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

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

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

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

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

.............2...................2................................................................2...................337 4....13 Clusters with laryngeals............................416 9 Phonetic symbols.................................................2....2..............336 4......................... cognates ......7 Laryngeals .........................................4 Other front consonants.......................................................3 References . References .............................333 4......2...................................400 7 Contacts with neighboring languages.............................................340 5.......1 Roots with reliable SCauc..... Language name abbreviations................9 xK(w)-clusters..332 4.........2..........12 NC-clusters ...3 Alveolar..................................................................435 Abbreviations........ dubia..........1 Auxiliary morphemes with reliable SCauc..............................434 9.............................1 Labials ...............2....1 Linguistic affiliation ...........2.. cognates ...............................................336 4.....11.... Kassian [UF 41 4....335 4...........10 ST-clusters..........2..........................2...... lC... post-alveolar and palatal affricates.....................................................331 4..........2..334 4.....................433 9...................397 6...............................................2....3 Root structure ..2..2................2...............................................2.327 4........... cognates ....337 4.2..............404 8................................2..2.................................2 Geographical problem ........338 4...........2..........2 Some auxiliary morphemes with dubious or improbable SCauc...............................2 Loans.....................................404 8............1 Phonetic symbols (selectively) ........................329 4.....and rC-clusters..2...2...340 5.5 Laterals ...................2..................402 8 Conclusion..............334 4...2.8 Clusters with *w ..................................................338 5 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons...................... and roots without etymology......................................................368 6 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons ..........2.............6 Velar and uvular consonants ............310 A.................................2 Dentals....................397 6.....................................433 9..............................2 Language name abbreviations ....446 ...................................................

We know that the Hattians had institution of kingship. Republic of Turkey. for this reference). 2005. Yildirim/ Zimmermann. But we cannot say the same about the prehistoric Hittito-Luwian tribes known to us. 2009.. 1650–1200 BC). We have to suppose that Hattians were Anatolian autochthons before the Hittite-Luwian migrations in this region (more about the sociolinguistic situation see Goedegebuure. 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. consonantism. see. g. e. Surveys and Archaeometry. 14) attribute the Alaca Höyük tombs to the Hittito-Luwians. 2 . 2006—require Hattic attribution. 2008). g. Bryce. 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. organized by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 311 1 On the Hattic language (Hattic vocalism. The traditional (pre-C14) dating places Alaca Höyük tombs in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. 2010. with the exception of some personal names from Old Assyrian Cappadocian colonies (the early 2nd millennium BC).2 The Hattic language is known only in Hittite cuneiform transmission (ca. 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. 1.. Zimmermann. but this result is not very reliable (I am grateful to Thomas Zimmermann. May 24–28. It is not clear to me on what evidence some scholars (e. Anatolia. although Ü. 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. Fig. the second half of the 3rd—the first half of the 2nd millennia BC. Resuloğlu and others. Ankara.

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

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

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

Glottochronological tree of the North Caucasian family (50-item wordlist-based) Fig. 2. 3.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language Fig. Glottochronological tree of the West Caucasian branch (100-item wordlist-based) 315 .

l see below). Russian–German): pri-nes-i ‘bring!’ (2 sg. languages: Adyghe–Kabardian *a.. An example. The following difficulties arise when one attempts to compare Hattic with WCauc. Vjač. Chirikba (Chirikba.. I. 1985 for the summed up list of Hattic roots and auxiliary morphemes with WCauc.—grammatical features). An example. see Шагиров. 25. Ardzinba (Ардзинба. lower part’. lower part. 1996. Viach. and immediately the comparison with Hattic zi. Иванов. 1977 2.1.. 1979—grammatical features). g. 2002—Hattic local prefixes). who for the first time made an attempt to prove the West Caucasian hypothesis by a scientific approach. Браун. languages. Further the idea of the West Caucasian attribution of Hattic was supported by I. see Иванов. e. so we must reconstruct WCauc.1 General remarks 2. *Hŏnŭ ‘bottom’). 32. god’ + *šʷəχʷa ‘grey.‘under’. As a matter of fact Abkhaz–Abaza *a-/*ǝ.1 Attested Hattic chronologically is more ancient than the late ProtoWCauc. 1961. 1994—Hattic roots. used to propose etymological comparisons like follows (e.‘under’. Unfortunately some of the authors mentioned above get caught in the same pitfall. powder’: Adyghe–Kabardian *wa-šχʷa ‘sky’ (< ‘grey sky’).2 As is known. Ivanov’s publications definitely got the problem of Hattic etymology off the ground and serve as a good start point for subsequent studies. * ~ Hatt. structural features).) ~ bringen Sie or u-bi-l ‘he has killed’ ~ übel and so on. 1967. etc.‘from down’. *ǝ. Дунаевская. Ubykh wa-šχʷa ‘thunder and lightning’6 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 6 Not ‘god’.(a nominal prefix with ablative semantics. and Jan Braun (Браун. Despite the fact that I do not agree with the West Caucasian attribution of Hattic. Dunaevskaja (Дунаевская.—Hattic affixes). 425 compare fa-šhaf with the Adyghe–Kabardian and Ubykh compounds of WCauc. 1922. 1996. ‘from top-down’) with Abkhaz–Abaza *a. Vl. The Hattic well-attested lexeme š(a)haf ‘god’ has a regular plural form fa-šhaf ‘deities’. Later J.316 A. Von Mészáros. 2. which can be assuredly reconstructed for the Proto-WCauc. forms. *wa ‘sky.becomes phonetically unlikely (for regular NCauc. *V ‘bottom. language by almost 1000 years. 414 compares Hattic zi. It must be noted that after the outdated von Mészáros’ list of cognates it was Ivanov. 406—Hattic roots and affixes. 134 f. the first Indo-Europeanists of the XVIII c. № 37 and Chirikba.1. Diakonoff (Дьяконов. level. cognates). 89 f. 1996. g. Kassian [UF 41 For the first time the structural similarity between Hattic and West Caucasian languages was noted by E. under (preverb)’ here (< NCauc. . 1960. 2. Ubykh -a ‘bottom. Therefore it is possible to compare Hattic forms only with the WCauc. 229). 1934. 172 ff.) gave the list of grammatical and lexical isoglosses between Hattic and Ubykh. 1985. von Mészáros (1934. Ivanov (in a number of publications. Chirikba.has doubtless cognates in the other WCauc. Forrer (1921. 27 ff.

favorable’ with Adyghe mǝλkʷ ‘property. See Решетников. 1994.2 Structural features and morphosyntax 2.2 Second.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. 2. 1996. Hatt. see Hewitt. malhip ‘good.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 317 (< ‘heavenly blasting powder’). languages (cf. But despite the exact phonetic regularity it is hard to reconstruct such a compound for the Proto-IE level. g. which in fact is a recent Arabic loanword (Arab. it is clear that the Hattic verbal wordform does not coincide directly with attested WCauc. *medv-ědь ‘bear’ (< ‘one who eats honey’) and OInd. e. This comparison is not reliable. where prefixation prevails. 1999 for the Proto-Yenisseian verbal reconstruction. 419 with Abkhaz *tǝ-χǝ ‘to take from inside’.1.). the reconstruction of Proto-WCauc.‘Süßes essend’ (said of birds in Rig-Veda).. since tatpuruṣa madhv-ád.. see Шагиров.4 A great part of previously proposed comparisons must be rejected now with certainty. 1989. As a matter of fact. 173 compares Hatt. since they were based on erroneous and out-of-date interpretation of the Hattic data. affixes.3 There is an old comparison of Slav. etymologies. where *tǝ is a standard locative preverb and *χǝ means ‘to take’ (< WCauc. 1967. Examples. madhv-ád. 196 ff. 149. . since Hattic is almost 3000 years distant from the split of the Common Abkhaz–Abaza proto-language (see fig. *xǝ ‘to take’). fortune’. mulk ‘ownership. verb tuh ‘to take’ is compared by Chirikba. and the same phenomenon in WCauc. 20 compares Hatt. 2.3 Third. subbranch. 1979. today we can operate with modern Abkhaz– Adyghe paradigms only. 272). 2.2. fa-/fi.2. 3 above) and we know that local preverbation is a living and productive model of forming verbal stems in the modern Abkhaz–Abaza dialects. We see the same situation with some previously proposed Hattic– WCauc. forms. 1977 1.2. An example. schemas. We can speak about typological similarity only and suggest monophonemic comparisons between some Hattic and WCauc. property’. On the other hand. polysynthetic verbal morphosyntax is characteristic of some other branches of Sino-Caucasian macrofamily. Such a comparison can hardly be accepted. morphosyntax is the task of future research. Abzakh verbal scheme in Paris.1 All the authors mentioned above note the similarity between the Hattic polysynthetic verbal wordform. 2.1. 2. but in reality Abkhaz -wa forms the names of races (both in singular and plural). Дьяконов. not only of the WCauc. In his turn Браун. sometimes scholars operate with incorrect WCauc.(plural of the nominative and oblique cases) with Abkhaz -wa (a plural marker of the animate class).

innovation. forthc. Lak -n (dative I. isoglosses in these cases. 2. Common NCauc. affixal comparisons. who claims that ProtoNorth Caucasian was an analytic language. On the contrary. Чикобава. 1960 for the rests of the verbal prefixal polysynthetism in the ECauc. super’. Cf. 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. On the other hand.are not less probable than Narrow WCauc. which were previously proposed.cannot be compared with WCauc. 1972 for morphological relicts in the languages of the Sino-Tibetan family. *-nV (ablative. *-nə goes back to the Common NCauc. 8 See Bengtson.and ka. 412 ff.does not exist. 104 for the Burushaski verbal wordform (Hunza-Nager dialect) and. genitive suffix *-nV: Nakh *-n (genitive. 97 ff.4 Fourth. and Браун.is found only in the totally opaque compound ištarrazil ‘earth’ [22’] . Yenisseian. of adjectives and participles. 163 ff. since they are based on the incorrect interpretation of the Hattic grammatical system. the same concerns the morpheme kil.and *Łʷa.318 A. etymologies for Hatt. translative). As a matter of fact WCauc. elative. Lezgh. which possesses verb structure typical of Na-Dene languages.. the authors mentioned above operate with individual affixal comparisons and fail to reconstruct hypothetical Proto-Hattic–WCauc. a and forthc. An example. temporal.-And.on phonetical grounds. b./ nu. isogloss in their lists is the Hatt. On the contrary.). 2000. affixal comparisons possesses cognates in East Caucasian sub-branch of the NCauc. 1996. sets of grammatical morphemes. lative. Av.~ WCauc.7 and was seriously rebuilt in the East Caucasian subbranch8). languages. Nominal zi. but I do not understand on which positive evidence Chirikba’s syntactical theory is based. Braun. *-nə (ergative and general indirect case. g.are unknown (see HWHT. ––––––––––––––––––––––– See Benedict. ha. g. e. 2008.2. 7 . languages. Kassian [UF 41 Berger. 9 Chirikba. In reality the only reliable exclusive Hatt. Burushaski and Na-Dene schemas are also rather similar to the known Hattic verbal wordforms.. suff.‘in . Quite differently Chirikba. The morpheme šta. On the contrary. transformative case). connection in this case. Verbal li. The Hattic genitive marker -n is standardly compared with WCauc. 2002 make attempts to etymologize the system of Hattic local prefixes integratedly. which has been arbitrarily singled out from kiluh ‘runner-spy’ [33’] by J. for similar conclusions about this ECauc. *V. family or in other families of SCauc. macrofamily. ones. infinitive). must be rejected now. 232 f. The meaning and function of Hattic ni. we cannot say that the most part of Hattic auxiliary morphemes finds its counterparts in WCauc. verbal local prefix ta. adjective and participial suffix . infinitive). while Pre-Proto-West Caucasian developed into an isolating (Chinese-like) formation. e. 1998 1.9 An appreciable part of Hattic–WCauc. preverb *tV. and it is impossible to speak about exclusive Hattic–WCauc. therefore we cannot speak about exclusive Hattic–WCauc. possessive case.–WCauc../ za.and fe. for Tanacross. *-n (genitive. Holton. the majority of reliable Hattic–WCauc.

second. root etymologies As is known. 2. 1968). 16 ff. proto-language. 1968. 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.3 Hattic–WCauc. 1858. (the Tanacross language). 2.1 We may assume that the reduction of the root structure in ProtoWCauc. These structures were seriously rebuilt in the WCauc. 157 ff.. where C can be a combination of consonants. e. g) Some listed Hattic phonetic features cannot be included in the comparison. ergative). In its turn the standard Hattic root (both nominal and verbal) is CVC. C—an obstruent consonant or a combination of consonants. isogloss. not with the WCauc. ergative (e. Although an ergative pattern seems most probable for Hattic. for Na-Dene Holton. where C is a consonant or a combination of consonants. b) The Hattic case system is not so “rudimentary” from the typological viewpoint (cf.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 319 terminative. proto-language. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 10 E. with Yenisseian (see Цивьян.3. 82 ff. known at that epoch from East Caucasian languages to Ancient Greek dialects. Taracha. 2. g. f) The restriction on initial r.5 Chirikba. the schema above). . But in this case we must compare Hattic directly with the NCauc.. g. we know too little about the Hattic morphonology and phonetic sandhi.2.. but rather represent an areal feature (cf. since the Hittite cuneiform gives no reliable data for such an analysis and. it cannot prove genetic relationship. the standard ProtoNCauc. R—a sonorant (see NCED. languages. Thus. d) For verbal polysynthetism with prevailing prefixation see above.. c) The role of word formation compounding in Hattic is comparable rather with East Cauc. the neighboring Hurrian language).2. a) The grammatical system of Hattic is debatable. 407 ff. 235 ff. lists structural parallels between Hattic and WCauc. 1996.is a common areal feature. but unfortunately almost all of them do not seem persuasive. where “=” is a class marker. dialects. where the prevailing shape of nominal and verbal roots became CV.. language took place after Hattic had set apart. 1988) or active language (for split activity theory see Goedegebuure. 2. the normal Proto-NCauc. nominal root had the shape CVCV. The phenomenon of unmarking plural in nouns is known from other Sino-Caucasian languages: for the Yenisseian family see Castrén. 2000.3. It is an open question whether Hattic was a nominative-accusative. there are three hypothetical ways to compare Hattic with ProtoWCauc. 2010). g.. verbal root looked like =VCV(R). Топоров /Цивьян.). languages and some other Sino-Caucasian languages10 than with WCauc.

2 Indeed.3 Finally we can compare Hattic roots with compounds or inflected forms from the modern WCauc. roots have reliable NCauc.4. with such approach we immediately get caught in bringen-Sie. A great part of Hattic–WCauc.3 above. and so on. This method is accepted in a number of Vjač. for which see Section 7 below. however.. 1994).2 We can divide Hattic roots into C. Kassian [UF 41 proto-language as it is today reconstructed on the basis of known WCauc.3. release exhaustively’. Adyghe– Kabardian *bzə. *wjV (~ sṭ-. 104). isoglosses are also rather weak. Иванов. *wŏjV (~ --) ‘woman. therefore such comparisons cannot prove an exclusive Hattic–WCauc. dialects. root zuwa. 2.or CV. wǝ is a frequent verbal root ‘to enter. the genetic relationship to the WCauc.root nucleus with some consonant extensions of unknown nature. comparison is self-suggesting. Even if we undertake a monophonemic etymologization of Hattic CVC-roots.or madhvad-pitfalls. 2.3. 2. data. a small number of probable WCauc.4. 58. cognates. Of course. Браун. Braun’s etymologies (e. 1985. to let in’ with Ubykh a-wǝ-la ‘to let. Grammatical Hatt. An example. *-zV is not an isolated form. Браун. for which see 2. or Hattic–SCauc. isoglosses which were previously proposed need to be left out. walk.4. loanwords in Hattic. and the direct Hattic–NCauc. Ubykh bza.5. female’ (further to SCauc.4 Conclusions 2. 1994. № 45 compares Hatt. šul ‘to let.1. but in almost all these cases proposed WCauc. 2.4. dialects. Иванов. bitch’ (Abkhaz–Abaza *pəsə.3. 50. due to the fundamental difference in root structure. prefix *pǝ-).–WCauc. № 11. 19 compares Hatt. go’ (< WCauc.1 Hattic cannot be directly compared with WCauc. In reality WCauc. . with the frequent Proto-WCauc.2–2. sub-branch cannot be proved. 20.is a preverb used with verbs of motion (Vogt. relationship.4. *pə-zV ‘female. 2. 2. ~ --) ‘female’).1. An example. 2. 1985. but goes back to NCauc. Ivanov’s and J. but it is clear that it is the way to nowhere. since the regularity of phonemic correspondences in monophonemic comparisons must be established by a solid corpus of cognates that is not the case. 22. since they are based on incorrect and out-of-date Hattic data. g. where a. *ŁʷV ‘to enter’ < NCauc. while -la is a regular exhaustive suffix.4. 1963. enter’).in suffixed zuwa-tu ‘wife’ with WCauc. *=rƛŬ ‘to go. It is worth noting.320 A. Hattic possesses a number of monoconsonantal roots which can be compared with WCauc.

SCauc. Note that Hatt. tumil and šam(a) possess reliable SCauc. t. g. For the preliminary comparative phonetics of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily see SCC (this work was not finished and therefore remains unpublished). cannot be proved due to the scantiness of Hattic lexical data. *č ~ Hatt. genetic relationship cannot be established by a couple of comparisons (even if they belong to the Swadesh wordlist). it is very likely that Hattic represents a separate branch of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily. Of course. on fig. It is important that the percentage of the so called basic vocabulary in my list is relatively high. tumil ‘rain’ ~ Kartv. Below I list a number of Hattic root and auxiliary morphemes with probable SCauc. *sem.. SCauc. can be found in Старостин. 2007 (both in Russian and English). Some other papers by the same author. 1986. and therefore can be regarded as common innovations. cognates. comm. but it should be noted that: a) the main part of the proposed phonemic correspondences are trivial (e. macrofamily. Starostin (pers.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 321 3 Previously proposed Kartvelian attribution Girbal. Yenisseian and Sino-Tibetan—was partially substantiated on the ground of regular phonetic correspondences in Старостин.) as part of the ongoing research on the Preliminary Lexicostatistical Tree of the world’s languages (within the “Evolution of Human Language” project. Gabeskiria. *wim. k and so on). SCauc.dbf. 1998 attempted to add some new Kartvelian cognates of Hattic lexemes. t~š (/č/?). b) some special types of phonetic developments (e. The tree has been compiled by G. dedicated to the Sino-Caucasian problem.‘to hear’.1 Sino-Caucasian (or Dene-Sino-Caucasian) macrofamily For the first time the genetic relationship between three proto-families—North Caucasian. 160–163 proposes four Hattic–Kartvelian root etymologies.. 4 Sino-Caucasian hypothesis Although the WCauc. 4. šam(a) ‘to hear (vel sim. the regularity of the assumed phonemic correspondences between Hattic and Proto-SCauc. two of them are striking : Hatt. cognates. g. *ƛ ~ Hatt. As in the case of the NCauc. *p ~ Hatt. Of course. The highly preliminary Sino-Caucasian etymological dictionary is available as Sccet. SCauc. f. 2) the following preliminary SinoCaucasian tree is based on 50-wordlists (see com. * ~ Hatt. and we must treat these etymologies as chance coincidences. family (fig. SCauc.)’ ~ Kartv. l. consonant cluster simplification) are very typical of the other daughter proto-languages of the SCauc. attribution of Hattic is improbable. 1982/2007. *k ~ Hatt. 33 f. supported by the Santa Fe Insti- .‘to rain’ and Hatt. 2 above for detail). but without much success—for the criticism of Gabeskiria’s studies see HWHT.

based on Peiros/Starostin. which has been published as NCED (w. The Na-Dene branch on fig. The Proto-Na-Dene reconstruction is not done (or not published) yet. NCauc. and add the Hattic column with suggested Hattic counterparts.–Na-Dene one. 4. not to the STib. lit. Pace the work Diakonoff / Starostin. 1982/2007 and Yenet. lit. See Kassian. whose cells are sometimes incomplete or.—these cells are marked by footnotes. stocks. 4). Isolated Burushaski and Basque also do not provide considerable help due to natural reasons.11 The tree gives the general frame of the SCauc. STib. Starostin with the exception of few cells important to us. 1996 (w. family—Stibet. daughter families this schema will probably be improved.). therefore I do not use Na-Dene data in my paper. Three main proto-languages are the basis of the SCauc. 2010 for some details. 1995 and Werner. stock of the NCauc. 4 does not include the Haida language. 1986.1. macro-family (at the beginning of the 2000s S. During the continuing studies of SCauc. Yen. Kassian [UF 41 tute): fig.dbf. on the contrary. but it is clear that Hurro-Urartian belongs to the NCauc. the tables are quoted as they have been compiled by S. branch.–Yen. redundant. Starostin himself tended to lean towards the same conclusion).dbf. 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.–Burush. and some isoglosses may prove the specific relationship between the Hurro-Urartian and Yen. The correspondences are illustrated by the Hattic examples taken from sections 5. They possess relatively welldone comparative grammars (especially phonetics) and etymological dictionaies. 4. based on Старостин. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 11 Position of the Hurro-Urartian proto-language is not quite clear. Starostin did not manage to finish SCC—in particular it concerns the phonetic charts. which I corrected. unfortunately S.2 Phonetic correspondences Below I quote phonetic charts from SCC. reconstruction : North Caucasian.1 and 6. . it is very likely that this cluster represents a separate branch of the SCauc. 24 ff. family. 2002 with additions and corrections. but it must be stressed that the tree cannot be regarded as a final solution. family—Caucet. but seriously improved. As it was said above.). macrofamily. Sino-Tibetan and Yenisseian.dbf. where Hurro-Urartian is traditionally included into the ECauc. family—Старостин. Despite this fact.322 A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*t. maššel ‘cult performer. SCauc. miš ‘to take (for oneself)’ [53’]. however. None of these roots possesses a reliable SCauc.(for the list see HWHT. mai(u) ‘a valuable cloth’ [48’]. *čVwV ‘to pour. leave’ > ti ‘to lie. bed stone’ [56’]. *d were merged in Hatt. In addition cf. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > *tuwil > tumil ‘rain’ [62] 4. Cf.> -um. chanter. slash’ [50’]. *ma(ʔ) ‘take!’ (the comparison is possible if we suppose the loss of the final consonant in Yen. muna-muna ‘foundation. the same concerns conjunction ma ‘and’ [47’] and noun mu ‘mother. which alternate with variants fa and fu respectively (note that mu /fu ‘mother. mar or kamar ‘to slit. *=ătV ‘to put.2.2 Dentals SCauc. relating to tree. At least for two of the mentioned stems the source of borrowing can be established: malhip ‘good. lady. clown?’ [51’].)’ [54’]. *ṭ.). miš ‘to take (for oneself)’ [53’]. Hattic possesses a few grammatical prefixes in m. and cultural terms clearly prevail in the list. mistress (vel sim. belonging to the basic vocabulary. wet’ > tefu ‘to pour’ [57] STib. since the situation. Second. This fact. 911 w.‘thy’ (2nd person sg.in Proto-Yen. base. maššel or paršel ‘cult performer. lit. Its SCauc. personal pronoun). *dHV ‘to grow.)’ [54’]. put’ [55] SCauc.)’ [54’] is attested only as the second element of compounds). mistress (vel sim. big’ > te ‘big’ [54] .). muš ‘smth. *maʷV ‘good. Hatt. An interesting case is Hatt. favorable’ [49’] < WCauc. chanter. t (~ tt). is not so rare in the word languages. mistress (vel sim. fruit?’ [57’]. *w is generally retained in Hattic: SCauc. some of these prefixes have variants with initial f.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 329 ma /fa ‘and’ [47’].(that resembles similar phonotactical process in Hittite): SCauc. possessive pronoun) [77] SCauc. allegro forms)—an exceptional case of preserving m.: SCauc. lady. etymology. 165. u. muh(al) ‘hearth’ [55’]. On the other hand. cognate may be Yen. 230 f. luck’ (with lhip for the palatalized labialized lateral *ʷ).2. so we can threat all these words as loans. mṣl (māṣilu) ‘cymbal player’. lady. known from Hittite texts (HWHT. favorable’ [49’]. ox’ [52’]. mu /fu ‘mother. malhip ‘good. clown?’ [51’] < WSem. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to take’ > ku ‘to seize’ [19] In one case we see the dissimilative nasalization *-uw. when auxiliary morphemes violate common phonotactical rules.(see HWHT. *wV ‘thou’ > we ‘thou’ (2nd person sg.). which is probably the same deity as Dmezulla. *lw ‘to be able’ ~ lu ‘to be able’ [25] SCauc. does not contradict our theory. milup or lup?? ‘bull. 230 f. Dfazulla.

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

is strongly prohibited for Hattic root and auxiliary morphemes (an exception is the fossilized r-suffix. *) and palatal (*č. 156). Initial r. *mt ‘to eat. The comparison seems reliable despite the fact that the standard way to eliminate initial *r.. SCauc. voiceless alveolar affricates *c. The closest analogy is Proto-Yen. Despite this irregularity the comparison can hardly be rejected: SCauc. *wjV (~ sṭ-. e.2 above: NCauc. *č > Yen.in other positions.2.. daughter-languages is > t-/d-. *) affricates are similar: Hattic stop or affricate in the initial position and Hattic sibilant -š. SCauc. drink’ > tu ‘to eat’ [59] Non-initially: SCauc. of predator’ > praš ‘leopard’ [37] STib. I suppose that SCauc. *-r. * remains without explanation. which is in all likelihood a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/. *bŭt) > puš-an ‘to blow on’ [43] Some roots show Hattic z. *s. *wēχV ‘stick. -š.> Hattic š-. *[p]ūH ‘to blow’ (STib. *cōjwlɦV ‘rainy season’ > tumil ‘rain’ [62] SCauc. swallow’ ~ puš ‘to devour’ [42] SCauc. etymologically singled out in some nominal and verbal stems). were SCauc. *bħĕr ‘a k. 1982/2007. *č-. ripe’ > hel ‘to ripen’ [11].2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 331 There is one example for SCauc. g. timber’ ~ zeha-r.in SCauc. * yield Hatt. Initially: SCauc. see 4. SCauc..2. while Yen. cf. z-reflex of SCauc. pungent’ ~ zipi-na ‘sour’ [66] In one case Hatt.in other positions. *x(w)Vr ‘old. ~ --) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68] . *r1 gives l-reflexes in most attested languages (Старостин. -l-: SCauc.3 Alveolar. *=ĕẮ ‘to put’ > eš (~ et?) ‘to put’ [4] SCauc. This process of fricativization in the medial and final position runs parallel with Proto-Yen. voiceless alveolar (*c.> Yen. *-r. ziha-r ‘wood’ [64] STib. post-alveolar and palatal affricates Reflexes of SCauc. *cp (~ ć-) ‘bitter.> Hatt. t.2..in the initial position and Hatt. *=V ‘to eat.‘heart’ [47]. heart’ > šaki. *rĕḳw ‘breast. *r. 4.2. *r/r1 with unknown distribution.

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

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

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

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 335 SCauc. *ćH ‘to work. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39] Of course one can try to explain it by the influence of an old labialized consonant. salty’ > wet (fet?) ‘sour’ [34] SCauc. *=ắčw (STib. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] SCauc. Starostin) lose the labial element in Hattic.‘heart’ [47] SCauc. guard’ > (a)ku ‘escort’ [20] SCauc. *ɦrwĔ ‘wide’ > harki. : SCauc. *rĕḳw ‘breast. plural of the accusative case [70] The same with velars/uvulars: SCauc.2. search’ > hukur ‘to see’ [13] SCauc. They yield reflexes which coincide with their non-labialized counterparts: SCauc. hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12] In a few cases Hattic shows unmotivated u-vocalism: SCauc. dead’ > fun ‘mortality’ [40] 4. timber’ ~ zeha-r.2. big’ > te ‘big’ [54] STib. h: SCauc. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look. *dHV ‘to grow. *Hōk ‘to look. *HmoŋV ‘to die. *=Hǯ(-n) ‘clear (of weather)’ > eštan ‘sun’ [5] SCauc. *čäłHu ‘earth. *ĆŏH) ‘to take’ > tuh ‘to take’ [60] SCauc. *H (an unidentified laryngeal) > Hatt.8 Clusters with *w SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock. As a matter of fact five examples above. to build’ ~ teh ‘to build’ [56] SCauc. *HŭxqwĂ ‘to preserve. *wjV (~ sṭ-. plural stem marker ~ aš-/iš-. *-š:w. *wēχV ‘stick. ziha-r ‘wood’ [64] SCauc. ~ --) ‘female’ > zuwa-tu ‘wife’ [68] SCauc. scatter’ ~ hel ‘to strew’ [10] SCauc. labialized consonants (treated as Cw-clusters by S. *q(h)ʷār ‘to throw (into water).‘wide’ [9] NCauc. see’ > kun ‘to see’ [21] SCauc. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > LÚluizzi-l ‘runner’ [26] NCauc. *ćH ‘to govern. *ɦmjwV ‘sour. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose. *mlćwV ‘to blow. sand’ > šahhu ~ tahhu ‘ground’ [45] STib. *H (an unidentified laryngeal) > Hatt. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ ~ han ‘to open’ [8] STib. heart’ > šaki. lord’ ~ šai-l ~ tai-l ‘lord’ [46] SCauc. wind’ > pezi-l ‘wind’ [35] NCauc. . speak against such a supposition. where labialized velars/uvulars completely lose their labial element without vowel change.

*HŭxqwĂ ‘to preserve. ripe’ > hel. leopard’ > take-ha ‘lion’ [51] SCauc. h. guard’ > (a)ku ‘escort’ [20] SCauc. *sṭ : SCauc.2. *xq > Hatt. clusters of the type *xK(w) (where K—velar/uvular) yield Hatt. Kassian [UF 41 4. k: SCauc. t. hide’ > her ‘to hide’ [12] SCauc. *čxqV ‘to scratch.2. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look. *ST > Yen. incrustation. see’ > kun ‘to see’ [21] SCauc. *štɦrV ‘crust. *xgw > Hatt. h: SCauc. SCauc. h. horn’ > kaiš ‘horn’ [14] SCauc. k: SCauc. shell’ > tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] SCauc. clusters of the ST-type yield Hatt. *štw (with a secondary “Hittite” assibilation /ti/ > /ʦi/): SCauc. *št: SCauc. h: SCauc.336 A. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > puluku ‘leaves’ [39] 4. bolt’ > *halu ‘bolt. *x(w)Vr ‘old. reflex (SCauc.2. *ḳVłV (~ xḳ-) ‘lock. *x > Hatt. k: SCauc. SCauc. *xḳəlčwí ‘forelock. hil ‘to ripen’ [11] SCauc. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose. *xw > Hatt.2. to shave’ > taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] SCauc. *xḳ > Hatt. *xqw > Hatt.10 ST-clusters SCauc. *hilštwĒ ‘to run (away)’ > *luiti-l > luizzi-l ‘runner’ [26] . scrape. *sṭnV ‘panther. skin. *t). that coincides with the Proto-Yen. lock’ [6] SCauc. k: SCauc.9 xK(w)-clusters SCauc. k or h without evident rule of distribution.

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

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

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

tu ‘to eat’ [59] 5 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian root comparisons Entries are arranged in the following alphabetic order: a. VCV > Hatt. n. *=axgwV(n) ‘to look. *kʷēn ~ Yen. k. t.~ Basque *ecan ~ Hatt.~ Hatt. ti ‘to lie.2 (dubious grammatical comparisons).1 (reliable root comparisons) is continued in section 6.~ Burush. lip. *=VmVr ~ STib. VC: SCauc. aliw) ‘tongue. which is continued in 6.1 (reliable grammatical comparisons). *ʔes. *dhăH ~ Yen.2 (dubious root comparisons). l. drink’ > NCauc. =V-CVR > Hatt. alef (alep. *Khu ~ Hatt. *=ǟḳĂw ‘to take’ > NCauc. *=ǟḳĂw ~ STib. kun ‘to see’ [21] SCauc. The numeration in section 5. put’ [55] SCauc. *=ătV-r ~ STib. *=igwVł ~ STib. 5. *qo ~ Hatt. *=ătV ‘to put. *śi/*ṣi/*ṣu ~ Hatt. ku ‘to seize’ ‘to seize’ [19] SCauc. =V-CV > Hatt. CV: SCauc. *ānp ‘tongue. CVR: NCauc. *=ĕẮ ‘to put’ > NCauc. word. VCV > Hatt. Kassian [UF 41 SCauc. *=iĂ ~ Yen. (a)nti ‘to stand. *=aχwVn ‘to open’ ~ Hatt. → Comments and references. stay’ [28] SCauc. stay’ > NCauc. to lick’ > . *sī. see’ > NCauc. √ SCauc. The same concerns the numeration with character stroke (’) in section 5.340 A. her ‘to hide’ [12] SCauc. e/i. Hattic data. VCV: SCauc. eš ‘to put’ [4] SCauc. *koj (~ -l) ~ Basque *gal. š/s. cognates 1. u. *=VV ~ STib. m. = Hittite equivalent in bilingual or quasi-bilingual texts. z. *ʒha-H ~ Yen. *=ígwVł (*gwłV) (~ xgw-) ‘to lose. √ Proposed Sino-Caucasian etymology. hide’ > NCauc.1 Roots with reliable SCauc. han ‘to open’ [8] SCauc. h. *=mV(r) ‘to stand. to say?’ = Hitt. leave’ > NCauc. EME. alip. f/p/w. The entries have the following structure: No. *=V ‘to eat. *ćhi-H ~ Hatt. *di(j) ~ Hatt. *=agwV ~ STib.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*bVga ‘fox. → SCauc. 58. 20: to WCauc. but not quite reliable in view of too general semantics.‘rain(?)’ (found in compound). In the case of praš Hattic shows development *CVRC > CRVC. Kiranti *min ‘to think’. PÌRIG. *bħĕrĭ (~ -ĕ) ‘wolf’ > Nakh *bɦor ‘wolf’. *λwłʔV ‘wind. Kassian [UF 41 Vocalically the Hattic word is closer to the NCauc. *boo ‘wolf’. to perceive. to smell’. *bA ~ *p:A ‘to see’). 37. feštap. An interesting Hattic–STib. of predator’ > NCauc. and Chirikba. clusters r + affricate in Hattic. prefix *pə-). . isogloss. to blow’ with WCauc. Untenably Браун. 聞 *mən ‘to hear. to blow’ (< NCauc. № 33.TUR. 1994. → The Hattic root was probably **pVnu with a reduction of the medial vowel in prefixed forms. WCauc. look’ = Hitt. ušk-. The Hattic root can be paraš (with an occasional reduction paraš > praš in the prefixed form) or praš. № 63. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’. 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).-And. √ STib. Lak bar ‘wolf’. 36. praš or paraš ‘leopard’ (attested form: ha-praš-un) = Hitt. branch (see SCC. → A rather interesting case. Av. 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. loanword in view of the root structure and semantic difference: the shift ‘wolf’ < > ‘leopard’ is possible in the case of long separate language development. 1985. which is an exclusive feature of the STib. *pəλ:ʷa ‘wind. Tsez. *mVn ‘to perceive. fēštap. hyena’ (a Proto-WCauc. Dargwa *be ‘wolf’. proto-form than to the STib.352 A. to think’ > Chin. If so. *bɔə A ‘wolf’. Arin ṕhjástap. one. *bVgV-bVV ‘jackal. Not plausibly Иванов. Yen. 1985. compound : NCauc. to get to know. 88). where the Hattic element zil is compared with unclear Kabardian ə. In the case of paraš one should suggest a retention of sonorant in the SCauc. *pe(ʔ)s-tap (~ -b) ‘wolverine’ > Kott. Basque *oćo ‘wolf’. pheštap. *bħĕr (~ -ĕ) ‘a k. Unconvincingly Иванов. jackal’ + ‘wolf’). pnu ‘to observe. 421 (to WCauc. The Hattic word cannot be a NCauc. 1996.

2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 353 This NCauc. 11. mortals’ = Hitt. *HmoŋV ‘to die. Persian pārs ‘leopard. Burm.-And. *p:əǴə (~ b-) ‘leaf. Kachin maŋ1 ‘a corpse. tea-leaf’. *ʕapālwĔ (~ ɦ-) ‘burdock . + WCauc. 20 (Hatt. → Hattic fulašne should be analyzed as a compound fula-šne. *HabuḳV ‘burdock’. puluku ‘leaves.’ probably originate from some Anatolian Post-Hittite language. fire. δ. isogloss. phak ‘leaf (of tree)’. dispute). foliage. dead’ > STib. *ʕapālxw ‘leaf’ > NCauc. Tsez. *mŋ ‘to die’ > Chin. 38. 12. *mor (~ -u-) ‘grain’ > Burm. Lushai hmor-hāŋ ‘name of a sp. 1985. Burush. praš ‘leopard’ [37].in paršna-.–Hattic stem is widespread in Eurasia as a Wanderwort with the meaning ‘leopard’. 68 ff. leaf(?)’ > Av. also ‘leopardman (a cult functionary)’ (OS+) is very similar to Hattic except for the root structure CVRC. → An interesting Hattic–STib. Kachin phaʔ 2-lap 2 ‘tea. paršana. but semantically corresponds to the Hattic stem. fun (pun.–Yen. pwrδnk. 39. carcass’.in πάρδᾰλις.from the phonetic viewpoint speak for the NCauc. (LB) *mhaŋ ‘corpse’. see Николаев. etc. panther’ and numerous Turkic forms brs. of berry’. Lushai maŋ ‘to die’. pars ‘tiger. 40. *HmérV ‘a k. *ʕemu(a) ‘burdock’. bread offering’ √ STib. origin (with regular NCauc. tefu-šne ‘libation’ [57]). Dargwa *heul(i) ‘burdock’. Yug boŋ. used in ritual action. παρδ-/ πορδ. of zo (rice)’.‘leopard’. dying’. ? WCauc. √ SCauc. tree. of weed’ → For an anaptyxis between l and velar in the Hattic stem cf. 薨 *smŋ ‘to die (of king)’. 33). *bilágur ‘a k. where šne [89’] means ‘offering’ (cf. Untenably Браун. *fula ‘bread’ in fula-šne ‘bread. greenery’ = Hitt. √ SCauc. *boŋ ‘dead man’ > Ket bōŋ. animal. parš. munʔ ‘bread’. Hitt. *phak (~ bh-) ‘leaf’ > Burm. *palIʷ ‘burdock’. Yen. Grk. πόρδᾰλις ‘leopard’ (Hom. but the exact source of borrowing can hardly be established. № 8. STib. In all probability the STib. dandukeššar. of rice’. .). Lezgh. to open (of leaves)’. wuun) or funa (puna.+) as well as Iranian forms like Sogd. Lepcha mak ‘to die (said of man. lahhurnuzziyant-. leopard. 1994. * > Grk. root is not connected with SCauc. Lepcha jă-mór-zo ‘a spec. wuuna) ‘mortality. Kiranti *phk ‘leaf’.

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

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

etc. hack. rub’ > Av.(/ =us-) ‘to say. → A Hattic–Yen. *smen ‘to listen (to)’. LÚŠU. close’.’ among the Yenisseian languages. to tear’. rub. **sVmV (with regular morphonological processes in the Proto-NCauc.‘to scrape’. -dup ‘to close’. This comparison is exact both phonetically and semantically. Kott. *čãχ:. but the basic meaning of the plain stem is ‘to shave’ (see Yenet.(~ -ʁ-) ‘to write’.‘to hear’ < Afro-Asiatic *sim. tumil ‘rain’ [62]). to tear’. 205). bevel’. ‘Barbier (ein Kultdiener)’ = Hitt. ha-čīp ‘to cover’. 370 proposes that the Hattic loanword in Hittite Ékaškaštipa.dbf. šam(an) with Kartv. Werner. *ʔasV ‘to be silent. *ǯ. *čVqV/*qVčV ‘to scratch. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 19 .‘to scrape. data. tell’. The Hatt.-And. *ć/  and *č/  / ǯ.–NCauc. Dargwa *=urs. *čxqV ‘to scratch. 163. 2004. due to the scantiness of the NCauc.-And. listen (> to talk)’ > Av. KÁ. to peel. to listen’. *iχ:an. Girbal. → The Proto-NCauc. 20 In many compounds this verbal root has the meaning ‘to split. Hattic shows a very common semantic shift ‘cover’ > ‘door’. Dargwa *=išq. make notches.may originate from SCauc. possessing reliable Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic cognates (Kartet.> -RC-.I. *χ:Vč. 1986. but proceeding from general reasons we must treat it as a mere accidental coincidence (cf. √ SCauc. *ǯīp ‘to cover. verbal stem: reduction of the medial vowel and metathesis -CR. form may originate from virtual SCauc. 167). see SCC.dbf #836 . to close’ > Ket -dɔp ‘to plug’. to plug.)’ √ NCauc. → For Hattic nomina agentis in -ya cf. 50. *sem.dbf. Klimov. A borrowing of such a basic term from Akkad. Yen.). 49.356 A. 162 compares Hatt.20 Burush.‘to hear’. Yug i:hp4 ‘to cover. but I think that we deal with a compound wordforming here: kašku ‘gate building’ [29’] + štip ‘gate’. listen (vel sim.‘to scratch. hāran-čex ‘to hack. *qhaṣ ‘to rub’.‘to be quiet. silent’. šemû ‘to hear’ (< Semitic *šVmaʕ. Tsez. Kott. comparison is somewhat doubtful. *=a(m)sV ‘to be silent. although the binding vowel change u > a remains unclear. Yen. The Hattic meaning exSoysal. taha-ya ‘barber’. isogloss. šam(a) (and perhaps sam-an) ‘to hear. √ Yen. scrape’ > NCauc. Kassian [UF 41 48. Afaset. Lezgh. 2002 1. para-ya ‘priest’.‘ear’) is not probable. a similar situation with Hatt. portal’ is a reduplicated formation *kas(k)-kas(k)-tipa with the suffix -tipa (known as -šepa / -zipa from other Hittite stems). however. 1998. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ > Ket dɔ:3. scrape. *sVs(Vn).‘gatehouse. Yug ou3 // o:. štip (probably not tip19) ‘gate’ = Hitt. Lezgh. 1 f. to fidget.

STib. Sccet. 2005 w. *ch-.dbf reconstructs the SCauc. proto-form as *nV (~ sṭ-). scil. ounce. but *sṭ. UR. priest’. 2009. takeha. *ir:V ‘lynx. mercy’ > Nakh *ēbV ‘idol. Lak ini ‘tiger. ancestor. go to pay court. w. Kiranti *sík-ba ‘tiger. lit. root. Yakubovich. pity’. Despite this fact the comparison is reliable both phonetically and semantically. snow leopard’.and ftawananna. *ǟnV ‘lynx. gzig ‘leopard. tawaarna) ‘lord’. Иванов. leopard’. lit. Dargwa *ir ‘panther’.SAG(-i-). gćom. takiha. *mbi ‘god. (for the Anatolian origin of tabarna and tawananna). 2008. *[]mbi ‘superpower’ > NCauc. √ SCauc. → 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’. hero’ = Hitt. bćom ‘pride. etc. mercy. → Widely discussed Hattic words. *sṭnV ‘panther. *:VbV ‘mercy. daughter languages except the NCauc. 51.). (both scholars advocate non-IE. № 50 compares Hattic ta-ha-ya with WCauc. *ćūm ‘honour. branch. 宗 *ćūŋ ‘to honour.-And.dbf reconstructs the SCauc. Av. Burm. Dargwa *um ‘pity’. 146 f. previous lit. *V ‘to comb .MAH. also with the “masculine” l-suffix takeha-l. We know several dozens of Hattic loanwords in Hittite21 (especially concern––––––––––––––––––––––– 21 For the list see now Goedegebuure. heathen deity. the title of the Hittite king . the title of the Hittite reigning queen = Hitt.is more preferable in view of STib. and EDHIL w. takiha-l ‘lion. porcupine’. 229 ff. Lak imi ‘grace. to scrape’ (< NCauc. w. ‘Herrscherin’. 1985. leopard’ > NCauc. labarna-. The theory of borrowing such regal terms from Luwian or Hittite into Hattic (and Palaic) is not very probable proceeding from general reasons. . haughtiness. 18 ff. panther’ > Nakh *ō ‘ounce. Hattic origin of tabarna) vs. UR. Sccet. lit.And. grace’. proto-form as *čqV (~ -xq-) which seems unjustified. see now Soysal. snow leopard’. √ SCauc. 52. authority’ > Chin. Av. (kjah)-sać ‘leopard’. *chi(ə)k ‘leopard’ > Tib. 2003a. *hrĕgwē ‘comb’) which is not persuasive either phonetically or morphologically.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 357 actly matches the Yen. and Melchert. Tib. The simplification *nK > K seems regular for Hattic as well as for the other SCauc. leopard’. Kachin čum ‘authority’. god . tabarna. STib. tafarna (tabarna. (f) tawananna ‘lady’. master’. arrogance’.

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

Note that we do not have any positive evidence that tapra and labra represent a single morpheme. 2003a. 26 For the latter cf. tafarna can hardly be explained if one assumes a loan nature of this lexeme in Hattic. *T. Of course. postulating of Luw. To sum up the onomastic discussion. A PN dapara = Grk. 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. 27 Yakubovich. we know an opposite occasional process Anat. l. šuppi‘clear’. which is known in some divine epithets of the first millennium BC or later. da-pu/pu2-ri-to.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 359 but de divinités’ (GLH. but it is not obligatory due to the absence of a vowel between labial and r in tapra (cf. advocating the Luwian origin of Hattic tafarna. as proposed in Valério.!) adj. also hypothetical Linear A -du-pu2-re ‘master’. 247). 3) The Luwian verbal stem tabar. Finally. In any case. which was being transcribed 25 . stable spelling labarna clearly contradicts Melchert’s phonetic theory). λαβύρινθος .in Luw. t. dapu/pu2-ri-to. Λαπαρας). texts. for Hitt. since the element šupi well attested in Cappadocian onomastics can be rather assuredly identified with Hitt. etc. but by l in the title labarna and the onomastic element lapra. not **tabarna. /δaβar/ with a unique phoneme /δ/. can hardly be justified from my point of view.25 or even to the more archaic term λαβύρινθος = Myc. also possible Hurr. Lyc.= Grk.-Luw. (not Luw. derivates). while t/labarna is uniformly spelled as labarna in CLuw. Yakubovich’s examples: Myc. 2009.with derivates as well as their Hittite counterparts (tabarija. 5) /f/ (waa) in Hatt.‘to rule’. 29.27 ––––––––––––––––––––––– The Carian city and Zeus shrine Labraunda.> Luw. tabar. injunction’.‘to rule’ (with various Hitt.< Luw. the fourth name Šupi-lapra. 4) The alternation tabarna ~ labarna can hardly be explained within HittitoLuwian phonology. one can attempt to connect lapra to the Mediterranean morpheme λαβρ-. postulates the new Luwian phoneme /β/ for this case (/daβarna/).) never show t/l-alternation. 2007. whose origin and meaning are vague.in Luwian loanwords in Hittite is not supported by any positive evidence and looks too complicated and factitious (note that the CLuw. A hypothetical one-example scenario proposed by Melchert. for which see below. tabar. Λάβρανδα) or the epithet of Zeus in Cyprus Λαβράνιος. 2002). 230 fn.(see Yakubovich. l-. On the contrary.‘order. known from some ancient Greek authors like Herodotus or Strabo (Λάβραυνδα. which was rendered by t. With some difficulties in Cappadocian personal names we can reveal morphemes tapra and lapra. cognate of tapra above). 18 ff.26 On the other hand tapra can be identified with Luw.seems Hittite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*:ʷijV ‘female’. travel’ > NCauc. Yug čɨʔs. HUR. STib. the protoform of plural). ehu. DAM. Av. paradigm is the result of a secondary morphological reanalysis. *wV ‘small stone’ (reconstructing the SCauc. Burush. forms with NCauc. Probably *hejVŋ developed from Early Proto-Yen.‘to walk (go)’. pl. mountain’ > Yen. *čəʔ-ŋ ‘rock’ > Ket tɨʔś. nun. an ‘to come (here?)’. imp. šīš. + WCauc. and Burush. zuwa-tu ‘wife’ or rather ‘concubine’ = Hitt. ziš ‘mountain’ = Hitt. (Sal) grandmother’. *čɨʔs ‘stone’. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’. √ SCauc. √ SCauc. but probably the Yen. wah) ‘to set. Tsez. šeŋ. pl. Av. princess’. root as *wV ‘stone’) which seems theoretically possible. befehlen” = Hitt. and roots without etymology 1’. *=ʔ-.-And. → A Hattic–Yen. Similarly Иванов. Kassian [UF 41 67.2 Loans.-And. and Браун. 29). *hejVŋ ‘to go’ > Ket ējeŋ1 / ɛjeŋ5 . WCauc. Lak c:u.–Burush. + incorrectly WCauc. Yug ejiŋ1 . 雌 *ćhej ‘female’.‘female’.SAG. *=Vʔwŋ ‘to go. √ SCauc. STib. ah and/or fah (waah. 68. *wŏjV (~ --) ‘woman. un-. *pə-zV).368 A. set in order. pl.dbf #140 unites Yen. Hurr. Sccet. ~ --) ‘female’ > NCauc. *ɨšV (~ č-) ‘stone. ‘setzen. isogloss. *čɨʔs may be a singulative suffix (cf. Lak na-. -ŋ) ‘to go’. Kott. Synchronically *-s in Yen. female’ > Nakh *psṭuw ‘wife. to command’. watarnahh-. > Chin. pl. Kott. Basque *a-ćo ‘old woman. Yen. Burush. but not very apt either semantically or phonetically. Arin kes.‘to come’. Basque *e-oHa-n ‘to go’. 19 (Hatt. *sʷə(mə)V ‘woman’). *né. *=VʔVn-. *pə-zV ‘female. . dai-. 1994. bitch’. cf. Urart. № 83 (Hatt. hejaŋ. 5. 2’. *ʔʷă (s-. *ʔwVʔwVŋ < *ʔVʔwVŋ (SCC. tʌʔŋ / tʌŋa:n3. kit. ana ‘come (here?)!’ = Hitt. *wjV (~ sṭ-. (ein)ordnen. pah. Pump. čʌŋa:n3 ‘rock’. 1985. → Hattic -tu is the “female” suffix -t(u)/-š(u). čʌʔŋ. *=VʔwVn ‘to go’ > Nakh *ʡo-. dubia. + East Cauc.

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

habalginnu ‘a k. γέφῡρα (~ β-. 17. Lak =uk:i-. 8’.as observed in Hurr. know’. → The same word is found in Hittite (habalki ‘iron’) and Hurrian (habalgi/ abalgi ‘iron’).‘to summon up’. brḏl ‘iron’.‘to say.. CAD A2. MAss. → Cf. hapalki ‘iron’ = Hitt. kul. → An unclear compound. *ħānħV ‘fat’. LÚhantipšufa ‘cook’ = Hitt. if we reject the STib. *ga. 11’. then probably ha-palki from the hypothetical root *palk. throne’ = Hitt. WCauc. see below sub kinawar ‘copper’ [34’] for detail (for the first time the idea about the .’ [12’]. *ʔalga(n). galliš. Further cf. etc. Lezgh.. GIŠhalmaššuitta-. Arm. Dubious STib. parzillu ‘iron’. Turk. *=alg[w]Ăn ‘to speak’ > Av. 399 f. *gʷVl-. who tentatively propose that Hatt. hanti (hant?) ‘to summon up?’ =? Hitt. hanau ‘food?’ → Cf. parza ‘iron ore’ and subsequently the Luwian form was adopted by neighboring Semitic dialects: Akkad. hanail. hapalki ‘id.-And.’ see an extended discussion in Martirosyan. (D)hanfašuit ‘Throne-goddess. Kassian [UF 41 of the Hattic term. of metal’ (Reiter. 9’. The comparison is possible. cf. dam. On similar Grk. *köper ‘id. reconstruct SCauc. NCauc. 12’. Hurr. kamurǰ ‘bridge’. fn. *khān (~ *gh-) ‘to see. 15 . Ugar.370 A. bridge’. The Hattic terminus technicus was borrowed as Akkadian (OB. timber (in construction of house. ship)’ (CDA. If genuine Hattic.BAR. 1997. GIŠDAG. AN. forthc. SCauc. abalgi ‘iron’ < Hatt. to pronounce solemnly’. 78) probably via Hurrian with the same loss of h. → Apparently a compound: hanfa-šuit.33 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 33 Cf. **palki ‘iron (ore?)’ was borrowed as Luw. Dargwa *=[a]lgwVn. Nuzi) amrû ‘beam. borrowed probably via Hurrian intermediation. look. Valério / Yakubovich. δ-) ‘dyke. parallels. *xg[w] instead of *g[w] and treat -ti in the Hattic form as a suffix of unclear nature. *=alg[w]Ăn > NCauc.) that reflects the same term. LÚMUHALDIM. *hana in hanal. 351ff. where in all likelihood it should be regarded as a Hattic loanword. 10’. 2010.

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

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

GIŠ(. Probably an onomatopoeic expressive root with an unclear loss of the final cluster *rχ in Hattic. the Hatt. so I suppose that we deal with a chance coincidence here. → Cf. 21 and Chirikba. Yen. The comparison with Hattic is possible only if we assume SCauc. Untenably Браун.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 373 *=eχ. Typologically such a grammaticalization process ‘to say’ > a quotative exponent is not rare. *jṓn ‘all’. g. sich bewegen?’ =? Hitt. which is probably secondary due to contamination with some other labialized roots (see Abadet. SCauc. 20 (Hatt. Yug dūɣ.> Hatt. 曰 *wat.. WCauc. Heine/Kuteva. *qo ( ~ *χ-) ‘full.is known to Hattic. Kott. It is very likely. nini(n)k. *qäʔG ‘word’). *ha-n. of lyre’. *=xV (~ *xHV) ‘word’ (> STib. 1994. Adyghe ʡʷa vs. hujei ‘shouting’ (a dprefix in Ket–Yug?). hu ‘to speak. 2002. root is not supported by Adyghe–Kabardian and Ubykh data. also Yen.(~ x-) ‘many’ ~ STib. Burush. Kachin hɔ ‘to preach’ (an irregular onset in Chin. hut ‘to get free.‘to call’ Basque *ean ‘to say’. Cf. + WCauc. № 9 (see below sub zinar [118’]). since the particle status of this WCauc. 422 compare the Hatt. *Ia. Alternatively Иванов. showing labialization in some daughter languages (Abkhaz–Abaza ħʷa. ‘loskommen. 1994. tell’ and as an enclitic quotation marker. move (intr. cognates). 422). *hun ‘big?’ in hun-zinar ‘a k. but synchronic y. cf. cognates. *jw ‘all’ ~ Burush. *χʷV ‘to speak’ > Chin. 17’. 謂 *wəts ‘to say. speak’. 1996.‘to say’. 1996.‘to set in motion’. 1985. shout’ > Ket dūɣə1. Improbably Иванов.GAL. which is used both as a verbal root ‘to say. ‘großes? Ištar-Instrument’ = Hitt. enough’ (without SCauc. 1985. Браун.. 16’. theory (e. *raχa-. *k(h)a ‘word’. As is truly noted by proponents of the Hattic–WCauc. *χʷV ‘to shout’. *jonHV > Yen. Lezgh. talk’. *Ia. *h-. Chirikba.D)INANNA.‘to cry. № 8.)?’. Burm. WCauc. 云 *wən. Ubykh a-). but can be included into SCauc.). . *j.). STib. Yen.(~ -ʁ:-). 267 f. root with WCauc. however. that the Abkhaz–Abaza enclitic -ħʷa is the result of a secondary late development in Abkhaz–Abaza. hu also functions as an enclitic particle of the direct speech that strikingly corresponds to the aforementioned Abkhaz–Abaza ħʷa.lacks East Cauc.dbf). *huxV. *ʔōn. Kabardian ʡa.

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

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

Not to NCauc. grain-crop’ (also deified) = Hitt. 1985. barley’ (= Sum. karmu ‘heap. obscure Lyc. In fact karkar is very similar to Av. *k:ʷač:ə (~ -c:-)). *qečV. piya-. Poll.37 27’. karkar ‘to rake. In view of this I tend to suppose that Hatt. 23. Arab. NCauc.-And. ‘grain heap’. Pre-Greek κοδο. ku-re-ku ‘a k. lit. mound’ (Bab. 61 proposes a borrowing Proto-Av. ŠE. perhaps Hurr. kait ‘grain’ is a Hurrian loanword.]. karm. hahhariya. WCauc. see GLH. also in LÚfintu-kkaram ‘cupbearer’ → A long ago recognized cultural term. Cf. 158 f. Hsch. As fairly noted in Haas/Thiel. ––––––––––––––––––––––– The migratory way of this term might be longer. ai.dbf).-And. Ugar. ya. 28’. Harsusi kermaym ‘mountain’ with the external Afro-Asiatic cognates. compound *:iχ:ʷVq:Vrχ:V ‘rake’ [where the first *:iχ:ʷV goes back to NCauc.‘rake’ cannot be kept apart from these forms either.. kait ‘grain. Despite Иванов. grapevine’ etc. for which see Afaset. 135 f. -εύτρια. 28 propose a NCauc. *o ~ Hatt.. t and NCauc.‘to rake. further probably to Akkad. Mehri karmaym ‘mountain’. Probably a Wanderwort of unknown origin. Dargwa *q:Iʷač:. The Hattic word has been borrowed from some West Semitic form going back to WSem. Николаев. *ǯ ~ Hatt. kade—NCauc. hah(ha)r(a). krm ‘vineyard’. see CDA. and discussion. Similarly Chirikba. scrape’ = Hitt. *Łədwi/*ŁəŁədwi ‘corn’ which seems convincing. κοδομεύς ‘one who roasts barley’ [Hsch.And. *q:Vrχ:V—the second element of the Av. *qHwōǯĀ ‘corn.376 A. 133) should not be separated from this Hattic stem. ay ‘to give’ = Hitt. karam ‘wine’. Neumann. pick?’ (DUL. cf. 1986. 1996 (Hatt. καδρεμα · σίτου φρυγμός. κοδομεύω ‘to roast barley’ [Hsch.can hardly be related here.]. wheat’ (> Tsez. > Hitt. also deified : Dkade-na.‘roast barley’ (κοδομεία ‘barley-roasting’ [Poll. of instrument. + WCauc. of vessel’. 2007.). halki-. Aram.]. Diakonoff/Starostin. (see Semet. ‘ruin mound’.. w. etymology for Hurr. № 18. → Cf. Hitt. A χθθα. kade ‘grain. 149). krk. κοδομεῖον / κοδομήϊον ‘vessel for roasting barley’ [Poll. *VχwV (~ Ł-) ‘rake’]. 37 . Phot.dbf. 1985. corn. The correspondences NCauc. karm ‘vineyard’. seem irregular. Kassian [UF 41 25’. → Can be a reduplicated stem (kar-kar). Suid. yay. 26’. 1976. as proposed by Иванов. . 1978. Cf. *karm: Ugar. *kwərV ‘a k. scrape’ (derived from hah(ha)r(a).‘rake’).‘vine. M/NAss. 455).]) or Hsch. however..

messenger’. Hence it might be a WSem. also Hurr. take out. something speedy. carry’. ‘Läufer-Kundschafter’ = Hitt. magical?’ = Hitt. but the origin of toponym Κύπρος ––––––––––––––––––––––– 38 For the Hattic loanword in Hittite Ékaškaštipa.38 30’.E. 7). fn. kinawar ‘copper’ = Hitt. loanword with the (Hattic?) h-suffix. carry away’. (Bogh. gatehouse’ = Hitt. Abkhaz–Abaza *qV.LAM. 700. *gaǯinV ‘jar. forms with similar semantics: Ugar. 2004. kap ‘moon’ [15] above) see Soysal. (Bibl. Hebr.) kaz(z)i/kaši ‘goblet’ (Catsanicos. κιννάβαρι ‘cinnabar’. which probably contains the root χa (á-χara) ‘to pull. cup’. fast riding animal. jug’ by Старостин. 459). 1994. I am not sure that both unmotivated loss of medial -n. racer’ from the Sem. kāsu ‘goblet. drag’ with the frequent preverb ḳǝl. LÚNÍ. kazue ‘goblet. nimble. root *ḳll ‘to be quick. rapid (said of messengers). but in reality should represent the same areal cultural term (further see Soysal.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 377 29’. → Resembles WSem. 22 proposes a typical bringen-Sie-etymology: Abkhaz a-ḳl-χra ‘to take off. 1995 /2007. 2004. URUDU. 454 .and change l~r can be so easily accepted. 632. (see AHw. 34’. drag’ originates from NCauc. red?’ =? Hitt. to drag.‘to pull. 1996.’ etc. HALOT). ḳl ‘courier. *=HīqV(r) ‘to pull. cf. assuming the development knwr > knpr > kpr. 365 tentatively connects Ancient Greek Κύπρος and Hurr. Браун. 1999. KI. LÚkiluh ‘courier-spy’. rapid’ (see DUL. → For the new translation ‘gate-building’ (not ‘Moon god’. kazza ‘blood red?. sorcery . 242 f. alwanzena-. 370. which is tentatively compared with NCauc.‘gatehouse.). DUL. .ZU LÚKAŠ4. ks ‘id. portal’ see štip ‘gate’ [49]. cup’ → A long ago recognized Semitic loanword: Akkad. → An unclear compound? 31’. A Wanderwort (‘red mineral’)? Soysal. kab(a)li ‘copper’ to this Hattic term. Ugar. Cf. 32’. išharweškiya-. katakumi ‘witchcraft. 33’. (D)kašku ‘(deified) gate building.) ḳal ‘light. → Without doubt the Hattic word relates to Grk. 164–165.

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

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

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

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

hašša-. luck’. also fa. utensil?’ = Hitt. 1996. *wēnλwē ‘luck. form possesses reliable external etymology: NCauc. ‘dann?. so daß?’ 48’. 446). stem. *. *-hált. cf. mai(u) ‘a valuable cloth. lhip.)’ → Cf. GADA. comparison seems dubious. Further Ivanov’s cognates (WCauc. ma. Hatt. kuzzan. *ăj ‘fire’ for -zan.and NCauc. to weep’ ~ STib. GUNNI. Probably a WCauc. kuzan. SIG5-ant-. 426 follows Ivanov and adds Abkhaz *gʷə-ta ‘centre. . 45’. where the palatalized labialized lateral *ʷ is rendered by Hatt.382 A. ZI. core’ (*gʷə. pour. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’) are not provable. good’. representing WCauc. 44’. 46’. № 22. 49’. 79 unjustifiedly segments the Hattic stem as ku-zan. 47’. aššiyant-. conjunction ‘then?. *ƛēŋ (~ -ā-) ‘to wash (by pouring water over). proposing some unconvincing WCauc. conjunction ‘and’. Yug kɔxtɨ6 ‘das Innere’ (Werner. → Morphologically opaque. hapalki [12’] for Hatt. mane. The WCauc. lki. tete-kuzzan ‘big hearth’ = Hitt. As was noted by Chirikba. → Иванов. 2002 1. 1985. 1996. loanword. also huzza ‘hearth. and so?’. stem has an atypical shape and should be rather analyzed as *koqtV with an unclear dental suffix. kut ‘soul’ = Hitt. linen cloth’ = Hitt. 1985. lianu or elianu ‘implement?. The etymology was proposed by Иванов. favorable’ = Hitt. *maʷV ‘good. *=VVn ‘to wash. brazier’. *ǵʷə ‘heart’ < NCauc. SCauc. lin ‘to drink? (vel sim. Gemüt’. Chirikba. aššu. Kassian [UF 41 43’. 428. № 22. malhip ‘good.‘to wash’). very similar to WCauc. *=Vŋ ‘to wash’ (> NCauc. SIG5-in. to spill’ ~ Burush. therefore the Hattic–Yen. As a matter of fact the Yen. The meaning shift ‘to pour’ > ‘to drink’ is typologically possible. 441. UNŪTEMEŠ.‘heart’ + -ta ‘place of’). etymologies for ku. disposition’ > Ket kōqt ‘das Innere. kut with the following Yen. → It is tempting to compare Hatt. assuming KT > T in Hattic: Yen. *koqtV (~ g-) ‘the inside. temper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etymology are unclear.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 395 (Mari. Kabardian pšǝna ‘accordion . One can suppose. № 75 (supported by Chirikba. kinds of stringed. however.. which can be suspected of a similar phonetical process. loanword in Hattic (for tafarna [52] see above). zi.) cognates. (Bogh. 54 The final consonant of Hatt. zinar continues the same wandering word. genetic relationship. that Adyghe–Kabardian *p:ǝna reflects the same Wanderwort with the very frequent WCauc.) the scholar adopts a migratory nature of the Adyghe–Kabardian stem.– WCauc. Hurr. 313–316. **zinar (as well as **kinar) in the known Luwian lexicon. parza ‘iron ore’. prefix *pǝ. comparison is one of the main Ivanov’s arguments for Hatt. Egyp. zinar might be recognized as a Luwian loanword (similarly Ivanov. ––––––––––––––––––––––– Cf. the virtual Luw. Although this Hatt. however. 51 Maybe except for even more dubious Luw. Of course. First. RS) kinnāru ‘a k.) LÚkinnaruhuli ‘musician’. Hitt. bow and wind instruments (in compounds)’).‘singer. Paris / Batouka 1 / 1. LÚkinar-talla. form **zinar is the only example where borrowed ki is rendered by Luw. 1999). 53 But in his recent paper (Иванов.50 In fact. 8 ff. ki-nu-ra ‘player of kinura’(?). also Myc. of lute’. 1996. contradict this hypothesis. Hattic does not show any evidence for such a palatalization.(a former class marker?) and loss of final -r. of stringed instrument’. musician’. b) the suffix -r is not productive in Hattic. Middle Tamil kiṇṇaram ‘a k. 52 For the proto-meaning of *p:ǝna cf. 50 49 .. 2009. e. *ḱ > Luw. is Luwian. but the change ki > zi remains unexplained within Hattic. 2008. z. Some facts. where IE *ḱ > Anat. possibly OInd. we do not find any traces of virtual Luw. (New Kingdom) knnr ‘lyre’.51 Иванов. perhaps tafarna ‘lord’ [52]). k‘nar ‘a musical instrument played by plucking’. g. Franceschetti. the only neighboring language. zehar ‘wood’ [64]. (as well as NCauc. 2009.54 A contrary direction of borrowing (Proto-WCauc. it is very likely that Hatt. for which see sub hapalki [12’] above. zinar appears to be the only clear Luw. zinar might have been reinterpreted as the Adyghe– Kabardian absolutive case ending *-r. whose internal structure and WCauc. of lyre’. 1985. > Hattic zinar) is not probable: a) both Adyghe–Kabardian *p:ǝna and Adyghe–Kabardian absolutive case ending *-r lack WCauc. (very late) kiṁnarā ‘a k. Hence Hatt.49 Arm.53 it is obvious that genetic relationship cannot be proven by such cultural terms. Third. it is found in a couple of fossilized stems only (hukur ‘to see’ [13]. 427) compares Hatt. (LXX) κῐνύρα [ῠ] ‘a stringed instrument played with the hand’. Grk. 631 (‘musical instrument (in general)’). and so forth. Despite Иванов. zinar with Adyghe–Kabardian *p:ǝna ‘non-percussion musical instrument (in general)’52 (Adyghe pǝna.– WCauc. Second.

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

cognates 69. ka-. 34 ff. 402 f. Решетников.-And. cf. ablative and dative semantics √ NCauc. close to’.-And. languages.‘lative preverb (towards the speaker)’. -ä. Lezgh. (adj. *-V. 2002. imperative (slot 1) √ NCauc. -ko-li ‘lative’. Av. nominal and verbal (slot –3) morpheme with locative and dative meaning ‘in. Urart. morpheme.). 72. Av. Alternatively to NCauc. -χ ‘inessive 1 (“about”)’. preverb ‘super. 55. Khin. WCauc. 71. -u.1 Auxiliary morphemes with reliable SCauc. locative case > Ket -ka/-ga/-ɣa ‘locative’. *-χV. -i. *-χV ‘ad series’. plural stem marker > Nakh *-ši ‘plural’. 413). 55 (Hattic + WCauc. the diachronic comparison between the verbal preverb and the nominal locative suffix seems reliable. -aš ‘plural suffix’. h. 1858. → Note that WCauc. (adj. 2002. *-o. WCauc. Tsez. 2002 1. cognates for the Hatt. Alternatively to WCauc. 1995. Av. 1996. ad. *-š:w. . *-g (= *-k?) ‘elative. Khin. Lezgh. -. -i. *-k-/*-g-. inessive I. ha-. verbal preverb > Ket–Yug k(i)-. Although synchronically the meanings of the preverbs in the described Yen. *-χ ‘ad series’. super series’. 1996 and Браун. Hurr. Lezgh. languages have imperative in - as opposed to Hattic and East Cauc. Lak -. *-V. cf. *-GV ‘ad close / in series’ > Nakh *-ʁ ‘terminative (causative) case. 55 propose some alternative WCauc. 168. plural of the accusative case √ NCauc.). Kott. but rather hard to distinguish. 2002. *-V. Yug -kej/-gej ‘locative’ (Werner.-Urart. -kā ‘prelative’. WCauc. Chirikba. *-qV ‘ad close/vertical series’.. imperative > Nakh *-V. *k-. *-q:I ‘in filled series’. -a. aš-/iš-. Perhaps two original morphemes (*-k. 70.-And. *-š(:) ‘plural direct stem marker’. *-š ‘oblique stem plural’. some locative series > Nakh *-go ‘ad series’. 471 f. *ḱʷə-/*ǵʷə.(Старостин Г. nominal and verbal (slot –2) morpheme with locative. -a. *q:Ia. to’ √ NCauc. Tsez.). ad series > Nakh *-x ‘inessive I.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 397 6 Hattic–Sino-Caucasian auxiliary morpheme comparisons 6. Dargwa *-ʁI (~ -ʕ-) ‘ad series’. *-g-). Kott. 1999. -ga ‘dative’ (Castrén. inter’ (thus Иванов. 33. Браун. Khin. *-ka. Yen. 1985. -kai.) comparative’. *-k ‘lateral series’. Tsez.). Thus Браун. *xa-. *-.vs.preverb ‘super. → Chirikba. *-.) comparative’. languages cannot be established. Lezgh. Yen. Dargwa *-V. Tsez.

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

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

locative suffix (series Sub)’. whose meaning and function are unknown or were incorrectly understood by previous etymologists. locative suffix (Sub series)’. Tsez. cognates. dat. Note that Chirikba and Braun propose their etymologies not for nominal la-. at’). 125’. → Possible. 1985.2 Some auxiliary morphemes with dubious or improbable SCauc. found in Hatt. Tsez. below. in two epithets of the Sun-goddess ka-aš-paru-ya-h ‘source of light’ [33] and leli-ya-h ‘source of light’ [23]. toaster’ (according to Ivanov: ha-ga-zu-el from the root zu ‘to drink’ which is not attested elsewhere). Браун. -i. For alternative locative preverbal cognates in WCauc. *:i-. dative(?) > Av. further see HWHT. nominal suffix. Ivanov (Иванов. infinitive’. *-: ‘below.. and compares it with the Abkhaz–Abaza– Ubykh causative prefix *ʁa-. -(a)h. but not obligatory. *-V(j) ‘erg. cognates I do not list here all Hattic auxiliary morphemes lacking SCauc. 1985. 415) compares it with WCauc. *i ‘below. instrumental’. deverbative nominal suffix’. k with WCauc.. 208. Lezgh. 55. noun kazue ‘bowl’ [32’]. Kassian [UF 41 6. *ʁ is unpersuasive also. ka-la. Dargwa *-Hi ‘ergative. As a matter of fact. infinitive’. *qwnV ‘woman’) which looks very factitious.-And. -l. *-:i ‘locative suffix (series Sub)’. “causative prefix ka-”. -ija ‘instrumental. 1996. dat.-And. 126’. 2002. 127’. 57 . below’. unclear nominal morpheme perhaps with the locative meaning (‘on. locative case √ NCauc. infinitive’. which in its turn is borrowed from Semitic (Akkad. hakazuel ‘drinker. 1996.and Proto-Nakh *ḳa-l(e). *-jV ‘dat. *ƛɨ-. Lezgh. *-i (-Vj) ‘deverbative nominal. down’ (an adverbial stem) > Nakh *ḳa-l(e) ‘down. Khin. it seems that Soysal’s -ah2 is the same femininum suffix) → Иванов. Lak -j-nu.‘sub series’. Lak luw. below’. also maybe in the name of goddess Dzintuhi. frequently stands with the locative morpheme ka-: ka-la(HWHT. but for ver––––––––––––––––––––––– An example.. masdar’. *-ƛ ‘down. down . hakazuel ‘drinker. Phonetically the comparison of Hatt. 34) postulates the Hatt. Dargwa *-ɣ(u). (Ubykh and /or Abkhaz–Abaza) see Chirikba. In particular the list does not include phantom morphemes57 and morphemes. *pə-ʷA ‘daughter’ etc. *ʷA ‘woman’ (found in stems like WCauc. probably forming femininum (found in katta-h ‘queen’ [17]. -i(j) ‘ergative/genitive. anim. Av.400 A. goes back to NCauc. kāsu ‘bowl’ with reliable Semitic cognates).. *-Hi.‘down. 228) √ NCauc. 414.. 37 (followed by Chirikba. toaster’ [6’] is derived from the Hatt. la-. → Note the similarity between Hatt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

carry’ ~ Basque *eući ‘to take. 5. *ćhiṣ ‘mountain’ kap ‘moon’ [15] ~ Yen. seize.)’ [22] ~ STib. grasp’). *čɨʔs ‘stone’ ~ Burush. Yakhontov’s 100-wordlist.‘to fall’ ziš ‘mountain’ [67] ~ Yen. 2007) with 10 additional words from S. *bot. *ǯīp ‘to cover. *rołH ‘light’ which are formally acceptable. *tajH ‘big. even through some of these Hatt. No. Starostin.‘temple (part of head)’ katte ‘king’ [17] ~ Yen. Kassian [UF 41 tafa ‘fear’ [53] ~ STib. 4. *dA ‘big’) ~ STib. *tɨʔj. g. 3..‘to let come. in various publications by S. *tĕp ‘fear.. taken from the second part of the Swadesh 200-wordlist (see Бурлак/Старостин 2005. let enter’ kaš ‘head’ [16] ~ Yen. zipi-na ‘sour’ [66] ~ STib. 2010. to plug. ENG all (omnis) ashes bark belly big. *re ‘to dislike’ or Hatt.59 The situation changes if one tries to analyze Hattic words from the Swadesh list. large — — — — te ‘great. hold. *də(ʔ)q. much’ ~ Yen. 1. to build’ tuh ‘to take’ [60] ~ STib. (WCauc. . g.–STib. *ĆŏH ‘to seize’ (further to NCauc.: 9 etymologies. *cp ‘bitter. *ćH ‘to work. big’ [54] NCauc.)’ fute ‘long (in temporal meaning)’ [44] ~ Yen. 2. Hattic Sino-Caucasian 6.408 A. *kaʔt ‘old (attr. *ʔēč. pungent’ Hatt. etymologies do not look obligatory. *ʔa-KsV. The table below includes the standard Swadesh 100-wordlist (as it is accepted. *q[e]p (~ χ-) ‘moon’ A high number of exclusive Hattic–Sino-Tibetan isoglosses (16 entries) is noteworthy. (a)le ‘to envy (vel sim.. e. *=ăčw ‘to take. *t[e]mb-Vĺ. to be confused’ teh ‘to build’ [56] ~ STib. Hatt. Yakhontov’s items are marked by the “+” sign. aš ‘to come (here)’ [3] ~ Yen.. ~ Yen. to close’ tup ‘root’ [63] ~ Yen.‘often’ štip ‘gate’ [49] ~ Yen.‘root’ zik ‘to fall’ [65] ~ Yen. but can hardly prove some specific relationship. 59 bird ašti or šti ‘bird’ [3’] ––––––––––––––––––––––– Cf. see Старостин. For the general principles of the compilation process now see Kassian et al. 12—13 for detail).‘to grow’. leli ‘source of light’ [23] ~ STib. e.

to eat’ ~ STib. 9.‘to eat’ ~ Burush. 25. *ʔēč. 15. *mt ‘to eat. 14. earthly(?)’ [22’] 22. ground. 19. *sī.‘to let come. to gulp. STib. field’. *čHäłu / *čäłHu ‘earth. 10. 20. let enter’ 16. 21. to eat tu ‘to eat’ [59] NCauc.) 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. sand’ ~ Basque *śorho ‘meadow . lmah ‘eye(s)’ [58’] — — . šahhu / tahhu ‘ground’ [45] NCauc. 7. *=VV ‘to drink . swallow’ Cf. soil . 8. 26. terrestrial. egg eye fat feather — nimah. Cf. 13. ištarrazi-l ‘(dark / black) earth. 24. *ʒhaH ‘to eat’ ~ Yen. 11. *śi / *ṣi / *ṣu ‘to eat’. ENG to bite black blood bone breast to burn (trans. 17.2009] No. to die dog to drink dry ear earth — — ? lin ‘to drink? (vel sim. swallow’ [42] 23.)’ [46’] — — Cf. 18. puš ‘to devour. 12.

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

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

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’.

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

. *ānpV ‘lip’. Historically attested areas of the Sino-Caucasian languages are illustrated by the map (prepared with the help of Yuri Koryakov): fig. proto-languages or the development ‘breast’ > ‘heart’ separately in the NCauc. Sino-Tibetan. Territorial coverage and high dispersion of the known SCauc.62 Such a phonetic simplification should ––––––––––––––––––––––– 61 As far as I can judge. AD are given after Pakendorf. *ǯ[e](ʔ)χV ‘to shave’ vs. AD are shown. These examples are opposed to the following etymologies. Basque and Burushaski families borders of the late XX c.2 The NCauc. *baŕ.2.61 8. 2007. *čɦrV ‘skin. 8. *xnɦ ‘water’. 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. STib. NCauc. Yen. Sino-Tibetan. 5. *čVqV ‘to scratch. We can suspect here either the development ‘heart’ > ‘breast’ separately in the Yen. NCauc. *jĕrḳwĭ ‘heart’ vs. han ‘sea’ [7] ~ Yen. STib.1 Location of the Sino-Caucasian homeland and ways of prehistoric migrations of Sino-Caucasian tribes are uninvestigated questions. *p(r)wH ‘speak’ taha-ya ‘barber’ [50] ~ Yen. shell’ vs.‘to pray’ vs. see fig.416 A. Semantic shift ‘heart’ < > ‘breast’ is typologically rather common. *təʔrap. where Hattic meanings coincide with North Caucasian : šaki. Basque and Na-Dene show more trivial systems. Burushaski. NCauc.‘heart’ [47] ~ NCauc. Can be explained as a subsequent semantic specification in Proto-Yenisseian. proto-language possesses the richest phonetic system among known SCauc. rub’. 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. *ʔrŋ/*ʔrk ‘breast’). 4 w. and STib. *ʔalVp ‘tongue’ vs. Kassian [UF 41 alef ‘tongue’ [1] ~ Yen.‘bread crust’. tera-h ‘leather covering’ [58] ~ NCauc. proto-language and Hattic. lit. *tə(ʔ)ga ‘breast’ (cf. Yen. Approximate borders of the Yenisseian family in the XVII c. For the North Caucasian. Na-Dene. (proto-)languages. Yenisseian. *xäń (~ ʔ-) ‘wave’ vs. fara-ya ‘priest’ [32] ~ Yen. prev.2 Geographical problem 8. 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. 8 for detail). 62 We cannot argue about the Hurrian and Hattic phonemic inventories due to their simplified cuneiform transmission.2.

languages. 2007.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 417 be explained by the influence of non-SCauc. Maykop (that includes the great Maykop kurgan and related complexes. lit. 8. 3850–3300 BC) and its successor Novosvobodnaya culture (3300–2500 BC). some other artefacts and metal. 2003. e. The same considerations may be applied to morphology..2. Diamond /Bellwood. . 2007a. On the other hand. and Basque demonstrate clear morphological relations with neighboring non-SCauc. made of obsidian imported from Transcaucasia (Мунчаев. Yenisseian. Kohl. 189 w. 1994. cf.. The Meshoko culture is rather associated with northern/northwestern steppe regions and Balkans (it concerns pottery. but not through North Caucasus (see. Bar-Yosef. 6) demonstrates that in the 7th–4th millennia BC the way from the Near East to Europe came through West Anatolia into Balkans. Kohl. 2007. Bellwood/Oxenham.. only in Chalcolithic time that region was reoccupied by Meshoko people. 2008.4 One of the clues to the reconstruction of the sociolinguistic situation in prehistoric Near East could be the Maykop archeological culture (Early Bronze Age). area. It is important that according to Трифонов. 2001.3 The map of successive stages in the distribution of copper and bronze artefacts by E. For the periodization and dating see Lyonnet. 2009. 73. lit. 10 ff. Ivanova. homeland to the modern NCauc. 2007b. 243. some connections with southern regions can be traced also: Трифонов. It correlates with the routes of agricultural expansion. 17 ff. Sino-Tibetan. 194 claims that Meshoko pottery is close to the Chalcolithic Eastern Anatolian tradition. 7. Chernykh (fig. 8. even those with a penchant for emphasizing autonomous evolutionary processes”. similarly in Trifonov. tribes contacted pending their movements. Maykop-related cultures may be divided into three successive phases: Chalcolithic Meshoko (4500–3850 BC). 135 w. for details see Мунчаев.). which went into Europe through West Anatolia and into Asia through Iran. These facts could indicate that the NCauc. languages. also Meshoko lithic tools. 2009 Northwest Caucasus was uninhabited during Neolith. As noted in Kohl. proto-language had minimal contacts with non-SCauc. g. 2007. which was imported from Balkans). 170.: “the general spread of the Neolithic foodproducing economy from Anatolia into southeastern Europe is accepted by all scholars. Burushaski. 29 f. dialects and a relatively short migratory way from the SCauc. 1994. 2002): fig. but not through North Caucasus into steppes. 13. 2007.2. see now Lyonnet. with which SCauc.

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

2009. V = XVI / XV centuries BC to the IX / VIII centuries BC (from Chernykh 1992. II = 5th to first half of the 4th millennium BC . Distribution of copper and bronze artefacts. IV = mid-3rd millennium BC to the XVIII / XVII centuries BC . III = mid-4th to first half of the 3rd millennium BC ..2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 419 Fig. 6. I = 7th to 6th millennium BC . 1014.63 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 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. . 2).

Kassian [UF 41 Fig. 2007b. e. the samples from Level XII yielded a date of 3837 + 72 years BC (…) Aurenche and Hours (…). got dates of 4920–4450 BC for XII. — Traces of Balkans–North Caucasus trade routes are known already from the pre-Maykop phase. 53–54). i. Bellwood / Oxenham. The new OxCal calibrations should yield a date of somewhere between 4700–4400 BC. 13 . e. 1977. 2007a. the Meshoko culture (see above). This dating makes questionable the traditional view. on the other hand.” 64 . with approximate radiocarbon dates (from Diamond / Bellwood. For the dating see Rothman. 2009. Four C14 dates were run from the site of Tepe Gawra (…). e. i. 17 ff. Traditionally Amuq F pottery is derived from the earlier Tepe Gawra (northern Mesopotamia) ware (Gawra XII–IX. 243). using another calibration. 50–55. there is some evidence of northern /northwestern sources of the Maykop culture. 2008. 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. 1994. to the transitional period between late Ubaid and early Uruk times (Kohl. 2007. But. Using the Clark calibration. Мунчаев. Kohl. from Anatolia and/or Mesopotamia). — Early Maykop complexes are located rather in the northwest area. Lyonnet. 7. while ––––––––––––––––––––––– Gawra XII represents the transitional phase between the late Ubaid and early Uruk epochs. 169. 2003. and an attempt to run bone dates failed.420 A.64 see Андреева. 1977. 2002. Agricultural homelands and spreads of Neolithic / Formative cultures. 51: “Unfortunately. 73) or rather to the Early Uruk period. C-14 dating moves the Maykop culture from the 3rd millennium BC (a traditional dating) to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC. according to which the Maykop culture originates from the south (i.) 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. The modern cal. 148). only one C14 date exists for Levels XII to VIII of Gawra.

Tepe Gawra X. then from the Early Bronze Age Maykop culture (3850–3500 BC). 2009. 2009. But such a technology is also attested from the beginning of the Late Tripolye period (Tripolye C1: 4000–3300 BC . 142–144 . ou l’introduction du décor peigné en Mésopotamie sont. 2007. 1994. 2007). 59) that is earlier than the Maykop culture. 2002. 78–79 for details. — Kurgan burials are not typical of Near Eastern traditions. ––––––––––––––––––––––– 65 Note that the traditional argument for the southern origin of the Maykop culture—slow potter’s wheel. Hattic Alaca Höyük. 2007b. Gold-rich complexes are known from Chalcolithic Balkans (the second half of the 5th millennium BC. Indeed slow potter’s wheel is known. See above about post-Maykop kurgans in northwestern Iran. (contra Трифонов. Ахундов/Махмудова. Kohl. On the other hand. 2007. lit. Akhundov. 150 supposes that some Mesopotamian pottery styles can be borrowed from Maykop (“(…) l’apparition de la céramique grise polie et lissée. 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. Royal Cemetery at Ur and so on (cf. An alternative solution is the supposition that it was a local Maykop invention. Kohl. 2009). lit. lit. 75–86) w. Mesopotamia and so on. Kohl. 74–75 . 57 ff. This may allow us to trace prehistoric movements of peoples who used and valued gold. (esp. 2007a. 85. 2002. 1996. 2009. for the general discussion about possible north(west) roots of the Maykop culture. Avilova. Varna necropolis). 17. pre-Maykop kurgans are known from Central Ciscaucasia. from the transitional phase between late Ubaid and early Uruk of Tepe Gawra—Gawra XII (Rothman. Kohl. 54 . 242 w. Lower Volga and Lower Don. have been recently discovered in southern Caucasus—northwestern Azerbaijan and central Georgia (Kohl. 41–43. 2007. then during the second half of the 4th millennium BC and the Middle Bronze Age they spread into Transcaucasia. e. Charvát. — The so-called “problem of gold”. see Chernykh. 59). 245 w. 2000). 150). Lyonnet. 244. 2008. Troy II–III. used by both the Maykop and Novosvobodnaya people (Мунчаев. See Kohl. 219)—does not seem reliable. 2007b. Zbenovich. 1994. belonging to the Leilatepe culture (the first half of the 4th millennium BC). — 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.. 1994. Lyonnet.. Kura-Araxes culture. 178–179 . g. 171– 173). Anatolia and Mesopotamia: Maykop-related Se Girdan kurgans. 230). some materials of which show clear parallels with Maikop remains (Мунчаев. Lyonnet. 2007. 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. 1992. Some resembling Maykop tradition burial mounds. see Kohl. Later a number of Maykop-like kurgans in northwestern Iran (the so-called Se Girdan tumuli.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 421 the later Novosvobodnaya culture spreads into southeast (Мунчаев. . 2007. Kuban area.

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

who is inclined to the same linguistic attribution of the Maykop culture. 4 above. on fig. 68 On the Sino-Caucasian attribution of Hurro-Urartian see com. g. Middle Bronze Age). 2007a. also Anthony.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 423 The Maykop people can hardly be Semitic speakers (despite. . 1990. Not to mention that the idea of separate migrations of Hittites (through North Caucasus) and Luwians (through Bosporus). Burney. 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. 297. (b) metallurgical terminology is not reconstructed for Proto-Semitic—the same concerns other Afro-Asiatic families. intermediation).69 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 67 Cf. e. 69 Cf. (despite some linguistic investigations by A. 1994.67 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. 2009. also much more cautiously Kohl. 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. such as Proto-Berber. Buccellati/Kelly-Buccellati. as per. Сафронов.. 252). Diakonoff. As has been proposed by various scholars. Starostin. 2004. Proto-Cushitic. Kelly-Buccellati. Сафронов. 2007 (cf. see Микеладзе. since we are not aware of any Indo-European cultural dominance in the Anatolian and/or Mesopotamian regions of Early/Middle Bronze Age. 2006. 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. Semitic tribes moved so far to the north. 1989): (a) there is no evidence that in the late 5th / early 4th millennia BC. or Hurr. g. On tentative Hurro-Urartian attribution of the KuraAraxes culture see. 1997. e. 817 f.. etc. into Central Anatolia looks too fantastical from the linguistic viewpoint. the north borders of the Kura-Araxes culture seem to correspond roughly to the historically attested area of Hurro-Urartian dialects. The Maykop people cannot be identified with the Proto-Kartvelians. Gimbutas’ theories) either. since there are no linguistic traces of close contacts of Kartvelian tribes with Semitic in prehistoric epochs. Militarev).. 1989. The Maykop people cannot be Indo-Europeans (despite some M.). for a very short list of Semitic loanwords in Proto-Kartvelian (some of them penetrated into Kartvelian via the ECauc. 2007. g. 22 ff.

424 A. Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic macrofamilies (50-item wordlist-based) . 8. Kassian [UF 41 Fig. Glottochronological trees of the Sino-Caucasian.

homeland (e. *ɦĕrVcwĭ ‘silver’ and secondarily contaminated with IE *H. e. 1985 / 2007. 71 Other IE quasi-proto-terms either have the clear migratory character or are derived from color names which can be later independent developments.dbf. 302 ff. See Старостин. Starostin 2009.71 or with a similar situation of Proto-Semitic. 1988/2007. (i. with the Proto-IE language. 99). proto-language per se : firstly.‘white. the most part of which must be explained as loanwords in IE.2. ––––––––––––––––––––––– *ɦĕrVcwĭ ‘silver’. 1985/2007 for the reconstruction of Proto-NCauc. Near Eastern regions) is not very likely due to Occam’s razor. g. but the first homeland of the NCauc. people from the SCauc. see 8... g. 2007. Another localization of the early NCauc.dbf sub *nHǟw ‘blue . E.). branches glottochronologically occurred in the first half of the 7th millennium BC. e. 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. IE *H-ent/ *Har-ent.7 below). word ‘iron(?)’ quoted in Старостин. Starostin. According to Caucet. e. *ṭš(w)ɨ ‘lead’. branches) terms for various metals70 which sharply contrasts. attested both in ECauc. . g.. 304 originally meant ‘blue’. light’ (see Caucet. *rĕwcwi ‘red copper . Старостин. The NCauc..‘silver’ was probably borrowed from NCauc. 1988 / 2007. the source language demonstrates some innovative phonetic developments as compared with the reconstructed NCauc. gold’. *riƛ(w)e ‘brass . *ṭtV(wV) ‘silver . blue metal > iron’. and WCauc. gold’.2.). lexical parallels (including some Indo-Hittite–NCauc. there are no borrowings in the opposite direction (IE > NCauc.). 334. 2009. An important linguistic problem to be discussed here are the contacts between Proto-Indo-Hittite and Proto-NCauc. isoglosses). there are at least six underived Proto-NCauc.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 425 8. proto-language was probably situated in some part of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province (cf. 1985/2007. above. 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. the source of these loanwords was not the NCauc. some Anatolian metallurgical sites of that epoch like Çatal-Höyük could hypothetically trace the migratory way of the Proto-NCauc. where the only one Narrow IE term *a-es ‘copper > bronze > iron’ is reconstructable. proto-language (South Anatolia or Balkans. 356 ff. 2009. As was correctly stated by S. secondly and more importantly. see now Caucet.. homeland into Balkans. g. proto-language. It is hard to guess about the localization of the homeland of the Basque–NCauc.6 The split of the Basque–NCauc.dbf and Старостин. 29 f. Note that none of them possesses Basque cognates. offers a solid list of Indo-European–NCauc. *lŏʒ ‘a bright metal’./ *Har. Старостин. 70 . 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. cultural vocabulary. proto-language into the Basque and NCauc. gold’. about Varna culture). 125 ff. Starostin (1988/2007.

placing the IE homeland to the east of Dniepr. 2009). ox’ etc. The main argument for the Anatolian location of the IE homeland are lexical borrowings between Proto-IE and Proto-Semitic.. Of course. not earlier (Proto-IE–ProtoUral.). 237 ff. Gimbutas’ Pontic-Caspian steppe model (the kurgan theory). its NCauc. where Sem. lit. also Дыбо. Aram. secondly..) seems to be borrowed from an ancient language of the NCauc. šitta. however. 2006). *ṯawr.‘bull. for the traditional list of Proto-Semitic loanwords in IE and Дьяконов. stock that bordered on the Indo-Hittite area in the Chalcolithic Carpatho-Balkan region. isoglosses which belong mostly to the basic vocabulary represent the Nostratic heritage). 1982a and 1982b for the heavy criticism of these connections. 315 f. Therefore I believe that the donor of discussed loanwords was an extinct member of Basque–NCauc. The second probable candidate is Narrow IE *tar-os ‘aurochs’ < Sem. e. thereupon spread into the Western IE dialects—cf. while NCauc. see the discussion in EDHIL. Hebr. 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 . Starostin. it was a wandering word in that region (cf. Off.. but the same scenario is likely: the word was borrowed into Proto-Greek from some Semitic dialect. prev.‘horse’ (which can be not a Narrow IE. 3800 BC. various trees.. Starostin. probably Hurr. 80.72 ––––––––––––––––––––––– The discussion about the Indo-European homeland is not a purpose of my paper . The non-steppe homeland of the IndoEuropeans can also be proven by the fact. 1988 / 2007. twr ‘bull. Kartv. g. reconstructed IE cultural vocabulary might be theoretically present in the language of some steppe people: e. according to which the Neolithic / Chalcolithic homeland of the Proto-Indo-Hittites was situated in the Carpatho-Balkan region (cf. stock discussed above. A sometimes proposed argument for the kurgan theory is the IE–Uralic lexical contacts. 4000 BC. firstly. 72 . the first half of the 5th – the first half of the 4th millennia BC) could at a stretch satisfy these conditions. cf. but the absence of proper steppe floral terms or specific terms of mobile pastoralism make such a supposition unlikely. a few riverside sites of Sredny Stog community (Dniepr–Don region. 1997 for an overview of the existing hypotheses. 1994. g.. 2009. e. is not very realistic chronologically: according to glottochronology the split of Indo-Hittite dates back to ca. but I am sure that these isoglosses either are chance coincidences or represent the common Nostratic–Afro-Asiatic heritage..‘7’.‘7’ and Etruscan semφ). proto-language split. šūru. hills / mountains together with numerous agricultural and stockbreeding terms which is strikingly opposite to the absence of typical steppe vocabulary. See. see Mallory. #241). 246 ff. Dolgopolsky. 2002. appears precluded due to a significant number of ProtoNarrow IE (or even Proto-Indo-Hittite) roots and stems denoting forest. *šwid. the similar linguistic fate of designations of ‘lion’. but Indo-Hittite term. Various Anatolian / South Caucasian models reflect rather the Nostratic expansion than posterior Indo-Hittite migrations. Such a scenario. dialect after the NCauc. *l > r in some positions. which are wandering words and cannot be reconstructed at the Proto-IE level. but in fact these isoglosses seem a mirage. *ṯ tended to shift to [t]. ox’ (Akkad. ‘monkey’ or ‘elephant / camel’. I will not discuss it here. but these contacts date back to the Indo-Iranian epoch. I share the opinion. ṯr. g. noted in Старостин. etc.). but.426 A. ‘leopard / panther’. Ugar. 1985 . Diakonoff. I claim that this numeral penetrated into IE dialects after the split of the IE proto-language (Kassian. Starostin assumes that these Indo-Hittite stems have been borrowed from a specific NCauc. šōr. descendant *ɦɨ[n]čwĭ (~ -ĕ) ‘horse’. 1999. SED 2. that IE *ewo. splits ca. Kassian [UF 41 proto-language (loss of *n in combination with affricates. 1989 w. 1999. The most probable Proto-Semitic loanword in IE is the designation of ‘7’ (Blažek.

and WCauc. also appear a myth—see the extended discussion in Kohl. 879 f.) should be revised from methodological positions of modern comparative linguistics and macro-comparativistics.. where they probably occupied some sizable areas. 1985/2007. 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). forthc. 2005. Militarev / G. whose dating (3850–3300 BC) exactly matches the glottochronological split of the NCauc. 2007a. dialects and Afro-Asiatic languages. Gimbutas’ mounted warriors from the steppes. It is important that the overwhelming number of these isoglosses cannot be treated as borrowings between Proto-NCauc. but were later (during the 4th to the 2nd millennia BC) superseded and /or assimilated by various IE tribes.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 427 Basque-like tribes started moving towards Central and West Europe.. Then (the second half of the 4th millennium BC) Proto-WCauc. On the contrary. 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). and Proto-Semitic or Proto-Cushitic and so on. into Anatolia and Mesopotamia (where we find some Maykop-influenced cultures. Милитарев/Старостин. On the contrary. w. people made their way from Balkans to the north. 310 f. 876–881 list some interlingual cultural borrowings between NCauc. 3800 BC). 77 f. Today’s theories of the Proto-Basque substrate of western IE languages (cf. Mailhammer. agriculture. Proto-NCauc. people knew horse-breeding. Proto-NCauc. (scil. 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. As noted in Starostin. proto-language (ca. 2007. Hurrian and other inhabitants of the corresponding regions. 819. Proto-Kartvelian does not demonstrate reliable lexical traces of contacts with Proto-NCauc. lit. Therefore these contacts must date back to the second half of the 4th–3rd millennia BC which chronologically fits the ECauc. 51. but I suspect that the general idea of some Basque–North Caucasian substrate in Europe may turn out to be true. see above). contacts (which is impossible chronologically).) could reflect not the Proto-Afroas. stock-breeding. 2007. g. 73 Eight connections labeled as “Proto-Afrasian–Proto-North Caucasian isoglosses” by A. but the . e. 2007.73 ––––––––––––––––––––––– From the archaeological viewpoint. who sweep away Chalcolithic “Old Europe”. and Proto-ECauc. rounded the Black Sea and created the Early Maykop culture. the proposed list illustrates interlingual interferences after the splits of the main proto-languages. Kohl. but later they have been forced back to their historical area in the North Caucasus or assimilated by Semitic. Maykop-related people) intrusion into Anatolia and Mesopotamia very well. 1994. 2007. 224. tribes descended to the south. Starostin (Милитарев / Старостин.–Proto-NCauc. it will not contradict the theory of the Proto-North Caucasian–Proto-Indo-European contacts within the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province.). M.. As shown in Старостин. textile and metallurgy that exactly fits the Maykop culture (see Мунчаев. 126–144.

Hitt. e. which retains verbal prefixation as a basic morphological pattern. finger’) originates from NCauc. with the transition to sedentism and foodproducing economy (cal. comm. Abkhaz–Abaza *na-ṗə.. obl.—coincide with the transition to the Neolithic in Levant area. 2007.2. this fact has led J. *ɦĭfV ‘to graze. 2003 and vari––––––––––––––––––––––– Proto-Afras. feed’ .) proposes a number of additional plausible Proto-Nakh etymologies for the Hittite cultural vocabulary like. as opposed to the more archaic West Caucasian stock. 2008 w. g. muh(ha)rai ‘fleshy part of sacrificial animals’ < Nakh *moħ. verb for ‘to eat (of humans)’ *fV goes back to NCauc. and so on. See Diamond /Bellwood. It is interesting that some semantic developments in the Proto-WCauc. family demonstrates the shift from prefixal verbal morphology to suffixal systems. WCauc. *-ṗV ‘human extremity’ (attested in compounds only: *λ´a-ṗV ‘foot’. no reliable archaeological records of Kaska in the Late Bronze Age are revealed so far. the WCauc. 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). basic vocabulary can illustrate such a cultural shift towards a (mobile) pastoralism. e.75 8. 75 For general reasons. however. For convenience I place the Sino-Caucasian homeland into the Syrian region. *=āmʒŬ ‘to milk’ . ECauc. who supposes that Kaska were the remnants of the indigenous Hattic population.–Proto-SCauc. West Caucasians?).428 A. which interfered with the Late Maykop.)’. 1985). During the late 3rd – 2nd millennia BC. but I am not aware of any reliable arguments pro or contra such a localization. lit. verb for ‘to drink (of humans)’ *zʷA goes back to NCauc. […]”) < Nakh *marš ‘snot’. Kassian [UF 41 As is noted in 2. *Haṗ ‘paw’. 9–14). Singer. base *maħar. who demonstrate the same shift from Proto-Sino-Caucasian prefixation to suffixation.. Guerrero et al.7 One of the possible scenario of the Sino-Caucasian (Dene-Sino-Caucasian) expansion can be illustrated by the following maps (fig. i.3 above. 4th–3rd millennia BC. stock of the NCauc. 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.‘fat (n. C-14 dating of the Early Natufian phase: 12 450– 11 000 BC.2. the ECauc. There are. mariš (“From the mou[th(?) …] evil saliva […] evil m. 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. Yakar (2008) to the supposition that Kaska were semi-nomadic communities. Ubykh ā-ṗá ‘hand’. Mudrak (pers. 198574) and even in Ancient Greek (Николаев. Hittite (Николаев. e. Alternatively cf. and WCauc. Adyghe–Kabardian *ʡa-pa ‘hand. the Kaska tribes which started to bother the Hittites in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC should be considered as North Caucasians (scil. i. Hitt. but some seem probative. dialects were donors of some loanwords into Hattic (see above). This process of morphological rebuilding should be explained by contacts with the Proto-Hurrians (probably the Kura-Araxes culture. 74 Some Nikolaev’s connections are highly questionable. interferences. Unfortunately. Novosvobodnaya culture). 8 above for detail). O.). . The WCauc. see fig.

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

The split of the North Caucasian–Basque branch (scenario 2) and the migratory way of the Proto-Basques and Proto-North Caucasians. 3 ff. the simplified transcription of traditional ḫ) . 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 . whereas Proto-North Caucasians stay in the Balkans (Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province of the 5th millennium BC). Language name abbreviations.1 Phonetic symbols (selectively) □´ □ □ / □˙  □: ʔ ʡ ʕ c č  G ɣ h palatalized consonant 1) a prosodic feature of the Proto-NCauc. for detail). References 9.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 433 moving into Europe. fricatives and affricates (see NCED. 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. 14. 90 f. but later go their way towards the North Caucasus. 9 Phonetic symbols. SCC. 2) a velar of post-velar fricative (in cuneiform languages . Fig. .

IE Kartv. ECauc.-And. Lyc. 2) voiceless hissing fricative (in the Hattic. A MAss. Egyp.) palatal resonant a lateral resonant (different from plain l . Hittite and Hurrian cuneiform. HLuw. 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 . the same as c / ʦ and ʒ) voiced hissing affricate voiced hushing affricate 9. 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) hissing affricate (in the Hattic. Hittite and Hurrian cuneiform. Kott. Arab. Luw. Hurr. Burm. CLuw. 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 . Hebr. Epigraphic South Arabian Ancient Greek Hattic Hebrew Hittite Hieroglyphic Luwian Hurrian Indo-European (Proto-)Kartvelian Khinalug Kottish (Proto-)Lezghian Luwian Lycian A Middle Assyrian . Akkad. the same as ħ) voiced glottal fricative voiceless pharyngeal fricative unidentified laryngeal (used in reconstructions) after any vowel or consonant signifies pharyngealization (in NCauc. Hatt. Amor. Av.2 Language name abbreviations Afroas.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. Aram. Khin. Burush. Elam. Arm. Hitt. Lezgh. Chin. Bab.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Древняя Анатолия. С. М. 213(2). — 1995/2007: Несколько новых хурритских этимологий.. 1968 : Об изучении имени в кетском (некоторые результаты и перспективы). 147–246. 122–175. 84–93. Цивьян. С. 262–276.. 1982/2007: Праенисейская реконструкция и внешние связи енисейских языков. А. Ж. Москва. Вып. Москва. С. In Кетский сборник (Studia Ketica). Вып. А. С. 289–311 [First publ. изд-во. [First publ. 112–163. Москва. С. In Старостин. 2007.. С.: Вестник древней истории. In Старостин. 1995. 74–94. In Кетский сборник. — 2001: Дарквети-мешоковская культура. С.. С. Краснодар—Анапа.. Доклады делегации СССР. А. Старостин. С. 2000: Курганы майкопского типа в северо-западном Иране. In Кетский сборник (Studia Ketica). In Кетский сборник. In Третья Кубанская археологическая конференция. Вып. С. С. In XXV международный конгресс востоковедов. 1960 : Основные типы спряжения глаголов и их исторические взаимоотношения в иберийско-кавказских языках. А. С. (ред. . Горький: Волго-вятское кн.. [First publ.. 1977: Этимологический словарь адыгских (черкесских) языков. Т. Москва. 2 т. Трифонов (ред. А. В. В. Майкоп. Б. 4. К. English translation = Starostin. А. 312–358 [First publ. Г. Топоров.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 445 Сафронов. Лингвистика. С. С. 144–237] — 1985/2007: Культурная лексика в общесеверокавказском словарном фонде. Шагиров. Трифонов.: Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи.] — 1988/2007: Индоевропейско-севернокавказские изоглоссы. Ленинград. Лингвистика. Москва. Москва.. 1995 : Морфология коттского глагола и реконструкция праенисейской глагольной системы. Б. 2007. In Старостин. С. / Цивьян. 229–246. А. 2007. Т. Москва. Москва. 211–245. В. Н. Москва. 133–136] — 2007: Труды по языкознанию [Works in Linguistics]. 1989: Индоевропейские прародины. 1975 : Адыгейско-русский словарь. — 2009: Существовал ли на Северо-Западном Кавказе неолит? In В. 2004. In Старостин. In Russian Oriental Studies. Санкт-Петербург. Старостин. 1982. Чикобава. 2009] — 1995: Сравнительный словарь енисейских языков. 2007. Пиотровский и др. 1985. Санкт-Петербург. 1988. In Судьба ученого. 190–194. К 100-летию со дня рождения Бориса Александровича Латынина. 4. С. С. Pp. 176–315.: Кетский сборник. 629–630. Ред. 1968: Материалы к сложным словам в кетском языке. Leiden: Brill. Шаов. В.): Адаптация культур палеолита—энеолита к изменениям природной среды на Северо-Западном Кавказе. В. Тезисы докладов.).. In English: The Cultural Vocabulary in the Common North Caucasian Lexical Stock. 244–264.

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

rinet. rinet. О. AOAT 278. Militarev / L. Klinger: Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht. Т. Ред. Starostin: Sino-Caucasian. Available online at Tower of Babel Project (http:// starling. Н. A. J. 2007]. A. Available online at Tower of Babel Project (http://starling. 1974—. Wiesbaden. 1996. 2: Animal Names. Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages]. Москва.ru/). StBoT37. ЭССЯ .ru/) as Caucet. S. Vol. 2005.2009] Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language 447 SCC SED StBoT 37 Books. Трубачев. Münster. Kogan: Semitic Etymological Dictionary.dbf. the middle of the 2000s. Vol. 2000. 1—. Unfinished MS. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful