gerund . Tsez. sing. verbal morpheme with locative semantics ‘in(to)’ (slot –4) √ WCauc. au. *uo-n ‘thou’ (2nd p. Hurr. conditional’. *-dV ‘conditional.). cf. 173 (followed by Chirikba. possessive pronoun). Yug u. Lak wi. 413. pr. Yen.) > Nakh *waj ‘we (incl. desiderative’ > Av. Lezgh. sǝ-tʷ ‘my father’ ~ sa-w-ǝ (> sō-ǝ) ‘my horses’. personal pronoun). 1967. conditional. 1996. pr. *tV. Av. Дьяконов. 223). future. → Proposed by Иванов. WCauc. pr. *mə ‘thou’ (2nd p.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 399 *ŋ.-And. Tsez. *u-n ‘thou’.‘desiderative. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 56 As was truly noted by Chirikba. family and therefore can hardly serve as a reliable comparandum. te-. 189. see Hewitt. WCauc. stem). A. u-p.‘your’ (2nd person pl.-And. *ʔaw (/*ʔu) ‘thou’ > Ket ū. this Abkhaz morpheme goes back to the Common WCauc root *wV ‘person .with Ubykh w-. u-‘thou’ (2nd person sg.) proposed to compare Hatt. 2002. Chirikba. úe. people. 1985. nominal proclitic marker of plural. verbal morpheme (slot –8).)’.> *m. Burush. we ‘thou’. comm. Браун. Dybo (pers. possessive pronoun). 1979. *mi-n ‘thou’ (2nd p. *-dV. (Vogt. subject) √ SCauc. *da-ħVnV ‘concessive. *uō ‘thou’ (2nd p. Arin au. 175. desiderative’. Of course. V.). morphosyntactically the Ubykh chain POSS-PL-ROOT is identical to the Hattic possessive constructions like te-fa-katti ‘its kings’ (3SG.> *P-.). real conditional’. 1996. Kott.

below’. *i ‘below. Lak luw. la-. toaster’ [6’] is derived from the Hatt. Lezgh. unclear nominal morpheme perhaps with the locative meaning (‘on. In particular the list does not include phantom morphemes57 and morphemes. Lak -j-nu. locative suffix (series Sub)’. 1985. goes back to NCauc. Lezgh. infinitive’. Kassian [UF 41 6. anim. probably forming femininum (found in katta-h ‘queen’ [17]. Tsez. further see HWHT. *-ƛ ‘down. 34) postulates the Hatt. *-:i ‘locative suffix (series Sub)’. *-V(j) ‘erg. -i.and Proto-Nakh *ḳa-l(e). whose meaning and function are unknown or were incorrectly understood by previous etymologists.. in two epithets of the Sun-goddess ka-aš-paru-ya-h ‘source of light’ [33] and leli-ya-h ‘source of light’ [23]. *ʷA ‘woman’ (found in stems like WCauc. dative(?) > Av. (Ubykh and /or Abkhaz–Abaza) see Chirikba. hakazuel ‘drinker.-And. frequently stands with the locative morpheme ka-: ka-la(HWHT. dat. locative case √ NCauc. 2002. 228) √ NCauc. 1996. below’. *ʁ is unpersuasive also.. found in Hatt. -l. deverbative nominal suffix’. toaster’ (according to Ivanov: ha-ga-zu-el from the root zu ‘to drink’ which is not attested elsewhere). noun kazue ‘bowl’ [32’]. k with WCauc. → Note the similarity between Hatt. also maybe in the name of goddess Dzintuhi. 415) compares it with WCauc. instrumental’. As a matter of fact. *ƛɨ-. ka-la. Dargwa *-Hi ‘ergative. -(a)h. *-jV ‘dat.400 A. infinitive’.. but not obligatory. Tsez. 1985.. down . masdar’. 125’. → Possible. 1996. kāsu ‘bowl’ with reliable Semitic cognates). it seems that Soysal’s -ah2 is the same femininum suffix) → Иванов.2 Some auxiliary morphemes with dubious or improbable SCauc. 126’. and compares it with the Abkhaz–Abaza– Ubykh causative prefix *ʁa-. Dargwa *-ɣ(u). -ija ‘instrumental. 37 (followed by Chirikba. 208. Note that Chirikba and Braun propose their etymologies not for nominal la-. down’ (an adverbial stem) > Nakh *ḳa-l(e) ‘down.‘down. 57 . *-: ‘below. Ivanov (Иванов. “causative prefix ka-”. cognates I do not list here all Hattic auxiliary morphemes lacking SCauc. For alternative locative preverbal cognates in WCauc. hakazuel ‘drinker. 127’.-And. at’). but for ver––––––––––––––––––––––– An example. below. Khin. cognates. *pə-ʷA ‘daughter’ etc. *qwnV ‘woman’) which looks very factitious. *:i-. *-i (-Vj) ‘deverbative nominal. -i(j) ‘ergative/genitive. infinitive’. which in its turn is borrowed from Semitic (Akkad.. 414. dat. Phonetically the comparison of Hatt. nominal suffix. 55. Av.‘sub series’. *-Hi. Браун. locative suffix (Sub series)’.

* /*. śe.and teš. *-ƛ. verbal morpheme. Slot –6 √ SCauc. under (preverb)’ (> Abkhaz–Abaza *a. The phonetic correspondence SCauc. Improbable semantically and morphologically. nose’). tu. Tsez.verbal morpheme (slot –4) with some locative semantics → Cf. oneself’. *V ‘bottom. *[č]V (~ št-) ‘self’ > NCauc. 131’. Ubykh . to smbd. *-ič(ʷ) ‘self.< WCauc. Basque *es ‘not’ (the basic particle of the negative of assertion). * /*. amidst smth. g. morpheme is unclear. *čʷə. sing. negative particle > Nakh *ca ‘not’ (used as a separate word). languages and may function as a preverb ‘before. marker (reconstructed for Abkhaz–Abaza level only). 130’. only.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 401 bal **li. *Łʷa. fe. but the Ubykh morpheme has reliable cognates in Abkhaz–Abaza *la-/*lə. Tib.‘in filled series’ which makes the Hatt. taš. theoretically can be the indirect object reflexive exponent (‘for oneself’). 129’.‘preverb inter’ < NCauc. 132’.‘from down’. verbal prohibitive morpheme (slot –9) √ NCauc. WCauc.‘in(to) the mass.‘(one)self (reflex. *ǝ.with the Ubykh preverb wa. lower part. Браун. obj. pronoun)’. fe-.‘for oneself (prefix of the subject version)’. /č/ seems slightly strange. particle of the negative of assertion). 2002. Lezgh. Dargwa *če-/ču. WCauc. *č:V (the basic Proto-NCauc.-And. 128’. nominal morpheme with ablative semantics (e. * /* ~ Hatt. could be an exponent of the plural(?) direct object in the verbal wordforms (slot –5). STib. Lezgh. oneself (3rd–4th class)’ > Lak cu ‘self. oneself’.(uncritically following old Forrer’s analysis). nominal prefix with allative/illative semantics → Chirikba. *d-. oneself’ > Chin.~ šeš-. oneself (reflexive pronoun)’. privately’.‘under’. 56 compares Hatt. *pŭrV ‘part of face under the nose. which does not exist.’. negative particle > SCauc. za. śa-sdag ‘for oneself only. which has an additional meaning ‘front’ in some WCauc. Adyghe–Kabardian *a. *-. → The origin of the second element (-š) of the Hatt.with WCauc. *č[ŭ] ‘self.~ šaš.‘under’.. *śəj ‘private. anim. in front of’. but in reality the status and function of this morpheme is opaque √ WCauc. comparison phonetically impossible. ‘from topdown’). śedag. 私 *səj ‘private. *pʷA ‘nose’ (< NCauc.~ šu-. t-. 414 compares Hatt. 1996. *-i. Av. fe. zi-.–WCauc.

kāsu-m ‘goblet. 414. cup’ [32’] < Akkad. Hatt. and maybe Hatt. It is noteworthy that West Semitic. West Semitic loanwords: karam ‘wine’ [27’] < WSem. . where Hattic -m probably reflects Akkadian mimation. 1996. rafter’ [7’] > Akkad. As opposed to the Indo-European languages of Anatolia. originating from NCauc. Ugar. 55 and Chirikba. w previous lit. An Akkadian or West Semitic loanword: kazue ‘goblet. kussû-m. The comparison was proposed by Браун. Ugaritic Akkad. not a single doubtless Anatolian loanwords in Hattic is revealed up to now: the most appropriate candidate here is Hattic zinar ‘a k. ks ‘id. In the opposite direction: Hurr. habalgi/abalgi ‘iron’.)’ [52] together with the parallel female title tawananna ‘lady’ [52]. Besides lexical borrowings one should note two phonetic processes shared by Hattic and Hittite. hamuruwa ‘beam. 146 f.2. but phonetically unacceptable. (OB. The first Hatt. of lyre’ [118’]. kade ‘grain. 2002. The second candidate the is widely discussed Hattic word tafarna ‘lord (vel sim. Kassian [UF 41 -a ‘bottom. (Bogh.–Hitt. ksÿ ‘seat. performer)’. An Akkadian loanword : kusim. but not into known Luwian. kussiu-m ‘chair. see 4. The second one is dissimilation /u/ > /um/.) NINDAzippinni ‘(a k. but I claim that there is no positive evidence that these terms represent inherited Luwian or Hittite forms. not Akkadian loanwords prevail in the list. lower part’. *karm ‘vineyard. Hatt. Hattic was a donor of several dozens of cultic. Hattic has a number of borrowings from Semitic languages.) and into Palaic.2–3 above. 7 Contacts with neighboring languages As is well known.). Cf. kait ‘grain. throne’ etc. 2008.). maššel ‘cult performer. which theoretically might have been borrowed from an unattested Central or North Anatolian Luwian diaect. for which see 4. of pastry used in rites)’. clown?’ [51’] < Ugar. regal and technical terms into Hittite (see Goedegebuure. etc. timber (in construction of house. kušim ‘throne’ [42’] < Akkad. hapalki ‘iron’ [12’] > Hurr. barley’ > Hatt.’ etc. phonetic isogloss is assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/. vine’. Hurrian shows rather sparse traces of linguistic contacts with Hattic which is somewhat surprising. cup’. chanter.2. *Hŏnŭ ‘bottom’.2. ship)’ probably via Hurrian. corn’ [26’]. throne’ (further to Ugar.402 A. māṣilu ‘(a musician. Nuzi) amrû ‘beam.2. mṣl ‘cymbal player’. On the contrary. zipina ‘sour’ [66] >? Hurr.1 above.

Akkad. son’ [72’] ~ Sem. ṣp ‘white sheep’ in all likelihood is accidental also. *šVmaʕ. rafter’ [7’] < Abkhaz–Abaza *qʷǝ(m)bǝlǝra ‘crossbeam’. Vs. Ugar.)’ [48] ~ Sem. zannaru (almost exclusively in OB/NB lex. contacts add new . Ivanov. Nuzi) amrû ‘beam’ were borrowed probably via the Hurrian intermediation (see hapalki ‘iron’ [12’] and hamuruwa ‘beam.) ḳal ‘light. šēpā ‘scapus (caligae). rapid (said of messengers)’ with the (Hattic?) h-suffix. šabāt. *bin ‘son’.) habalginnu ‘a k. šāru ‘wind. favorable’ [49’] < WCauc. ŝaf ‘foot’). ŝʕr ‘to be stormy’ (further to Akkad. ? šep ‘footwear’ [87’] < Syr. Despite Vjač. lists only) ‘a k. (Bibl. (D) ? šaru.‘chaque côté de la chaussure’ (further probably to Akkad. šuf ‘ox’ [91’] ~ Akkad. *Iʷə-ʷV ‘iron’ or rather *Iʷə-pəə ‘copper’. of lyre’ might have been borrowed not from Hattic. *ṭiḥāl ‘spleen’. (D)taru ‘Storm-god’ [84’] < Hebr. Hebr. breath’). ŝəʕārā ‘high wind’. ? tahalai[n…] ‘liver?’ [92’] < WSem. šam(a) ‘to hear. Goedegebuure’s (2008) schema of Hattic–Luwian–Hittite interferences at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC (with some remarks). mucro nasi’ and Arab. (Bibl.‘to hear’ and Hatt. since all known WCauc. ? hamuruwa ‘beam. A phonetic similarity between Hatt. nimble. which may be supported also by some archaeological evidence. malhip ‘good. šēpu ‘foot’ ~ Soqotri ŝab. (MAss. of lyre’ [118’] > Adyghe–Kabardian *p-:ǝna ‘non-percussion musical instrument (in general)’. air. ox’ [52’] ~ Sem. of metal’ and (OB. contacts. the Semitic origin of the two following Hattic words does not seem probable for some reasons: milup ‘bull. *pəśʷA ‘to breathe’. rafter’ [7’] above).) ŝaʕar ‘heavy gale’. Although I generally agree with P. In one case we must suspect a borrowing of a Hattic term into WCauc. No good examples of the contrary direction of borrowing (Hattic > Semitic) are known. but from some Luwian dialect. messenger’. luck’. proto-language. At least two Hattic stems can be assuredly recognized as WCauc. Akkad. languages belong to the syntactic SOV type and the same feature should be reconstructed for the WCauc. A very important fact is the presence of lexical contacts between Hattic and the Proto-West Caucasian language. The fact of Hattic–WCauc. ? pašu-n ‘breath?’ [71’] < WCauc. ṣuppu ‘white sheep’. *maʷV ‘good.: zinar ‘a k. listen (vel sim. loanwords: hapalki ‘iron’ [12’] < WCauc. *ʔalp ‘cattle’ and fin ‘child. is rather interesting. Hattic–WCauc. ḳl ‘courier.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 403 ? LÚkiluh ‘courier-spy’ [33’] < Ugar.

*maʷV ‘good. it belongs to the most basic and stable part of vocabulary (the Swadesh 100-wordlist).1 Linguistic affiliation Above I list ca. Ancient Greek dialects possess a number of North Caucasian loanwords. It means that in the general case the Yen. first. 2008. muh(al) ‘hearth’ [55’] and Sumerian muhal-dim ‘cook’ seems unsupported by additional positive evidence (except for a surprising isogloss Hatt. the Sino-Tibetan ––––––––––––––––––––––– malhip seems the default Hattic word for ‘good’. 4.dbf includes ca. 10 reliable Hattic–Sino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons (note that we know in sum less than 200 Hattic words whose meaning is established). The location of the Hattic branch within the Sino-Caucasian tree is a more difficult question. reconstruction is generally based on the three languages: Ket. i. Kassian [UF 41 options in the sociolinguistic scenarios discussed by Goedegebuure. proto-language must show a smaller number of lexical isoglosses with Hattic than the NCauc. 2) I assume that some of the aforementioned Sino-Tibetan etymologies of Hattic lexemes may turn out false in the future. 1) Due to the relict nature of the Yenisseian family (the Proto-Yen. luck’. If malhip is really a borrowing < WCauc. since. The system of Hattic–Sino-Caucasian phonetical correspondences is rather simple and logical. ŠAG ‘heart’) and should be regarded today as a chance coincidence. 2005. 7–24) I suppose that the hypothesis of Sino-Caucasian attribution of the Hattic language can be considered very probable. The most part of Hattic etymologized lexemes belongs to the basic vocabulary. The current verion of Yenet. 58 . šaki ~ Sum. κιννάβαρι ‘cinnabar (a bright red or brownish-red mineral form of mercuric sulphide)’ can hardly be fortuitous. but some seem probative). 1985 (some Nikolaev’s connections are highly questionable. 70 reliable Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons and ca. whose phonetic similarity with Grk. its proto-vocabulary is relatively small. Two points should be stressed before we start to discuss genealogical trees. Thus. Yug and to a lesser degree Kottish).dbf). database (Caucet.58 The similarity between Hatt. Бурлак/Старостин.404 A. 2800 (!) entries in the STib. In view of this one should note the Hattic term kinawar ‘copper’ [34’]. and STib. proto-languages do. see Николаев. database (Stibet. it suggests that Hattic–Proto-West Caucasian interferences were much more intensive than we can judge today from the available Hattic data. 1050 entries as opposed to 2300 entries in the NCauc. Unfortunately kinawar is unetymologizable within Hattic. 8 Conclusion 8. so it may be treated as a common Hattic–Greek wandering word (‘red mineral’) of unknown origin.dbf) and ca. according to the general comparative procedure (see Campbell/Poser.e.

*tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ ~ Burush. The root comparisons from 5. *=HuǯV-n ( ~ --) ‘to clear up (of weather)’ ~ STib.: 15 etymologies. *χĭw(s) ‘water. *tut.‘to be(come) wide’ [9] ~ NCauc. *ʔen ‘now’. *kʷēn ‘to glance at. broad’ hukur ‘to see.‘I’ ~ Basque *ni ‘I’. *ʔrŋ/*ʔrk ‘breast’ ~ Yen. *a. messenger’ [26] ~ NCauc. *ʔalVp ‘tongue’. *b-[]k. and Yen. *dak ‘hope. belief’. big’ [54] ~ NCauc. *ǯin ‘bright day’ ~ Burush. the reduction of root structure in Proto-Sino-Tibetan opens an additional space for external etymologization. *n[ǝ] ‘time or place of. *xnɦ ‘water’ ~ STib. alef ‘tongue’ [1] ~ NCauc. *ānpV ‘lip’ ~ STib. *h[ä]nV ‘now’ ~ STib. *ɦăr[w]Ĕ ‘wide’ ~ STib. we’ ~ Yen.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 405 reconstruction as it is presented today is somewhat preliminary (work in this field is in progress) as opposed to the North Caucasian and Yenisseian ones. (WCauc. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’ ~ STib.) ~ Burush. / \ / \ STib. search’ ~ STib.1 can be summarized in the following statistic chart.1. *Ćj (~ -l) ‘clear (of weather)’ ~ Yen. to regard’ ~ Yen. *qʷāŋH ‘wide. *H[o]kV ‘to look. *hilčwĒ ‘to run (away)’ ~ STib.‘heart’ [47] ~ NCauc. *=agwV ‘to see’ ~ STib. moisture’ ~ Yen. luizzi-l ‘runner. A relatively high number of Hattic–SinoTibetan isoglosses (see below) should be explained by these factors. *qo ‘to see’. The primary meaning of the proto-root was probably ‘to lick’. Yenisseian The question is whether the Hattic language is closer to the Sino-Tibetan– Na-Dene branch or to the North Caucasian–Yenisseian one. to lick’ ~ Yen. soup)’ ~ Basque *u-hin ‘wave’. *tajH ‘big. anna ‘when’ [2] ~ NCauc. choose. understand’ ~ Yen.–Yen. *xäń (~ ʔ-) ‘wave’ ~ Burushaski *hán-chil ‘water from a wound. *ćhoʔ.‘to find’ kun ‘to see’ [21] ~ NCauc. eštan ‘sun’ [5] ~ NCauc. šaki. when’ ~ Yen. han ‘sea’ [7] ~ NCauc. *χiGV-ĺ ‘wide. watery (tea.(*ʔab-) / *aŋ ‘my’ (attr. broad’ ~ Yen. Hatt. much’ ~ . *ʔēǯ.‘I’ [75] ~ NCauc. the core lexicostatistical schema of Sino-Caucasian macrofamily looks as following : Sino-Caucasian / \ Sino-Tibetan–Na-Dene North Cauc. *ŋā. *ƛep ‘tongue. *ćhōʔ. te ‘great. As mentioned in 4. *ku ‘to seek. ~ NCauc. *b. *āŋ ‘clear (of sky)’. look’ [13] ~ NCauc. (Chin. harki. next. *dA ‘big’) ~ STib.‘clear (of weather)’. hide’ fa. Na-Dene North Cauc. *ćōʔ ‘to run’) ~ Yen.‘to flee. *n ‘I’ ~ STib.‘I. and STib.

*[ǯh]ɨam ‘salt’ ~ Burush. ti ‘to lie. *chi(ə)k ‘leopard’. *ćhiw ‘autumn’) ~ Yen. *Khu (~ -ua. friend. *ʔa-č.: 5 etymologies. *ćhiH ‘to be at. make. *sī. *sir1.‘to pour’ ~ Burush. and Yen. *ɣuy ‘hair’. morning’ wet ‘to be sour/bitter’ [34] ~ NCauc. pour. plait. *mlćwV ‘wind’ ~ STib. *ǟnV ‘lynx. tefu ‘to pour’ [57] ~ NCauc. *ćūm ‘honour.‘to lose’. tumil ‘rain’ [62] ~ NCauc. companion’ liš ‘year’ [24] ~ NCauc. of weed’ take-ha ‘lion’ [51] ~ NCauc. key’ ~ STib. to lay?’ [55] ~ NCauc. paru ‘bright. (Chin. authority’ zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68] ~ NCauc. lock’. large’ her ‘to hide’ [12] ~ NCauc. *bilágur ‘a k. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to put (together). escort (vel sim. Hatt. *mbi ‘god. tu ‘to eat’ [59] ~ NCauc. leaf(?)’ ~ STib. and STib. female’ ~ STib.‘to . stay’. lock’ [6] ~ NCauc. *=ǟwčĂ ‘to emit.‘to grow’. halu ‘bolt. autumn’. *grĭ ‘old. *=igwVł ‘to lose. to scoop’ ~ Yen. *=VV ‘to drink. take’ ~ STib. to gulp. -əw) ‘take out. set up’. preserve’ ~ STib. *kŭ ‘to help . *ʕapālwĔ ‘burdock . to eat’ ~ STib. *lH ‘year. *=ĭrwĂ ‘to ripen’ ~ STib. to vomit’ ~ STib. ~ NCauc. kaiš ‘horn’ [14] ~ NCauc. panther’ ~ STib.‘summer’ ~ Basque *asaro ‘November. hil ‘to grow. tafa-r-na ‘lord’ [52] ~ NCauc. Kassian [UF 41 Yen. *kălH ‘bolt. day’ ~ STib. hel. *śi/*ṣi/*ṣu ‘to eat’.)’ [20] ~ NCauc. wet. place’ ~ Yen. *ćəw ‘water. mercy’ ~ STib. *ḳuł /*łḳu ‘lock. *tɨʔj. *=VmVr ‘to stand (up)’ ~ STib. *phak ‘leaf’ ~ Burush. *ʒhaH ‘to eat’ ~ Yen. *HŭqwĂ ‘to graze. to put’ ~ Yen.: 15 etymologies. *=ătV-r ‘to let. *ćhej ‘female’) ~ Basque *a-ćo ‘old woman’.‘to eat’ ~ Burush. *ƛăjV ‘year. *prɨăŋH ‘bright. *di(j) ‘to lie down. ~ NCauc. put down’ ~ Burush. to stay’ [28] ~ NCauc. (Chin. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ ~ STib. *pārē ‘lightning’ ~ STib. leave. compensate. Hatt. sit. horn’ ~ STib.406 A. *koj (~ -l) ‘to hide’ ~ Basque *gal. ripen’ [11] ~ NCauc. *mŭt ‘to blow’ puluku ‘foliage’ [39] ~ NCauc. *ɦmVjwĂ ‘sour’ ~ STib. *dhăH ‘to put. shining’ [33] ~ NCauc. *ḳəlčwi ‘forelock. *ćhémil ‘poison’. ku ‘to seize’ [19] ~ NCauc. *ʔes. eš ‘to put’ [4] ~ NCauc. to stay’ ~ STib. a pair of horns’ ~ Burush. season’ (a)nti ‘to stand . bolt. *ṣo ‘to wash’. guard. *=iĂ ‘to give. *wŏjV ‘woman. pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] ~ NCauc. to steal’ ~ STib. extract’ (a)ku ‘soldier. *khaj ‘horn. *-´t‘to do.

*p(r)wH ‘to speak’ ~ Yen. *pūHV ‘to blow. listen’ zehar. *re ‘to dislike’ leli ‘source of light’ [23] ~ STib. scatter’ (a)le ‘to envy (vel sim. trample’ ~ Yen. *boŋ ‘dead man’. *mVn ‘to perceive. *bŭ. timber’ Hatt. *bar ‘speech. hel ‘to strew. pour’ [10] ~ STib. shell’ ~ Yen. *pV(j) ‘to blow’ ~ Burush.) to put down’. master’ [46] ~ STib. listen’ [48] ~ NCauc. swallow’ puš. *phu ‘to blow’). *baŕ. *ʔaw (/*ʔu) ‘thou’ ~ Burush. word’.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 407 put’ ~ Basque *ecan ‘to lie down. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent. p(a)raš ‘leopard’ [37] ~ NCauc. bottom’ [45] ~ NCauc. *nŭ ‘to tread. *q(h)ʷār ‘throw (into water). to think’ fula ‘bread’ [38] ~ STib. sand’ ~ Basque *śorho ‘meadow. *mor ‘grain’ fur ‘country. numerous’ pnu ‘to observe. fun ‘mortality’ [40] ~ STib. tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] ~ NCauc. to fan’ (further to onomatopoeic NCauc.)’ [22] ~ STib. *čHäłu/*čäłHu ‘earth. *λɨnɦV (~ -ɨ-) ‘woman. tuk ‘to step’ [61] ~ STib. *bħĕrĭ ‘wolf’ ~ Yen. lord’ . *čɦrV ‘skin.‘to run’. ground.: 16 etymologies. *Gāp ‘to cover’ ~ Yen. zihar ‘(building) wood.: 6 etymologies. female’ fel ‘house’ [30] ~ NCauc. and Yen. *qhaṣ ‘to rub’. *ćH ‘to govern . *čɔʔq. *rołH ‘light’ lu ‘to be able’ [25] ~ STib. blowing’ ~ Yen. *Prŋ ‘country’ puš ‘to devour. ~ STib. ~ NCauc. taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] ~ NCauc. *bēŁ ‘cattle-shed’ šahhu/tahhu ‘ground. šai-l/tai-l ‘lord. *u-n ‘thou’. *čVqV/*qVčV ‘to scratch. *təʔrap‘bread crust’. piece of wood. *mŋ ‘to die’ ~ Yen. Hatt. han ‘to open’ [8] ~ NCauc. beam. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ nimhu. go’ [29] ~ STib. look’ [36] ~ STib.‘woman’ [27] ~ NCauc.‘to close (door)’ fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] ~ STib. *mt ‘to eat. šam(a) ‘to hear. rest (tr. swallow’ [42] ~ STib. *wēχV ‘stick. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ ~ Burush. we ‘thou’ [77] ~ NCauc.‘to fan (a fire or burning materials)’ [42] ~ STib. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen. chip . *pe(ʔ)s-tap ‘wolverine’ ~ Basque *oćo ‘wolf’. *ćek ‘to tread. *bhăr ‘abundant. rub’ ~ Yen. timber’ [64] ~ NCauc. bŭt ‘to blow.: 4 etymologies. ~ STib.‘to pray’ ~ Burush. population’ [41] ~ STib. field’. kip ‘to protect’ [18] ~ STib. trace’ far ‘thousand’ [31] ~ STib. *qepVn. Hatt. *lw ‘to be able’ nu ‘to come.

2. 2007) with 10 additional words from S. *t[e]mb-Vĺ. carry’ ~ Basque *eući ‘to take. *tajH ‘big. big’ [54] NCauc.‘to grow’. etymologies do not look obligatory. to plug. zipi-na ‘sour’ [66] ~ STib. let enter’ kaš ‘head’ [16] ~ Yen. aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] ~ Yen. *ʔēč..)’ fute ‘long (in temporal meaning)’ [44] ~ Yen. *də(ʔ)q. *=ăčw ‘to take. much’ ~ Yen. ~ Yen. even through some of these Hatt. large — — — — te ‘great. 12—13 for detail). *ʔa-KsV. *re ‘to dislike’ or Hatt. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. 5. in various publications by S.‘to let come. (WCauc. *kaʔt ‘old (attr.‘often’ štip ‘gate’ [49] ~ Yen. but can hardly prove some specific relationship. Hatt. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ A high number of exclusive Hattic–Sino-Tibetan isoglosses (16 entries) is noteworthy. ENG all (omnis) ashes bark belly big. 2010. Hattic Sino-Caucasian 6. 59 bird ašti or šti ‘bird’ [3’] ––––––––––––––––––––––– Cf.408 A. to build’ tuh ‘to take’ [60] ~ STib. *dA ‘big’) ~ STib. to close’ tup ‘root’ [63] ~ Yen. grasp’).‘to fall’ ziš ‘mountain’ [67] ~ Yen. (a)le ‘to envy (vel sim.. 1. *cp ‘bitter. Kassian [UF 41 tafa ‘fear’ [53] ~ STib. Starostin. Yakhontov’s items are marked by the “+” sign. e.: 9 etymologies. The table below includes the standard Swadesh 100-wordlist (as it is accepted..–STib.‘temple (part of head)’ katte ‘king’ [17] ~ Yen. *rołH ‘light’ which are formally acceptable. g. *bot. *ǯīp ‘to cover. taken from the second part of the Swadesh 200-wordlist (see Бурлак/Старостин 2005. e. 3. see Старостин. leli ‘source of light’ [23] ~ STib. to be confused’ teh ‘to build’ [56] ~ STib. . hold. Yakhontov’s 100-wordlist.59 The situation changes if one tries to analyze Hattic words from the Swadesh list. pungent’ Hatt. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’ kap ‘moon’ [15] ~ Yen. For the general principles of the compilation process now see Kassian et al. *tɨʔj. *ĆŏH ‘to seize’ (further to NCauc. g. seize.. No.‘root’ zik ‘to fall’ [65] ~ Yen.)’ [22] ~ STib. *tĕp ‘fear. *ćH ‘to work. 4.

2009] No. 14. swallow’ Cf.‘to let come. to eat tu ‘to eat’ [59] NCauc. 24. *ʔēč. *ʒhaH ‘to eat’ ~ Yen. *śi / *ṣi / *ṣu ‘to eat’. 7. 18. puš ‘to devour.) cloud cold to come — — — — — — — — Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language Hattic Sino-Caucasian 409 aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] an ‘to come (here?)’ [2’] Yen. 8. Cf. to eat’ ~ STib. ENG to bite black blood bone breast to burn (trans. field’. 11. 19. STib.‘to eat’ ~ Burush. let enter’ 16. soil . 9. to die dog to drink dry ear earth — — ? lin ‘to drink? (vel sim.)’ [46’] — — Cf. *mt ‘to eat. 20. swallow’ [42] 23. sand’ ~ Basque *śorho ‘meadow . 12. šahhu / tahhu ‘ground’ [45] NCauc. 10. lmah ‘eye(s)’ [58’] — — . 13. 26. ištarrazi-l ‘(dark / black) earth. to gulp. 25. egg eye fat feather — nimah. 17. *čHäłu / *čäłHu ‘earth. *=VV ‘to drink . *sī. ground. earthly(?)’ [22’] 22. 15. terrestrial. 21.

we’ ~ Yen. 39. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent. *ʔrŋ / *ʔrk ‘breast’ ~ Yen. *ɣuy ‘hair’. a pair of horns’ ~ Burush. *ʕapālwĔ ‘burdock . horn’ ~ STib.410 No. *ŋā. *b. of weed’ . 45. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ ~ Burush. NCauc. 32. heart šaki. 29. *khaj ‘horn. favorable’ [49’] — — — kaš ‘head’ [16] šam(a) ‘to hear.(*ʔab-) / *aŋ ‘my’ (attr. *a. horn kaiš ‘horn’ [14] 42. Kassian Hattic Sino-Caucasian [UF 41 yay ‘to give’ [25’] nu ‘to come.‘I.‘temple (part of head)’ NCauc. *bilágur ‘a k. 33. 46. *n ‘I’ ~ STib. NCauc. 44. *ʔa-KsV. leaf(?)’ ~ STib.‘I’ [75] 43. listen’ NCauc. 36. 34. fire fish to fly foot full to give to go good green hair hand head to hear ENG — — — — — A. go’ [29] malhip ‘good. 27. 30. I fa.) ~ Burush. *nŭ ‘to tread.‘I’ ~ Basque *ni ‘I’. 28. listen’ [48] Yen. loan) 40. to kill knee to know leaf — — — puluku ‘foliage’ [39] NCauc. 35.‘heart’ [47] 41. 31. *phak ‘leaf’ ~ Burush. plait . trace’ (a WCauc. 38. STib. *jĕ-rḳwĭ ‘heart’ ~ STib. belief’. *ḳəlčwi ‘forelock. *dak ‘hope. 37.

51. 59. a lot of meat moon mountain mouth nail name neck new night nose not one rain ? tahalai[n…] ‘liver?’ [92’] — — — — — — kap ‘moon’ [15] ziš ‘mountain’ [67] — — — — tataet or taet ‘new’ [97’] — — Cf. 52. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. teš. autumn’. kazza ‘blood red?. 53. NCauc. 56. make. 66. 47.~ šaš-. *ćhiw ‘autumn’) ~ Yen. 65. the prohibitive morpheme taš. place’ ~ Yen. to stay’ ~ STib. red?’ [31’] . *-´t. *di(j) ‘to lie down. loan??) 48.‘to do.‘summer’ ~ Basque *asaro ‘November . 58. (Chin. (a Sem. 64. put down’ ~ Burush. *=ătV-r ‘to let. set up’. 61. *dhăH ‘to put. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’. 55. 62. *sir1.~ šeš— tumil ‘rain’ [62] Yen. 63. 49. 54. 50. 57. 60. 67. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ ~ STib. to lay?’ [55] Sino-Caucasian 411 NCauc. red Cf. liver long louse man (male) man (person) many. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ Yen. leave .2009] No. ENG to lie Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language Hattic ti ‘to lie .

412 No. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. ENG road root round sand to say to see — tup ‘root’ [63] — —

A. Kassian Hattic Sino-Caucasian

[UF 41

Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’

Cf. hu ‘to exclaim, pronounce’ [15’] hukur ‘to see, look’ [13] NCauc. *H[o]kV ‘to look, search’ ~ STib. *ku ‘to seek, choose, understand’ ~ Yen. *b-[]k- ‘to find’ NCauc. *=agwV ‘to see’ ~ STib. *kʷēn ‘to glance at ; to regard’ ~ Yen. *qo ‘to see’. STib. *mVn ‘to perceive ; to think’

kun ‘to see’ [21]

Cf. pnu ‘to observe, look’ [36] 74. 75. 76. seed to sit skin — nif or nifaš ‘to sit’ [59’] Cf. tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] — — — (a)nti ‘to stand ; to stay’ [28]

NCauc. *čɦrV ‘skin, shell’ ~ Yen. *təʔrap- ‘bread crust’.

77. 78. 79. 80.

to sleep small, little smoke to stand

NCauc. *=VmVr ‘to stand (up)’ ~ STib. *ćhiH ‘be at, sit, stay’.

81. 82. 83.

star stone sun

— pip ‘stone’ [74’] eštan ‘sun’ [5] NCauc. *=HuǯV-n ( ~ --) ‘to clear up (of weather)’ ~ STib. *Ćj (~ -l) ‘clear (of weather)’ ~ Yen. *ʔēǯ- ‘clear (of weather)’, *ǯin ‘bright day’ ~ Burush. *āŋ ‘clear (of sky)’.

84.

to swim

2009] No. 85. 86. 87. 88. tail that this tongue ENG — —

Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language Hattic Sino-Caucasian

413

imallen, imallin ‘this’ [18’] alef ‘tongue’ [1] NCauc. *ānpV ‘lip’ ~ STib. *ƛep ‘tongue, to lick’ ~ Yen. *ʔalVp ‘tongue’.

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

tooth tree two warm water we what white who woman

— — — — — — — — — nimhu- ‘woman’ [27] NCauc. *λɨnɦV (~ -ɨ-) ‘woman, female’ (not a default NCauc. root for ‘woman’)

99. 100.

yellow you (thou)

— we ‘thou’ [77] NCauc. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen. *ʔaw (/ *ʔu) ‘thou’ ~ Burush. *u-n ‘thou’.

101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108.

far + heavy + near + salt + short + snake + thin + wind + worm +

— — — — — — — pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] — NCauc. *mlćwV ‘wind’ ~ STib. *mŭt ‘to blow’

109.

414 No. 110. ENG year +

A. Kassian Hattic li-š ‘year’ [24] Sino-Caucasian

[UF 41

NCauc. *ƛăjV ‘year, day’ ~ STib. *lH ‘year, season’

The exclusive lexical isoglosses between Hattic and the North Caucasian-Yenisseian branch and between Hattic and the Sino-Tibetan branch can be summarized as follows: Hatt. ~ NCauc.—Yen. tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] ~ NCauc. *čɦrV ‘skin, shell’ ~ Yen. *təʔrap‘bread crust’. we ‘thou’ [77] ~ NCauc. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen. *ʔaw (/*ʔu) ‘thou’ ~ Burush. *u-n ‘thou’. Hatt. ~ Yen. aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] ~ Yen. *ʔēč- ‘to let come, let enter’ kaš ‘head’ [16] ~ Yen. *ʔa-KsV- ‘temple (part of head)’ ziš ‘mountain’ [67] ~ Yen. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’ tup ‘root’ [63] ~ Yen. *t[e]mb-Vĺ- ‘root’ kap ‘moon’ [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ Hatt. ~ NCauc. šahhu/tahhu ‘ground, bottom’ [45] ~ NCauc. *čHäłu/*čäłHu ‘earth, ground, sand’ ~ Basque *śorho ‘meadow; field’. šam(a) ‘to hear, listen’ [48] ~ NCauc. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent, listen’ nimhu- ‘woman’ [27] ~ NCauc. *λɨnɦV (~ -ɨ-) ‘woman, female’ Hatt. ~ STib. puš ‘to devour, swallow’ [42] ~ STib. *mt ‘to eat, swallow’ nu ‘to come, go’ [29] ~ STib. *nŭ ‘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. puš ‘to devour, swallow’ and pnu ‘to observe, look’ should be excluded from the Hattic list of Swadesh’s 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. *uō ‘thou’ ~ Yen. *ʔaw (/*ʔu) ‘thou’ ~ Burush. *u-n ‘thou’, Hatt. ziš ‘mountain’ [67] ~ Yen. *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’ and Hatt. kap ‘moon’ [15] ~ Yen. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’.

Initial *ŋ. shared both by Hattic and Proto-Yenisseian. *xnɦ. praš ‘leopard’ [37] ~ Yen. *n/*m + labial stop. but the supposition of a specific Hattic– North Caucasian relationship is not likely due to a minimal number of exclusive Hatt.–Na-Dene North Cauc.> *m. Retention: harki. *ʔen < SCauc. see the list above).‘wide’ [9] ~ Yen. Etymological ST-clusters > t. 3) Retention of sonorants in the combinations *r/*l + velar/uvular. *ɦrwĔ. *m + sibilant affricate. eštan ‘sun’ [5] ~ Yen. *tɨʔj. *ħwir ‘water. *HmoŋV . *boŋ < SCauc.–Na-Dene North Cauc. A possible exception: ur(i) ‘spring. *pe(ʔ)s-tap < SCauc.(*m. Cf. Hattic–Yen. Fricativization of sibilant affricates in the non-initial position. Hattic shows: 1) Retention of *w. fun ‘mortality’ [40] ~ Yen. well’ [109’] ~ Yen.> P-.< SCauc. Some particular cases of semantic development.2 above for detail): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Denasalization of initial m. *dHV . Hattic Yenisseian (a) (b) Sino-Caucasian / \ STib. *=Hǯ(-n) . 60 .2. lake’. may also speak in favour of the theory of the common HatticYenisseian proto-language. As opposed to Proto-Yenisseian.–Yen. / | \ North Cauc.–Yen. Of course in some points Hattic (the first half of the 2nd millennium BC) is more archaic then Proto-Yenisseian (its split: the first half of the 1st millennium BC). te ‘big’ [54] ~ Yen.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 415 I believe that the statistic data above speak for a specific Hattic–North Caucasian–Yenisseian relationship.> P-). *ʔēǯ-. In such a situation two trees are possible: Sino-Caucasian / \ STib. 2) Retention of initial laterals and *n-. Loss and retention of laryngeal phonemes in the same roots. *bħĕr .: ––––––––––––––––––––––– Loss: anna ‘when’ [2] ~ Yen.60 Loss of a sonorant in the combinations *l + sibilant affricate. *ǯin < SCauc. han ‘sea’ [7] ~ Yen. / \ North Cauc. *χiGV-ĺ ‘wide’ < SCauc. and so on. lexical comparisons (6 entries only.–Yen.-NCauc. *xur1 ‘water’ < SCauc. / \ Hattic Yenisseian The Schema (b) might be more realistic in view of some specific phonetic processes that Hattic shares with Proto-Yenisseian (see 4. *n/*m + velar/uvular stop (common STib. *hn . *xäń < SCauc. features).

We can suspect here either the development ‘heart’ > ‘breast’ separately in the Yen. 8 for detail). Yen.62 Such a phonetic simplification should ––––––––––––––––––––––– 61 As far as I can judge. Kassian [UF 41 alef ‘tongue’ [1] ~ Yen. Yen. 8.‘bread crust’. tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] ~ NCauc. *p(r)wH ‘speak’ taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] ~ Yen. 62 We cannot argue about the Hurrian and Hattic phonemic inventories due to their simplified cuneiform transmission. *təʔrap. .2. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ (cf. NCauc. Historically attested areas of the Sino-Caucasian languages are illustrated by the map (prepared with the help of Yuri Koryakov): fig. STib. *čVqV ‘to scratch. These examples are opposed to the following etymologies. *ʔrŋ/*ʔrk ‘breast’). STib. see fig. proto-languages or the development ‘breast’ > ‘heart’ separately in the NCauc. han ‘sea’ [7] ~ Yen. Burushaski.416 A. prev. and STib. AD are given after Pakendorf. Na-Dene. 2007. rub’. AD are shown.61 8. *xäń (~ ʔ-) ‘wave’ vs.2. *čɦrV ‘skin.1 Location of the Sino-Caucasian homeland and ways of prehistoric migrations of Sino-Caucasian tribes are uninvestigated questions. NCauc. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ vs.2 The NCauc. Yenisseian. where Hattic meanings coincide with North Caucasian : šaki. *xnɦ ‘water’. lit. Can be explained as a subsequent semantic specification in Proto-Yenisseian. 5.‘heart’ [47] ~ NCauc.‘to pray’ vs. Sino-Tibetan.2 Geographical problem 8. NCauc. Basque and Na-Dene show more trivial systems. their main confrontations occurred with various Nostratic tribes (the split of the North branch of the Nostratic proto-language dates back to the first half of the 11th millennium BC. Territorial coverage and high dispersion of the known SCauc. *baŕ. fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] ~ Yen. languages allow us to suppose that during millennia the Sino-Caucasian tribes were being gradually forced out of their habitats or assimilated by neighboring peoples. *ānpV ‘lip’. For the North Caucasian. (proto-)languages. 4 w. Sino-Tibetan. proto-language possesses the richest phonetic system among known SCauc. Semantic shift ‘heart’ < > ‘breast’ is typologically rather common. shell’ vs. proto-language and Hattic. 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. Approximate borders of the Yenisseian family in the XVII c. *ʔalVp ‘tongue’ vs. Basque and Burushaski families borders of the late XX c. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’ vs.

7. 13.3 The map of successive stages in the distribution of copper and bronze artefacts by E. g. The same considerations may be applied to morphology. 2008. and Basque demonstrate clear morphological relations with neighboring non-SCauc. Ivanova.2. Burushaski. Kohl. 2009. Kohl. lit. tribes contacted pending their movements. 8. 243. ..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).2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 417 be explained by the influence of non-SCauc. which went into Europe through West Anatolia and into Asia through Iran. languages. 3850–3300 BC) and its successor Novosvobodnaya culture (3300–2500 BC). 2007a.). Maykop-related cultures may be divided into three successive phases: Chalcolithic Meshoko (4500–3850 BC). 135 w. some connections with southern regions can be traced also: Трифонов.. even those with a penchant for emphasizing autonomous evolutionary processes”. 1994.: “the general spread of the Neolithic foodproducing economy from Anatolia into southeastern Europe is accepted by all scholars. Chernykh (fig. see now Lyonnet. The Meshoko culture is rather associated with northern/northwestern steppe regions and Balkans (it concerns pottery. area. 170. 2007. For the periodization and dating see Lyonnet. 194 claims that Meshoko pottery is close to the Chalcolithic Eastern Anatolian tradition. On the other hand. which was imported from Balkans). with which SCauc. but not through North Caucasus into steppes. only in Chalcolithic time that region was reoccupied by Meshoko people. 2003. 2007. As noted in Kohl. 1994. 73. Maykop (that includes the great Maykop kurgan and related complexes. dialects and a relatively short migratory way from the SCauc. 6) demonstrates that in the 7th–4th millennia BC the way from the Near East to Europe came through West Anatolia into Balkans. 17 ff. e. 189 w. Diamond /Bellwood. Bellwood/Oxenham. These facts could indicate that the NCauc. 8.. 2007. 2009 Northwest Caucasus was uninhabited during Neolith. Sino-Tibetan. made of obsidian imported from Transcaucasia (Мунчаев. Yenisseian.2. Bar-Yosef. some other artefacts and metal. for details see Мунчаев. languages. lit. 2007. cf. 10 ff. 29 f. homeland to the modern NCauc. 2007b. but not through North Caucasus (see. It correlates with the routes of agricultural expansion. 2001. proto-language had minimal contacts with non-SCauc. similarly in Trifonov. It is important that according to Трифонов. also Meshoko lithic tools. 2002): fig.

Historically attested areas of the Sino-Caucasian languages .418 A. Kassian [UF 41 Fig. 5.

IV = mid-3rd millennium BC to the XVIII / XVII centuries BC . 6.. V = XVI / XV centuries BC to the IX / VIII centuries BC (from Chernykh 1992. III = mid-4th to first half of the 3rd millennium BC .2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 419 Fig. 2). Distribution of copper and bronze artefacts. II = 5th to first half of the 4th millennium BC .63 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 63 A similar map of the exploitation of copper ores and naturally occurring copper metal in the 11th–7th millennia BC can be found in Roberts et al. . 2009. I = 7th to 6th millennium BC . 1014.

53–54). the Meshoko culture (see above). Four C14 dates were run from the site of Tepe Gawra (…). 1994.64 see Андреева. using another calibration. 2003. But. 148). 1977. and an attempt to run bone dates failed. Using the Clark calibration. 13 . 2007. 243). Kassian [UF 41 Fig. 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 (Андреева. e. 73) or rather to the Early Uruk period. i. on the other hand. only one C14 date exists for Levels XII to VIII of Gawra. 7. 2002. Agricultural homelands and spreads of Neolithic / Formative cultures. i. according to which the Maykop culture originates from the south (i. 2009. Мунчаев. e. 17 ff. from Anatolia and/or Mesopotamia). This dating makes questionable the traditional view. e. The new OxCal calibrations should yield a date of somewhere between 4700–4400 BC. the samples from Level XII yielded a date of 3837 + 72 years BC (…) Aurenche and Hours (…). Kohl. C-14 dating moves the Maykop culture from the 3rd millennium BC (a traditional dating) to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC. with approximate radiocarbon dates (from Diamond / Bellwood.) The phenomenon of a sudden emergence of the Maykop culture is more important to us. The Amuq F period is now treated as contemporary to Maykop culture: 3850–3000 BC (Lyonnet. Traditionally Amuq F pottery is derived from the earlier Tepe Gawra (northern Mesopotamia) ware (Gawra XII–IX. — Early Maykop complexes are located rather in the northwest area. 1977. 2007b. For the dating see Rothman.” 64 .420 A. 2007a. 51: “Unfortunately. got dates of 4920–4450 BC for XII. while ––––––––––––––––––––––– Gawra XII represents the transitional phase between the late Ubaid and early Uruk epochs. — Traces of Balkans–North Caucasus trade routes are known already from the pre-Maykop phase. 2008. to the transitional period between late Ubaid and early Uruk times (Kohl. 169. The modern cal. there is some evidence of northern /northwestern sources of the Maykop culture. 50–55. Lyonnet. Bellwood / Oxenham.

54 . Akhundov. belonging to the Leilatepe culture (the first half of the 4th millennium BC). (contra Трифонов. 2007b. ou l’introduction du décor peigné en Mésopotamie sont. Lyonnet. 2007b. 2007. Ахундов/Махмудова. Zbenovich. 1996. Anatolia and Mesopotamia: Maykop-related Se Girdan kurgans. Kohl. Lyonnet.. 41–43. See Kohl. 75–86) w. for the general discussion about possible north(west) roots of the Maykop culture. lit. Gold-rich complexes are known from Chalcolithic Balkans (the second half of the 5th millennium BC. 2007. 178–179 . But such a technology is also attested from the beginning of the Late Tripolye period (Tripolye C1: 4000–3300 BC . 2007. 1992. . Mesopotamia and so on. Troy II–III. Charvát. On the other hand. 171– 173). from the transitional phase between late Ubaid and early Uruk of Tepe Gawra—Gawra XII (Rothman. 17. Varna necropolis). 2007. 2000). g. then during the second half of the 4th millennium BC and the Middle Bronze Age they spread into Transcaucasia. 1994. then from the Early Bronze Age Maykop culture (3850–3500 BC). See above about post-Maykop kurgans in northwestern Iran. 142–144 . lit. Royal Cemetery at Ur and so on (cf. 1994. Hattic Alaca Höyük. Kuban area. some materials of which show clear parallels with Maikop remains (Мунчаев. 150 supposes that some Mesopotamian pottery styles can be borrowed from Maykop (“(…) l’apparition de la céramique grise polie et lissée. 2009. Kura-Araxes culture. — Kurgan burials are not typical of Near Eastern traditions. 74–75 . 2002. used by both the Maykop and Novosvobodnaya people (Мунчаев. Lyonnet. Kohl. Some resembling Maykop tradition burial mounds. 59) that is earlier than the Maykop culture. Avilova. An alternative solution is the supposition that it was a local Maykop invention. pre-Maykop kurgans are known from Central Ciscaucasia. see Chernykh. 219)—does not seem reliable. 230). 78–79 for details. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 65 Note that the traditional argument for the southern origin of the Maykop culture—slow potter’s wheel. lit. Tepe Gawra X. 150). see Kohl. This may allow us to trace prehistoric movements of peoples who used and valued gold. 59). 245 w. 85. Lower Volga and Lower Don. 57 ff. e. 1994. Indeed slow potter’s wheel is known. Later a number of Maykop-like kurgans in northwestern Iran (the so-called Se Girdan tumuli. 2002. — The so-called “problem of gold”. (esp. 2008.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 421 the later Novosvobodnaya culture spreads into southeast (Мунчаев. probably the second half of the 4th millennium BC) allow us to trace the north to south movement of Maykop-related people before the expansion of the Kura-Araxes culture at the end of the 4th millennium BC. 2009. Kohl. Kohl. 2009). 65 It is very important to us that for the 4th–3rd millennia BC we should assume some migrations and/or trade routes from the Maykop region to the south into Anatolia.. 2007a. 2007). 2009. 242 w. — 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. 244. have been recently discovered in southern Caucasus—northwestern Azerbaijan and central Georgia (Kohl. 2007.

422 A. supported by the Santa Fe Institute).5 Fig. 2007). 22 w. Ахундов /Махмудова. to sites of the late fourth and third millennia BC—Uruk. très probablement d’origine caucasienne”). Трифонов. K. 2 above for detail). Further see Ivanova. 8. Kassian [UF 41 eux. 2007. Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian (DeneSino-Caucasian. 1994. According to Мунчаев. Starostin as part of the ongoing research on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical Tree of the world’s languages (within the “Evolution of Human Language” project. 2008. 8 represents the rather preliminary glottochronological trees of three Eurasian macrofamilies: Afro-Asiatic. 18. then immediately made a quick march to the North Caucasus. see Museibli. about the stylistic uniformity between Maikop and Late Uruk applied art. Akhundov.2. but in reality they are bull nose rings. 72) statement: “(…) the various analogies for the gold ornaments and for some of the bronze tools. for C-14 dates of the settlement Beyuk Kesik). 2007. 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. For metallurgical isoglosses see Chernykh’s (1992. They have been compiled by G. also concerning rulership or religion sphere (like lithic sceptres). which are traditionally interpreted as cheekpieces (psalia). found in some Novosvobodnaya burials from the second half of the 4th millennium BC on. where during some decades they mastered highly developed bronze metallurgy seems strange. 2000.) appeared on the basis of these chalcolithic traditions. An idea that some tribes could create a Chalcolithic culture with poor copper metallurgy in South Caucasus.. Material culture of Early Bronze Age was also created under the influence of these chalcolithic traditions”. whose cults are associated with a bull. 2009 for details. lead us to ancient Mesopotamia. The trees are based on 50wordlists (see com. but excluding the Haida language). 92 ff. later (the 3rd–2nd millennia BC) analogous þ-objects are known from the Mesopotamian iconography. Therefore I suppose that the most natural scenario is the opposite one: borrowing of some prestigious elements of the Maykop culture by the Leilatepe people or even the intrusions of the Maykop people into the Chalcolithic Transcaucasia in the 1st half of the 4th millenium (what could mean a somewhat vassal status of the Leilatepe region).66 Cf. An appropriate particular example of such north to south influence are paired þ-shaped bronze objects. Later Early Bronze Culture (scil.—A. . where they serve as a symbol of some deities. 2007. 209 similar paired þ-rings were found in Hattic Alaca Höyük burials (as is well known. and discussion. lit. 96 attempts to adapt the traditional concept of south to north intrusion for the new chronology: “While migrating from Mesopotamia to the north a group of North Ubaid tribes did not stop for a long time in South Caucasus. Museibli. From my point of view. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 66 The South Caucasian Chalcolithic Leilatepe culture is synchronic to the early Maykope phase (the 1st half of the 4th millennium BC. on fig. can be added. 2007. lit. such a scenario is not very realistic. see Канторович и др. another striking Maykop–Alaca parallel is theriomorphic standards). the Maykop culture. 259 w. Jemdet Nasr—and even as far away as Early Dynastic Ur”. The most striking Maykop–Leilatepe isogloss is kurgan burials to which some particular parallels. but continued their way and with their already transformed chalcolithic culture settled in North Caucasus.

1989): (a) there is no evidence that in the late 5th / early 4th millennia BC. 297. . 22 ff. On tentative Hurro-Urartian attribution of the KuraAraxes culture see. 68 On the Sino-Caucasian attribution of Hurro-Urartian see com.). 4 above. The Maykop people cannot be Indo-Europeans (despite some M. e. or Hurr. on fig. Semitic tribes moved so far to the north. since there are no linguistic traces of close contacts of Kartvelian tribes with Semitic in prehistoric epochs. since we are not aware of any Indo-European cultural dominance in the Anatolian and/or Mesopotamian regions of Early/Middle Bronze Age. Сафронов.69 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 67 Cf. Kelly-Buccellati. 1994.. Burney. 69 Cf. 2007. g. 2006. Buccellati/Kelly-Buccellati. 1997. Diakonoff. 2007a. g.67 The Proto-Kartvelians (the split of the proto-language in the end of the 4rd millennium BC) are rather assuredly associated with the ProtoColchidean (Protokolkhskaya) culture (from the end of the 4th millennium BC. Proto-Cushitic. 2007 (cf. see Микеладзе. Gimbutas’ theories) either. the north borders of the Kura-Araxes culture seem to correspond roughly to the historically attested area of Hurro-Urartian dialects. As has been proposed by various scholars. also much more cautiously Kohl. also Anthony. (b) metallurgical terminology is not reconstructed for Proto-Semitic—the same concerns other Afro-Asiatic families. such as Proto-Berber. for a very short list of Semitic loanwords in Proto-Kartvelian (some of them penetrated into Kartvelian via the ECauc. Starostin. 1990. intermediation). 2004. Middle Bronze Age). 817 f. 2009. etc. e. 252). who is inclined to the same linguistic attribution of the Maykop culture. Not to mention that the idea of separate migrations of Hittites (through North Caucasus) and Luwians (through Bosporus).. the Proto-Hurrians (Proto-HurroUrartians) could be identified with the Kura-Araxes (Early Trans-Caucasian) culture (the middle of the 4th [or even earlier] to the middle of the 3rd millennia 68 BC) at least at its late phases. Militarev). into Central Anatolia looks too fantastical from the linguistic viewpoint.. In terms of this I believe that among known proto-languages the only linguistic candidate for the Maykop culture is the North Caucasian linguistic family. as per. (despite some linguistic investigations by A. g. e. The archaeological data support movements of the Kura-Araxes people from north to south /southwest during the late 4th to the middle of the 3rd millennia BC (see Kohl.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 423 The Maykop people can hardly be Semitic speakers (despite. The Maykop people cannot be identified with the Proto-Kartvelians. 1989. Сафронов.

Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic macrofamilies (50-item wordlist-based) . Kassian [UF 41 Fig. Glottochronological trees of the Sino-Caucasian. 8.424 A.

1985 / 2007. 334. 99)./ *Har. offers a solid list of Indo-European–NCauc. branches glottochronologically occurred in the first half of the 7th millennium BC. Старостин. isoglosses). the source of these loanwords was not the NCauc. It is hard to guess about the localization of the homeland of the Basque–NCauc. According to these lists the NCauc. Therefore some Chalcolithic cultures of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province of the 5th millennium BC should be associated with the early phase of the NCauc. Note that none of them possesses Basque cognates. proto-language. where the only one Narrow IE term *a-es ‘copper > bronze > iron’ is reconstructable. proto-language possessed a rather developed agricultural and stock-breeding terminology and probably the richest metallurgical terminology among other reconstructed proto-languages of comparable time depth. 2007. *ɦĕrVcwĭ ‘silver’ and secondarily contaminated with IE *H. 302 ff.. Starostin 2009.dbf sub *nHǟw ‘blue . g.). As the emergence of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province is connected with the expansion of food-producing economy and copper metallurgy of northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia into southeastern Europe during the late 7th–6th millennia BC (Kohl. *rĕwcwi ‘red copper . 1988 / 2007.. secondly and more importantly. As was correctly stated by S. 125 ff. 2009. Near Eastern regions) is not very likely due to Occam’s razor. gold’.dbf. 71 Other IE quasi-proto-terms either have the clear migratory character or are derived from color names which can be later independent developments. Старостин. *lŏʒ ‘a bright metal’. lexical parallels (including some Indo-Hittite–NCauc. word ‘iron(?)’ quoted in Старостин. According to Caucet.. 1988/2007. branches) terms for various metals70 which sharply contrasts. there are no borrowings in the opposite direction (IE > NCauc. g. there are at least six underived Proto-NCauc. proto-language (South Anatolia or Balkans. 1985/2007 for the reconstruction of Proto-NCauc. 29 f. The NCauc. proto-language was probably situated in some part of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province (cf.2.. light’ (see Caucet.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 425 8. *ṭš(w)ɨ ‘lead’. 70 . Starostin. homeland into Balkans. the source language demonstrates some innovative phonetic developments as compared with the reconstructed NCauc.7 below).). . the most part of which must be explained as loanwords in IE. *ṭtV(wV) ‘silver .‘silver’ was probably borrowed from NCauc.71 or with a similar situation of Proto-Semitic. but the first homeland of the NCauc. e. see now Caucet. people from the SCauc.. above.2. proto-language into the Basque and NCauc. 304 originally meant ‘blue’. blue metal > iron’. gold’. ––––––––––––––––––––––– *ɦĕrVcwĭ ‘silver’. g. proto-language per se : firstly. attested both in ECauc. gold’.6 The split of the Basque–NCauc. with the Proto-IE language. (i. An important linguistic problem to be discussed here are the contacts between Proto-Indo-Hittite and Proto-NCauc.). 1985/2007. Starostin (1988/2007. cultural vocabulary. and WCauc. about Varna culture). *riƛ(w)e ‘brass . IE *H-ent/ *Har-ent.‘white. 2009. homeland (e. e.dbf and Старостин. Another localization of the early NCauc. See Старостин. e. see 8. g. 356 ff. E. some Anatolian metallurgical sites of that epoch like Çatal-Höyük could hypothetically trace the migratory way of the Proto-NCauc.

secondly. 246 ff. Starostin. but Indo-Hittite term.) seems to be borrowed from an ancient language of the NCauc. 2009. e. Hebr. 4000 BC. reconstructed IE cultural vocabulary might be theoretically present in the language of some steppe people: e. 1982a and 1982b for the heavy criticism of these connections. 2002. ‘monkey’ or ‘elephant / camel’. which are wandering words and cannot be reconstructed at the Proto-IE level. 2006). 1989 w.‘horse’ (which can be not a Narrow IE. Starostin. probably Hurr. Kartv.. not earlier (Proto-IE–ProtoUral. See. while NCauc. but these contacts date back to the Indo-Iranian epoch. 1997 for an overview of the existing hypotheses. cf. however. twr ‘bull. Gimbutas’ Pontic-Caspian steppe model (the kurgan theory). according to which the Neolithic / Chalcolithic homeland of the Proto-Indo-Hittites was situated in the Carpatho-Balkan region (cf. ṯr. but I am sure that these isoglosses either are chance coincidences or represent the common Nostratic–Afro-Asiatic heritage. see the discussion in EDHIL. The main argument for the Anatolian location of the IE homeland are lexical borrowings between Proto-IE and Proto-Semitic. 2007b (a draft published post mortem) attempts to breathe life into the IE–Semitic contact theory and proposes the solid list of items borrowed from IE into Semitic . firstly. but. I will not discuss it here. Aram. I share the opinion. for the traditional list of Proto-Semitic loanwords in IE and Дьяконов. its NCauc. The non-steppe homeland of the IndoEuropeans can also be proven by the fact. 2009). prev. Of course. stock that bordered on the Indo-Hittite area in the Chalcolithic Carpatho-Balkan region. 1999.. isoglosses which belong mostly to the basic vocabulary represent the Nostratic heritage).). see Mallory. that IE *ewo.72 ––––––––––––––––––––––– The discussion about the Indo-European homeland is not a purpose of my paper . *šwid. etc. 1988 / 2007. Various Anatolian / South Caucasian models reflect rather the Nostratic expansion than posterior Indo-Hittite migrations. *ṯawr.. noted in Старостин. appears precluded due to a significant number of ProtoNarrow IE (or even Proto-Indo-Hittite) roots and stems denoting forest. A sometimes proposed argument for the kurgan theory is the IE–Uralic lexical contacts. lit. The second probable candidate is Narrow IE *tar-os ‘aurochs’ < Sem.. thereupon spread into the Western IE dialects—cf. stock discussed above. šūru.). Dolgopolsky. splits ca. Off. Therefore I believe that the donor of discussed loanwords was an extinct member of Basque–NCauc. Starostin assumes that these Indo-Hittite stems have been borrowed from a specific NCauc. šitta. Ugar. Such a scenario. SED 2. #241). it was a wandering word in that region (cf. but the same scenario is likely: the word was borrowed into Proto-Greek from some Semitic dialect. the similar linguistic fate of designations of ‘lion’. g. various trees.426 A. hills / mountains together with numerous agricultural and stockbreeding terms which is strikingly opposite to the absence of typical steppe vocabulary.‘bull.‘7’ and Etruscan semφ). 1985 . ox’ etc. The most probable Proto-Semitic loanword in IE is the designation of ‘7’ (Blažek. 1999. 1994. 72 . but in fact these isoglosses seem a mirage.‘7’. is not very realistic chronologically: according to glottochronology the split of Indo-Hittite dates back to ca. g. 237 ff.. g. but the absence of proper steppe floral terms or specific terms of mobile pastoralism make such a supposition unlikely. also Дыбо. placing the IE homeland to the east of Dniepr. where Sem. Diakonoff. a few riverside sites of Sredny Stog community (Dniepr–Don region. 315 f. the first half of the 5th – the first half of the 4th millennia BC) could at a stretch satisfy these conditions. dialect after the NCauc. e. šōr. ‘leopard / panther’. Kassian [UF 41 proto-language (loss of *n in combination with affricates. *ṯ tended to shift to [t]. 80.. descendant *ɦɨ[n]čwĭ (~ -ĕ) ‘horse’. ox’ (Akkad. *l > r in some positions. proto-language split. I claim that this numeral penetrated into IE dialects after the split of the IE proto-language (Kassian. 3800 BC.

textile and metallurgy that exactly fits the Maykop culture (see Мунчаев. tribes descended to the south. g. Militarev / G. forthc. w. and WCauc. rounded the Black Sea and created the Early Maykop culture. 77 f. who sweep away Chalcolithic “Old Europe”. 1994. proto-language (ca. and Proto-Semitic or Proto-Cushitic and so on. 126–144. 819. Today’s theories of the Proto-Basque substrate of western IE languages (cf.) could reflect not the Proto-Afroas. 2007. Милитарев/Старостин.) should be revised from methodological positions of modern comparative linguistics and macro-comparativistics. Hurrian and other inhabitants of the corresponding regions. 2007a. see above).73 ––––––––––––––––––––––– From the archaeological viewpoint. As shown in Старостин. but were later (during the 4th to the 2nd millennia BC) superseded and /or assimilated by various IE tribes. but I suspect that the general idea of some Basque–North Caucasian substrate in Europe may turn out to be true. the proposed list illustrates interlingual interferences after the splits of the main proto-languages. but the . into Anatolia and Mesopotamia (where we find some Maykop-influenced cultures. 310 f. 51. Mailhammer. Then (the second half of the 4th millennium BC) Proto-WCauc. (scil. 224. stock-breeding. also appear a myth—see the extended discussion in Kohl. contacts (which is impossible chronologically). Kohl. and Proto-ECauc. 879 f. lit. 2007. 2007. people knew horse-breeding. M. it will not contradict the theory of the Proto-North Caucasian–Proto-Indo-European contacts within the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province. I want to stress that if we follow the model of the steppe homeland of the Proto-IndoEuropeans (which seems still mainstream among Indo-Europeanists). Therefore these contacts must date back to the second half of the 4th–3rd millennia BC which chronologically fits the ECauc.). 1985/2007. 2005. e. Maykop-related people) intrusion into Anatolia and Mesopotamia very well.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 427 Basque-like tribes started moving towards Central and West Europe. but later they have been forced back to their historical area in the North Caucasus or assimilated by Semitic.. On the contrary. It is important that the overwhelming number of these isoglosses cannot be treated as borrowings between Proto-NCauc. whose dating (3850–3300 BC) exactly matches the glottochronological split of the NCauc. 876–881 list some interlingual cultural borrowings between NCauc. On the contrary.–Proto-NCauc. dialects and Afro-Asiatic languages.. Gimbutas’ mounted warriors from the steppes. About the west to east expansion of the Tripolye culture and its consecutive occupation of the steppe regions during the 5th–4th millennia BC see Manzura. Proto-NCauc.. 73 Eight connections labeled as “Proto-Afrasian–Proto-North Caucasian isoglosses” by A. people made their way from Balkans to the north. Proto-NCauc. 2007. As noted in Starostin. agriculture. Starostin (Милитарев / Старостин. where they probably occupied some sizable areas. Proto-Kartvelian does not demonstrate reliable lexical traces of contacts with Proto-NCauc. 3800 BC). 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).

4th–3rd millennia BC. 2008 w. no reliable archaeological records of Kaska in the Late Bronze Age are revealed so far. Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa-pa ‘hand. verb for ‘to eat (of humans)’ *fV goes back to NCauc. the ECauc. 9–14).7 One of the possible scenario of the Sino-Caucasian (Dene-Sino-Caucasian) expansion can be illustrated by the following maps (fig. *Haṗ ‘paw’. and so on.428 A. 2003 and vari––––––––––––––––––––––– Proto-Afras. who supposes that Kaska were the remnants of the indigenous Hattic population. and WCauc. feed’ . It is interesting that some semantic developments in the Proto-WCauc. this fact has led J. . stock of the NCauc. e. There are.)’. 8 above for detail).2. ECauc. 75 For general reasons. verb for ‘to drink (of humans)’ *zʷA goes back to NCauc.) proposes a number of additional plausible Proto-Nakh etymologies for the Hittite cultural vocabulary like. comm. WCauc. Guerrero et al. e. who demonstrate the same shift from Proto-Sino-Caucasian prefixation to suffixation.‘fat (n.. See Diamond /Bellwood.—coincide with the transition to the Neolithic in Levant area. Novosvobodnaya culture). as opposed to the more archaic West Caucasian stock. some considerations according to which we cannot move Sino-Caucasian homeland too far away from the Fertile Crescent: a) Glottochronological splits of the main linguistic macro-family. 1985).). Abkhaz–Abaza *na-ṗə. finger’) originates from NCauc. C-14 dating of the Early Natufian phase: 12 450– 11 000 BC.. lit. g. *ɦĭfV ‘to graze. however. mariš (“From the mou[th(?) …] evil saliva […] evil m. whose homelands can be suspected of being located in the Near East—Afro-Asiatic (the late 11th millennium BC after the break-up of Omotic). Alternatively cf. Nostratic (the early 14th millennium BC with subsequent splits of the two main branches in the 12th and 11th millennia BC respectively) and Sino-Caucasian (the middle of the 11th millennium BC. Hittite (Николаев. but some seem probative.–Proto-SCauc. dialects were donors of some loanwords into Hattic (see above). Singer. Hitt. i. 198574) and even in Ancient Greek (Николаев. family demonstrates the shift from prefixal verbal morphology to suffixal systems.2. see fig. During the late 3rd – 2nd millennia BC. i. O. e. obl. Unfortunately. 2007. with the transition to sedentism and foodproducing economy (cal. *-ṗV ‘human extremity’ (attested in compounds only: *λ´a-ṗV ‘foot’. but I am not aware of any reliable arguments pro or contra such a localization. Ubykh ā-ṗá ‘hand’. 74 Some Nikolaev’s connections are highly questionable. basic vocabulary can illustrate such a cultural shift towards a (mobile) pastoralism. Mudrak (pers. Kassian [UF 41 As is noted in 2. […]”) < Nakh *marš ‘snot’. base *maħar. the Kaska tribes which started to bother the Hittites in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC should be considered as North Caucasians (scil. muh(ha)rai ‘fleshy part of sacrificial animals’ < Nakh *moħ. the WCauc. This process of morphological rebuilding should be explained by contacts with the Proto-Hurrians (probably the Kura-Araxes culture. For convenience I place the Sino-Caucasian homeland into the Syrian region. which interfered with the Late Maykop.3 above. Hitt. Yakar (2008) to the supposition that Kaska were semi-nomadic communities. West Caucasians?). which retains verbal prefixation as a basic morphological pattern. interferences. *=āmʒŬ ‘to milk’ . The WCauc.75 8.

2009]

Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language

429

ous authors in Bocquet-Appel/Bar-Yosef, 2008 for general effect of Neolithic demographic transition and subsequent language diversity. b) A. Militarev/G. Starostin (Милитарев/Старостин, 2007, 879 f.) propose eight cultural lexical borrowings between Proto-Afro-Asiatic and Proto-SinoCaucasian (the title “Proto-Afrasian—Proto-North Caucasian isoglosses” in their paper is a misprint). c) As noted above (8.2.6), Anatolian metallurgical sites of the late 7th – 6th millennia BC (Çatal-Höyük 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-Tibetan–Na-Dene branch (the middle of the 11th millennium BC ; the Haida language is excluded).

Fig. 9. The Sino-Tibetan and Na-Dene migratory ways.

430

A. Kassian

[UF 41

Phase 2. The break-up of the North Caucasian–Basque and Yenisseian–Burushaski branches (the second half of the 9th millennium BC).

Fig. 10. The split between the North Caucasian–Basque and Yenisseian–Burushaski branches.

Phase 3. The split of the Yenisseian-Burushaski branch. I tentatively include Hurro-Urartian and Hattic languages into the Yenisseian–Burushaski stock, although the formal lexicostatistic evidence remains insufficient 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 first half of the 4th–3rd millennia BC). Theoretically some earlier (late Neolithic) cultures of that region can be identified with the Proto-Hurrians also. The Proto-Hattians dislocate into East Anatolia (cf. the Hattic Alaca Höyük royal tombs of the 3rd millennium BC), while the Proto-Burushaski-Yenisseians go their way to the east towards the Himalayas. According to glottochronology the Burushaski–Yenisseian proto-language splits at the middle of the 7th millennium BC, hence Karasuk culture (Late Bronze Age; ca. 1500–800 BC) certainly cannot be identified with the Burushaski–Yenisseian proto-language per se (cf. van Driem, 2001, 1186 ff.), but could represent the Yenisseian proto-language, which split in the middle of the 1st 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 geographic and climatic context of the Minusinsk Basin”. Cf. also Клейн, 2000, where the Karasuk culture is connected to the Proto-Tocharians (but Klejn’s Fatyanovo-Karasuk

2009]

Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language

431

attribution of the Tashtyk culture (Minusinsk Basin, the first half of the 1st 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, чешуйчато-ленточная, обмазочно-валиковая, защипно-пальцевая), known from the Middle Yenisei to the Minusinsk Basin during the 1st millennium AD ; see Леонтьев/Леонтьев, 2009, 67, 76–83 w. lit.78

Fig. 11. The split of the Yenisseian–Burushaski 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 language, see Ligeti, 1950 (for Yenisei Kirghiz kaša ‘iron(??)’ see now Дыбо А., 2007, 97) 78 Note that, according to Леонтьев / Леонтьев, 2009, the Yenisseian valik pottery arises under the influence of the corresponding “Hun style”.

The Hattian. The Proto-Basques move into Europe. The Proto-Basques and Proto-North Caucasians separate out (the first half of the 7th millennium BC). Phase 4. Scenario 2. Yenisseian and Burushaski migratory ways. In the first half of the 7th millennium the Proto-Basques start . Kassian [UF 41 An alternative hypothetical scenario is separate migrations of Proto-Burushaski and Proto-Yenisseian people. Hurro-Urartian. The split of the North Caucasian–Basque branch (scenario 1) and the migratory way of the Proto-Basques. Fig. 12. 13. An alternative scenario is to locate the Proto-North Caucasian–Basque homeland in the Balkans. Fig.432 A.

2) interdental fricative (in Semitic) ejective consonant tense or geminated consonant voiceless laryngeal (glottal) stop voiceless pharyngeal stop voiced pharyngeal fricative voiceless hissing affricate (the same as ʦ) voiceless hushing affricate the same as ŋ (in Sumerian) voiced uvular stop / affricate voiced velar fricative 1) voiceless glottal fricative . The split of the North Caucasian–Basque branch (scenario 2) and the migratory way of the Proto-Basques and Proto-North Caucasians. References 9. 3 ff. The North Caucasian proto-language splits into the West Caucasian and East Caucasian branches in the first half of the 4th millennium BC that coincides with the North Caucasian Maykop culture. 2) a velar of post-velar fricative (in cuneiform languages .1 Phonetic symbols (selectively) □´ □ □ / □˙  □: ʔ ʡ ʕ c č  G ɣ h palatalized consonant 1) a prosodic feature of the Proto-NCauc. the simplified transcription of traditional ḫ) . but later go their way towards the North Caucasus. 9 Phonetic symbols. . 14. Language name abbreviations. whereas Proto-North Caucasians stay in the Balkans (Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province of the 5th millennium BC). for detail).2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 433 moving into Europe. fricatives and affricates (see NCED. 90 f. Fig. SCC.

ECauc. 2) hissing affricate (in the Hattic. Hebr. Egyp.434 A. (Proto-)Afro-Asiatic Akkadian Amorite Arabic Armenian Aramaic (Proto-)Avaro-Andian Babylonian Burmese Burushaski Chinese Cuneiform Luwian (Proto-)East Caucasian Egyptian Elamic ESA Grk. Hurr. Hatt. the same as s) voiceless lateral fricative (in Semitic) voiceless hissing affricate (the same as c) voiceless interdental fricative voiceless velar fricative voiceless uvular fricative 1) voiced hissing fricative . Akkad. Elam. Khin. Kott. Bab.-And. Hittite and Hurrian cuneiform.2 Language name abbreviations Afroas. Aram. used in reconstructions) voiced lateral fricative voiced lateral affricate voiceless lateral fricative voiceless lateral affricate velar nasal resonant voiceless uvular stop / affricate voiced uvular fricative 1) voiceless hushing fricative . 2) voiceless hissing fricative (in the Hattic. Arm. Chin. the same as c / ʦ and ʒ) voiced hissing affricate voiced hushing affricate 9. Luw. Hitt. A MAss. HLuw.) palatal resonant a lateral resonant (different from plain l . Lyc. Burm. CLuw. Arab. the same as ħ) voiced glottal fricative voiceless pharyngeal fricative unidentified laryngeal (used in reconstructions) after any vowel or consonant signifies pharyngealization (in NCauc. IE Kartv. Hittite and Hurrian cuneiform. Burush. Epigraphic South Arabian Ancient Greek Hattic Hebrew Hittite Hieroglyphic Luwian Hurrian Indo-European (Proto-)Kartvelian Khinalug Kottish (Proto-)Lezghian Luwian Lycian A Middle Assyrian . Lezgh. Amor. Kassian [UF 41 ḥ ɦ ħ H I j ł L Ł λ ƛ ŋ q ʁ š ŝ ʦ θ x χ z ʒ ǯ voiceless pharyngeal fricative (in Semitic . Av.

OEng.. WCauc. Acme. A. MS. Unpubl. OInd. 268–270. Urart. Renfrew (eds.): Examining the Farming. WSem.. O. D. L. Bellwood / C. SCauc. Stolbova. Ugar. Russ. Anthony. S. 113–126.): Les cultures du Caucase (VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Starostin (included in NCED). Beekes. and Language. Modern South Arabian Mycenaean Greek New Assyrian (Proto-)North Caucasian Old English Old Indian Phoenician Russian (Proto-)Sino-Caucasian (Proto-)Semitic Slav. P. Basqet.dbf: Altaic etymological database (= EDAL).. Yen. NAss. Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/3. 2007: Sites de migrants venus du Proche-Orient en Transcaucasie.ieed.dbf: Basque etymological database by John Bengtson. available online at www. the Wheel. In P.dbf: West Caucasian (Abkhaz–Adyghe) etymological database by S. NCauc. Available online at Tower of Babel Project. 2002: The Natufian Culture and the Early Neolithic: Social and Economic Trends in Southwestern Asia. The Pre-Greek loans in Greek. 2007: The Horse. 2007 : Pre-Greek. Language Dispersal Hypothesis. Lyonnet (ed. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28/4. Princeton University Press.. T. 95–122. Afaset. 2009: Models of metal production in the Near East (Chalcolithic — Middle Bronze Age). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Jan. Akhundov. 1975: Un antico nome del ferro nel Vicino Oriente. Tsez. Avilova. R. Altet. 1969: On the Cuneiform Background of the Northwest-Semitic Form of the Word brḏl. Paris.. Slavic (Proto-)Sino-Tibetan Sumerian Tibetan (Proto-)Tsezian Ugaritic Urartian (Proto-)West Caucasian (Proto-)North-West Semitic Yenisseian 9. I. Phoen. Militarev and O. Available online at Tower of Babel Project. P. Artzi. Sem. 27–48. STib..3 References Abadet. b(a)rz(e)l. Bar-Yosef.nl. Available online at Tower of Babel Project.dbf: Afroasiatic etymological database by A. Tib. How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. ‘Iron’. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.. In B. Available online at Tower of Babel Project. Ancillotti. Sum. 50–58. Pp. . 3rd version. Pp.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 435 MSA Myc. W. № 28/1–2. 2007.

Peterburg. 1972 : Sino-Tibetan. N.. H. Springer.-P. Bocquet-Appel. G. A.dbf: North Caucasian etymological database by S. 1998: Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager.. 175–193. 197–296. Floricic (ed. A Conspectus. / Kelly-Buccellati. O. P. M. In Mari. In Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3. Buccellati. M. Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels. 3 vol. Forthcoming. E. Pp. (eds. M. P. 1992: Ancient metallurgy in the USSR. Available online at Tower of Babel Project.. A. Springer. Catsanicos. Buruet. 1999: Numerals: Comparative-etymological analyses of numerals systems and their implications. The Early Metal Age. School of Asian. Ébla et les hourrites. 1996 : Common West Caucasian. 141–151. J. Moscow: RSUH. Ch.): The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences. Leiden. / Poser. Вып. Amurru 1. African. 1997 : Hurrians and Indo-Europeans in their historical and archaeological context. Wiesbaden.. In F. Cambridge. Nikolayev and S. 2005: The kingdom of the Hittite. Castrén. J. K.. XIX.. 1996: L’apport de la bilingue de Hattusa à la lexicologie hourrite. Caucet.436 A. 2008: Language Classification: History and Method.. Leiden.dbf: Burushaski etymological database by S. V.): Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale. W. Campbell. Benedict.. J. and Amerindian Studies). 1858 : Castrén’s Versuch einer jenissei-ostjakischen und kottischen Sprachlehre / Herausgegeben von A. V. / Bar-Yosef. Bryce. 2008: The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences. Cambridge. Starostin (based on H. 2007: Urkesh and the Question of the Hurrian Homeland. Kassian [UF 41 Bellwood. St.. Cambridge University Press... Brno : Masarykova univerzita. The Reconstruction of its Phonological System and Parts of its Lexicon and Morphology (Research School CNWS. Starostin (= NCED). Bocquet-Appel / O. Burney.. Available online at Tower of Babel Project.. Chernykh. . T. Oxford. a: Reconstructing Proto-West Caucasian: From North Caucasian to West Caucasian via “Chinese”? (to appear in a forthcoming Gedenkschrift). P. J. Al-Rafidan 18. b: Reconstructing proto-syntax: The case of West Caucasian. 45–118.. Chirikba. Berger’s data). Bengtson. Routledge. 2002 : Mesopotamia Before History.). / Oxenham. Blažek. Bar-Yosef (eds. — 1996a: A dictionary of Common Abkhaz. L. Pp.. J.-P. Schiefner. Charvát. 13–34. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences 175/2. Orientalia et Classica: Труды Института восточных культур и античности. — forthc. 2008 : The Expansions of Farming Societies and the Role of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. Berger. — forthc. 2008: Materials for a Comparative Grammar of the Dene-Caucasian (Sino-Caucasian) Languages.

174–269. A. Guerrero. Indo-Europeans and PreIndo-Europeans. Science 300. L. 25 April 2003. PIHANS 11. 1963: Les assyriens en Cappadoce. 1. Cyprus and the Near East.. 53–65. Ankara. 1996.): The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences. 379–397. J. A.. In E. 92–174. M.. Pp. 19. Both / R.. C. A. München. 1986: Beiträge zur Grammatik des Hattischen.-P. Markey / J. Pp. / Najiand. H. C. BarYosef (eds. 20–39. In Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale di Micenologia. The Luwian substrate of Hattian and the independent Hittites. — 1990: Language contacts in the Caucasus and the Near East. 1998: Hattiler. Vol. 1980: Zur genealogischen Einordnung der hattischen und kassitischen Sprache. — 1922: Die Inschriften und Sprachen des Hatti-Reiches. Reihe 21. 3–36. Eisenbrauns. 2006: The Wisdom of the Lyre: Soundings in Ancient Greece. 1963. Pp. Paris. Chr. 223–231 Garelli. J. Ş. / Bocquet-Appel. / Starostin. Goedegebuure. 1986 : Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language. Franklin. Girbal.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 437 Diakonoff. 12. 73–75. July 2007. P. Springer. In S. S. 2008: Musici e strumenti musicali alle corti micenee. 57–80 . 309–321.): When Worlds Collide. Bocquet-Appel / O. Forrer. S.-P..): Musikarchäologie im Kontext: Archäologische Befunde. 949–981. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. Babel und Bibel 4. 137–180. P. Fähnrich. Vorträge des 4. Eichmann (eds. ZDMG 76. Pp. I. September 2004. A. 1985: On the original home of the speakers of Indo-European. Diakonoff. historische Zusammenhänge. A. Hatti ve Hitit dilleri üzerine bazı düşünceler. N. Linguistik 50. M.. soziokulturelle Beziehungen. Frankfurt am Main / Bern / New York. vol. Dolgopolsky. 1921 : Ausbeute aus den Boghazköi-Inschriften. Pisa/Roma. 597–603.... 20–25 febbraio 2006. Europäische Hochschulschriften. I.. Beiheft. E. In Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Süel (eds.): Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology. Gabeskiria. J. MDOG 61. In J. 1. E. 2008: Central Anatolian languages and language communities in the Colony period. Georgica 3. F. Rahden (Westfallen). 2003: Farmers and Their Languages: The First Expansion. / Bellwood. Çorum. — 2010: The alignment of Hattian. Roma. Diamond. Folia Linguistica Historica 8/1– 2. Greppin (eds. 1989: Cultural contacts of Proto-Indo-European and ProtoIndo-Iranian with neighbouring languages. 2008: The signal of the Neolithic demographic transition in the Levant. Symposiums der Internationalen Studiengruppe Musikarchäologie im Kloster Michaelstein. Pp. Pp.—26. An active language with an ergative base. Hickmann / A.. JIES 13. P. Alp / A... September 16–22. part 2. Ann Arbor. Franceschetti. In T.

Altamont. / Starostin.und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa. J. / Chernov. In R.. Identity. G. — 2008: Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus. 2005: Commentaries on the Readings. Vyach. A. Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2. 1998: Ethnicity and language in prehistoric Northeast Asia. AHL Studies in the Science and History of Language 6. Archaeological studies in honour of Charles Burney. Pp. Vine (eds. M. Blench / M. Peterson / L. Vs. Klimov. BoHa 19. 195–208.. and Connectivity. 248–303. In D. Hawkins. four’ and its cognates.. / Yakubovich. S. H. T. 2010 : The Swadesh wordlist. Oxford. 1987 : Elamisches Wörterbuch. B. Amsterdam. Journal of Language Relationship 4. Ivanov / B.. Kelly-Buccellati. Walter de Gruyter. V. Canberra..). 2002: The Reflexes of IE Initial Clusters in Hittite. H. Fournet / A. 2004 : Andirons at Urkesh : New evidence for the Hurrian identity of the Early Trans-Caucasian culture? In A. 2000: The Phonology and Morphology of the Tanacross Athabaskan Language. Pp.). / Thiel. D. A. T.438 A.. G. Popova / A. M. V. A. Kassian. In Vyach. I.): Anatolian Languages. B. / Koch. 1998: Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages. — 2010: Review of A. 1979 : Abkhaz. Spriggs (eds. In S. Smith (eds. L. Insularity. Louvain: Peeters.. 1976 : Das hurritologische Archiv (Corpus der hurri(ti)schen Sprachdenkmäler) des Altorientalischen Seminars der Frein Universität Berlin. Herbordt: Die Prinzen. 65–78. Pp. Aramazd. Heine.). Kohl. 2002: World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. 2006: The early integration of the Eurasian steppes with the Ancient Near East: Movements and transformations in the Caucasus and Central Asia.): Beyond the . Cambridge. / Kuteva. (eds. J. 2009 : Anatolian *meyu.. Knapp. ‘The Indo-European Elements in Hurrian’. 1996: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC. Ivanova. In V. University of California. Bomhard. Vs. 67–89. Kassian. PhD. 7–39. London: Routledge.. Kassian [UF 41 Haas. Journal of Language Relationship 2. G. M.. B.-J. R. Journal of Language Relationship 4.. A. A.‘4. Shevoroshkin / P.): Archaeology and Language II. Hinz. 46–89. Mainz. 199–206.): A view from the highlands. Ivanov. P.. G. UCLA Indo-European Studies 1. Sidwell (eds. K. / Dybo. An attempt at semantic specification. A... Berlin.. L. 1999 : An ancient name for the lyre. W. (ed. Holton. Hewitt. Janhunen. Berlin. 2007: The chronology of the “Maikop culture” in the North Caucasus: Changing perspectives. Z. Kassian. 10—48. in collaboration with Khiba. Sagona (ed.

2005: Steps to the steppe.. J. S. Museibli. Journal of the American Oriental Society 92/3. Lyonnet. Mailhammer. Lyonnet (ed. 59–100. 313–338. Skopje. Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ilievski / L.. M. Brill. In P. 170–210. 2006: The emergence of the Karasuk culture. Pp. (ed. 1.): Archaeology and Language.. 1987: On the untransliterated syllabograms *56 and *22. In E. M. 436–446. 2007a: Introduction. Oxford journal of archaeology 24/4. Brill. 93–121. Martirosyan. l’Anatolie orientale et le Proche-Orient: relations et chronologie. 1972 : Sino-Tibetan ‘iron’: *qhleks. Kortmann / J. S. Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient. I. Pp. In B.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 439 steppe and the sown. Melchert. Or. Antiquity 80. Cambridge. 3–39.).: The prehistory of European languages. H.. — 2007: The making of Bronze Age Eurasia. In Luwians 2003. H. vol. L. Pp. The Luwians. C. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 1/1.. Manzura. forthc. 203–232. Kun Chang. forthcoming. Pp. P. Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology. 235–248. Lyonnet (ed.. Pp. 2006: Philologische Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen im Überblick. Tel Aviv 36 . 141–188. Baku. 11–20. Melena. la Transcaucasie.): Les cultures du Caucase (VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Held in Ohrid (15– 20 September 1985). Pp. 1950: Mots de civilisation de Haute Asie en transcription chinoise.. / Batashev. Paris. 2004: Cultural origins of the taiga-dwelling peoples of the Middle Yenisei. J. Crepajac (eds. 1997: The homelands of the Indo-Europeans. homelands and migrations. — 2009: Origins.): Languages and Prehistory of Central Siberia (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 262). R. 241–265. London : Routledge.. Mallory. van der Auwera (eds. B. L. C. Proceedings of the Eighth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies. . N. Babel und Bibel 3. N.. In Luwians 2003. Vajda (ed.): Tractata Mycenaea. — 2003b: Language. 2007: Chalcolithic settlement Beyuk Kesik. Blench / M. Ligeti. In B. In R.. 843– 879. — 2007b : La culture de Maïkop. Makarov. John Benjamin Publishing Company. 2010 : Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon.): Les cultures du Caucase (VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Brill. Pp. In B. Luwians 2003: Melchert.): Field of Linguistics 2: Europe.. J. H. Legrand. Pp. Paris. 8–26. how the North Pontic region was colonised.. 133–162. Spriggs (eds. Krebernik. K. Situating the Kura-Araxes Early Transcaucasian ‘culture’ within the history of Bronze Age Eurasia. 2003a: Prehistory. H.

The evolution of a small. Roberts. Schwemer. Wiesbaden. 87–126..440 A.. Die hattisch-hethitischen Bilinguen II..: Caravan Books. 1012–1022. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. I. Reiter.. Bulletin of the Society for Mediterranean Studies. H.. 6 vols. Hewitt (ed. Rieken. AOAT 249. Schmidt. Klinger. Glotta 73. Kratylos 44. 2001: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. S. Brill. Überarbeitet und zum Druck gebracht von J. / Batouka. S. prehistoric center in northern Iraq. In I. 1996: A Comparative Vocabulary of Five Sino-Tibetan Languages. In B. Vol. 1– 7. 1989: West Circassian (Adyghe: Abzakh dialect). Semet. . M.. Wiesbaden. 2009: Development of metallurgy in Eurasia. / Starostin. Orel. K.dbf: Sino-Caucasian etymological database by S. Schuster. David Hawkins on the occasion of his 70th birthday.. Rendsburg. Vl. Vol. 1982 : Semitic przl/brzl/brḏl ‘iron’.Y. Rothman.. — 1999: Review of J. 1997: Zur Herkunft des Inselnamens Kypros. Singer (ed. 2007: Who where the Kaška? Phasis. B. Militarev.. Paris. Greek and Roman Studies 10 (II). C. Canada 3.dbf: Semitic etymological database by A. Münster. 355–377. 1962: Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der südkaukasischen Grundsprache. 1989: Der Apfel möge die Zähne nehmen! Or NS 58.. 2007: Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and genetic perspectives.-S. Soysal. E. Available online at Tower of Babel Project. 54–71. Peiros. 1995–1996. Paris.. O. 2010: The New Values of Luwian Signs L 319 and L 172. Scripta Mediterranea. P. Singer. ZA 99.): The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus. Patri. / Yakubovich. Available online at Tower of Babel Project. Delmar. Toronto. D. — 2004: Review of H. / Pigott. 2007: Glossar des Lykischen. W. 166–181. E.. Wiesbaden. Neumann. 1988–2005: Dictionnaire abzakh (tcherkesse occidental). 161–167. Melbourne. Tel Aviv University. 199– 219. 2003 : A Handbook of Germanic Etymology.. V. Kassian [UF 41 Neu. I. I. / Thornton. StBoT 37.. 1997: Die Metalle im Alten Orient. Antiquity 83.. C. Tischler. 2 : The North West Caucasian Languages. N. BiOr 61/3–4.A. LOT. Pp. G. K. 2002 : Tepe Gawra. Starostin. B. N. G. Louvain: Peeters. S. A. C. I.. 2009 : La perception des consonnes hittites dans les langues étrangères au XIIIe siècle. 1–2. Sccet. 171–192.): Luwian and Hittite Studies presented to J.. G. Pakendorf. C.

/ Soysal. S. Brill. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. 2007. 1989/1999: Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatistics. Available online at Tower of Babel Project. 77– 135.rinet. Starostin. vol. Takács. Pp. In Старостин. 2007: Die Majkop-Kultur und die ersten Wagen in der südrussischen Steppe.. . 75–98. — 2006: Das hethitische Wort für »Zinn«. In affiliation with the “Evolution of Human Languages” (EHL) Project at the Santa Fe Institute. In Лингвистическая реконструкция и древнейшая история Востока. 2000. 185–243. Oxford. part 2. 1996].. Pp. Pp... Pp. In Historical Linguistics and Lexicostatistics. — 2007b : Indo-European glottochronology and homeland. Available online: http:// starling. Babel und Bibel 4. М. Mother Tongue 14. Part II. [First. Reprinted in Старостин. Mainz am Rheim. 79–116. Anatolica 31. G.: Наука. 1988: Zu den syntaktischen Verknüpfungen im Hattischen. publ. 1989. — 2010: Zum Namen der Göttin Katahzipuri mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Kasussystems des Hattischen. С. 2010: Preliminary lexicostatistics as a basis for language classification : A new approach. 2007. Journal of Language Relationship 3. Starostin (= Peiros/Starostin.. — 2009: Indo-European—North Caucasian isoglosses. С. 3. July 2007. Tower of Babel Project: Etymological database project “The Tower of Babel”. — 1997/2007: A Review of V.: Mother Tongue. 407–447. 167–176. 682–744. contacts and genetic relationships. 3– 50.] — 2007a: Indo-European among other language families: Problems of dating. Pp. forthc. 1997. vol. 223–259 [available online at www. 3–39. Taracha. V. Süel.nostratic. but with serious improvement). A.: Старостин 1988/2007. — 2005: On the origin of the royal title tabarna/labarna. 1. O. A. 1999–. headed by S. 1996. Chirikba’s “Common West Caucasian” [Chirikba. Historische Sprachforschung 119. 821–826. 189– 209. JANER 4 /1.ru/. In Russian: Сравнительно-историческое языкознание и лексикостатистика. Reprinted in Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. In Rad und Wagen. 109–116. G. A.: The Hattian-Hittite Foundation Rituals from Ortaköy. [First publ. In Старостин 2007. 2007. 1999. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Eisenbrauns. 806–820.ru]. EDE: Etymological dictionary of Egyptian. A. In Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. 59–68. Starostin.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 441 — 2004a: The Angry Priests in a Hattian-Hittite Narrative. Melbourne. Pp. 1041–1058.dbf: Sino-Tibetan etymological database by S. Starostin. Trifonov.] Stibet. AoF 15. P.. S. In Старостин.

Zimmermann.442 A. G. 1–32. Starostin (= Старостин.): Acta linguistica petropolitana. S. Antiquity 309. M. Colloquia classica et indogermanica IV. 2008: The archaeology of the Kaška. Yakubovich. Pp. Korolëv dicata). 3 vols. Francia (eds. Wiesbaden. 2009 : Frühmetallzeitliche Eliten zwischen Ostägäis und Taurusgebirge im 3. Vol.. and Anatolian Metalworking Advances in the late 3rd Millennium BC. von Mészáros.. — 2009: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language. Pp. 2002 with additions and corrections). Available at: http://antiquity. Kassian / A.. 2002 : Labyrinth for Tyrants. Vogt. H. IV. 1958—1995: Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка. 1934: Die Päkhy-Sprache. Mainz. / Yakubovich. 2002 : Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. Journal of World Prehistory 10/2. Moscow. In N.. Jahrtausend v. (To appear in a forthcoming Festschrift. G. 2001: Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook of the greater Himalayan region. In A.. Oslo. – Versuch einer kritischen Bestandsaufnahme. Yenet. Pp. И. Leiden.) van Driem. Историко-этнографические очерки.. Chicago. 2006: News from the Hatti Heartland—The Early Bronze Age Necropoleis of Kalınkaya. А. / Zimmermann. J. A.und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften”.): VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia. — 2008: Hittite-Luvian bilingualism and the development of Anatolian hieroglyphs. Zbenovich..): Aufstieg und Untergang. Алексеенко. Transactions of the Institute for linguistic studies. Brill. I.dbf: Yenisseian etymological database by S. Kadmos 47/1–2. 2 vols. Pp. 199–241. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.: Semitic word for ‘Iron’ as Anatolian loanword. T. J. Kassian [UF 41 Valério. Roma. 1–19. V.Chr. I. Ленинград. T. . Valério. In M. In A. Е. T. Archi / R. Saint Petersburg.uk/projgall/zimmerman/... — 2009a: The Luvian enemy. 2007 : ‘Diktaian master’: A Minoan predecessor of Diktaian Zeus in Linear A? Kadmos 46. 817–827. Sidel’tsev (eds.. part 1. 5–9 settembre 2005.. V. Werner. Quast (eds. 93–116. Roma. 3–14. Yildirim. forthc. Абаев.ac. В.. 9–36. Москва—Ленинград. H. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 9. Available online at Tower of Babel Project. Resuloğlu..): Studia Linguarum 3 (Memoriae A. N. 1995 and Werner. SMEA 50. M. 1963: Dictionnaire de la langue oubykh. Kazansky (ed. Yakar. 1996 : The Tripolye Culture: Centenary of Research. 1967: Кеты. Zwischenbilanz des Forschungsschwerpunktes “Studien zu Genese und Struktur von Eliten in vor. Egg / D.

до н. 2007: Лингвистические контакты ранних тюрков. А. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 49. In P. — 1999: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. Орбели. Москва. 2005: Сравнительно-историческое языкознание. Бурлак. Москва. Москва... С. 1994: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. Москва : Российская Академия Наук. 1934 : Кеты. Браун.. И. Научный совет по истории мировой культуры.. Pp. / Старостин. 1967 : Языки древней Передней Азии. Пратюркский период. 57–159. II. С. А. 2-е изд. Pp. Москва. 2008 : Южный Кавказ в кавказско-переднеазиатских этнокультурных процессах IV тыс.): Silva Anatolica. Москва : Российская Академия Наук. Дунаевская. 26–37.э. Дьяконов. языков и культуры древней Анатолии. Москва—Ленинград. в честь акад. Этноязыковые и этнокультурные процессы.. Научный совет по истории мировой культуры. In Дж. III. В. In Встречи этнических культур в зеркале языка. / Махмудова. Дыбо. Советская археология 1. — 2002: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. Научный совет по истории мировой культуры. В.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 443 Андреева. 1979 : Некоторые сходные структурные признаки хаттского и абхазо-адыгских языков. 1961 : Принципы структуры хаттского (протохеттского) глагола. Дыбо. И. А. И. Москва. Лексический фонд. Переднеазиатский сборник 1. — 2002: Локальные префиксы хаттского глагола и те же морфемы в абхазо-адыгских языках. Москва: Российская Академия Наук. Несколько мыслей по поводу индоевропейской проблемы. 1960: О структурном сходстве хаттского языка с языками Северо-Западного Кавказа. — 2006: Язык—этнос—археологическая культура. М. Несколько мыслей по поводу индоевропейской проблемы. Баку. В. 152–180. 73–77.. А. In Язык—культура— этнос. Т.. IV. Несколько мыслей по поводу индоевропейской проблемы. Сб. В. In Глобализация—этнизация. М. Переднеазиатский сборник 3. Я.. М. 1994: Хаттский и абхазо-адыгский (Hattian and Abasgo-Kerketian). Маккуин: Хетты и их современники в Малой Азии. Ахундов. М.. I. О некоторых новых результатах в исследовании истории. — 1983 : Послесловие. 55–56. Г. Несколько мыслей по поводу индоевропейской проблемы.. И. Ардзинба. Долгих. 15–23. Б. Warsaw. Г. In Исследования по истории культуры народов Востока. Дунаевская. 1977: К вопросу о южных связях майкопской культуры. Anatolian studies presented to the Maciej Popko on the occasion of his 65th birthday. . А. В.. С. 39–56. Иркутск—Москва. In Язык как транслятор культуры. Taracha (ed.

И. 4. In Б. I. / Казанский.. (ред. Москва. 14–16 декабря 2009 г. Вып. 2007: Общая афразийско-севернокавказская культурная лексика [Corrected and updated by A. Клейн. С. In Языки мира : Реликтовые языки Передней Азии. Пиотровский и др. Микеладзе. Крито-микенский период. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. 304–480. Москва. Материалы международной научной конференции. / Петренко. Л. К. И. С. 168–184. IV.. Е.. С. 256–264. Милитарев. Москва: Наука.): Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Б. Н. С. В.): Древняя Анатолия. Касьян. 1985: Северокавказские заимствования в хеттском и древнегреческом. Р. Б. / Маслов. Николаев. 1994: Майкопская культура. 2010: Хаттский язык. 2007.. 1994: Протоколхская культура.444 A. Москва. 2000: Миграция тохаров в свете археологии. В. Х. In Б. 1957: Кабардинско-русский словарь. Москва. Pp. II.. Москва: Наука. Г.. В.. 3–30. А. С. Moscow. Пиотровский и др. Карданов. (ред.). Решетников. А. 26–59.): Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. 49–52. Pp. Вестник древней истории. — 2009: К исследованию отношений между языками. 153–162.): Studia Linguarum 2. Кушнарева / В. С. Л. — 1982b : О прародине носителей индоевропейских диалектов. Канторович. М. Ю. 2009: Памятники археологии Кизир-Казырского района. М. Stratum plus 2. Касьян / Ф. 1–12. Militarev / G. 178–187. А. Ю. In Старостин. (ред. посвященной памяти Эдвина Арвидовича Грантовского и Дмитрия Сергеевича Раевского. Н. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. In К. Мунчаев. In К. . Н. Вс. 67–74. / Леонтьев.. 60–73.. 1986: Предметно-понятийный словарь греческого языка. [Antiquity: Historical knowledge and specific nature of sources. Х. Иванов.. 1978: Разыскания в области анатолийского языкознания: 3–8. Некоторые результаты грамматической реконструкции. 876–881. А. Марковин (ред. Леонтьев. Р. Вяч. 2009: Находка бронзовых элементов управления быками (носовых колец) в 2009 г. / Старостин. Казанскене. Кемерово. Вестник древней истории. и проблема передневосточных связей майкопской культуры Северного Кавказа. Москва: ИВ РАН. Минлос (ред. С. С. С. In А. — 1985: Об отношении хаттского языка к северозападнокавказским. Марковин (ред. Кушнарева / В. Kassian [UF 41 — 1982a: О прародине носителей индоевропейских диалектов. С. Б. В. Т. 11–25. Institute of Oriental Studies]. Москва. Н. Р. С. Starostin]. Вопросы языкового родства [Journal of Language Relationship] 1. 3. Этимология 1976. П. С. Ленинград. 158–225. К..): Древняя Анатолия. In Древность: Историческое знание и специфика источника. 1999 : Морфология праенисейского глагола.

Чикобава.. In Старостин. 144–237] — 1985/2007: Культурная лексика в общесеверокавказском словарном фонде. / Цивьян. С.: Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи. Лингвистика. С. Leiden: Brill. 211–245. 1968: Материалы к сложным словам в кетском языке. С. С.. 2004. 1995. . Топоров. А. Б..: Древняя Анатолия. In Кетский сборник. 112–163. 1977: Этимологический словарь адыгских (черкесских) языков. In Судьба ученого. Трифонов (ред.): Адаптация культур палеолита—энеолита к изменениям природной среды на Северо-Западном Кавказе. In Кетский сборник (Studia Ketica).. 262–276. 1960 : Основные типы спряжения глаголов и их исторические взаимоотношения в иберийско-кавказских языках.] — 1988/2007: Индоевропейско-севернокавказские изоглоссы. Т. In Russian Oriental Studies. 1995 : Морфология коттского глагола и реконструкция праенисейской глагольной системы. — 1995/2007: Несколько новых хурритских этимологий. К. Москва. В. Тезисы докладов. С. In Старостин. С. 312–358 [First publ. Г. 74–94. 84–93. изд-во. 2 т. 1982. В.. Пиотровский и др. 133–136] — 2007: Труды по языкознанию [Works in Linguistics]. С. Т.. Шагиров. In Третья Кубанская археологическая конференция. Шаов. 1968 : Об изучении имени в кетском (некоторые результаты и перспективы). С. In Старостин. 147–246. 289–311 [First publ. 2007. 1975 : Адыгейско-русский словарь. 244–264. Цивьян. А. — 2001: Дарквети-мешоковская культура. Москва. В. Старостин. 1985. 2007. Москва..: Кетский сборник. Вып. Вып. 2000: Курганы майкопского типа в северо-западном Иране.). Москва.. Ж. К 100-летию со дня рождения Бориса Александровича Латынина. 4. Майкоп. 2007. Горький: Волго-вятское кн. In Старостин. Доклады делегации СССР. 229–246. А. С. In English: The Cultural Vocabulary in the Common North Caucasian Lexical Stock. 190–194.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 445 Сафронов. 1989: Индоевропейские прародины. Москва. — 2009: Существовал ли на Северо-Западном Кавказе неолит? In В. А. 1988. С. Вып. А. 629–630. Трифонов. Лингвистика. Москва. In XXV международный конгресс востоковедов. Ленинград. In Кетский сборник (Studia Ketica). А. 122–175. С. Pp. С. М. С. Краснодар—Анапа. В. С. [First publ. С. Москва. Москва. 176–315. English translation = Starostin. Санкт-Петербург. С. 2007. С. 1982/2007: Праенисейская реконструкция и внешние связи енисейских языков. Старостин. В..: Вестник древней истории. Санкт-Петербург. 213(2). Ред. А. [First publ. Б. In Кетский сборник. 2009] — 1995: Сравнительный словарь енисейских языков. (ред. Н. Москва. 4.

Leiden. A. Berlin / New York / Amsterdam. 1956—. XXVIII. 1995. 1994—2000. Старостина. del Olmo Lete / J. С. O. museum. Soysal: Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung Handbuch der Orientalistik. Leiden. Textbearbeitungen. Jongeling : Diсtionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2002. Available online at Tower of Babel Project (http://starling. Kloekhorst: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Brill. Teile 2–3. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 1977—. Chicago. Schuster: Die Hattisch-Hethitischen Bilinguen. Moscow. J. Leiden / New York / Köln. Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project (http://psd. L. J. Starostin 7 A. Под ред. С. G.) С.446 A. А. George / N. Postgate: A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 1980—. 2009 : Labyrinthos: суффикс -nth. S.в минойском и тирренских языках. A. E. Baumgartner and J. Москва: Изд-во РГГУ. Tischler: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. 1980. Chicago.-S. Leiden/Boston. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Volumes 1–5 combined in one electronic edition. 2000.upenn. 1—. 2003. Black / A. Puhvel: Hittite Etymological Dictionary. S. Hoftijzer / K. 1984—. J. Laroche: Glossaire de la langue hourrite. 2nd ed. Revised by W. L. 2008. Leiden / New York. In Аспекты компаративистики 4 [Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 4]. Вып.dbf.html). 2003. Baumgartner: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Koehler / W. Leiden.edu/epsd/index. J. Mudrak : Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Abbreviations AHw CAD CDA CHD DUL EDAL W.rinet. Г. Wiesbaden. Dybo / O. H. 2004. 1994 [reprinted: 3 vols. Wiesbaden. A. von Soden: Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Innsbruck. Paris. 1/74. A. 98–111. Stamm. Vol.. Starostin: A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Kassian [UF 41 Яцемирский. V. (Orientalia et Classica: Труды Института восточных культур и античности. Sanmartín: A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Ann Arbor: Caravan EDHIL ePSD GLH HALOT HED HEG HHB2 HJ HWHT NCED . II. 1965— 1981.ru/) as Altet. Nikolayev / S. J.

A. Т. A. Kogan: Semitic Etymological Dictionary. О. Vol. Ред. ЭССЯ . Münster.dbf. Militarev / L. Н. 2000. Москва. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Wiesbaden. Vol.ru/). 2: Animal Names. Трубачев. Available online at Tower of Babel Project (http://starling. Unfinished MS. the middle of the 2000s. Starostin: Sino-Caucasian. StBoT37.rinet.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 447 SCC SED StBoT 37 Books. 1996. Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages]. 1974—. J. 2007]. Klinger: Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht. AOAT 278. rinet. Available online at Tower of Babel Project (http:// starling. 1—. S. 2005.ru/) as Caucet.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful