Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

The position of anatolianrevised3

Chapter Six The Position of Anatolian History of the Question Discovery and Recognition Hrozn? showed that the chief administrative language of the Hittite Empire attested in cuneiform documents from Hattusha in central Turkey dating from the th- th centuries BCE was Indo-European Through the work of a number of scholars it was known by the s that Hittite was not alone in ancient Asia Minor but part of a new sub-branch of Indo-European now called Anatolian along with Palaic Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luvian Lycian and Lydian Indo-Europeanists had to reckon with a large new set of data to be integrated into the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European Due to its far more plentiful evidence and hence better understanding Hittite remained for many decades the chief basis for comparison with the rest of Indo-European Hittite presented a special challenge because despite its antiquity it conspicuously lacked some key features of ??classical ? PIE as reconstructed chie y on the basis of Sanskrit and Ancient Greek with support from Latin and Avestan In the noun there was no feminine gender distinct from the masculine The verb showed no obvious trace of the aspectual contrast between ??present ? and ??aorist ? or of the ??perfect ? category at all The subjunctive and optative moods were also missing Hittite was typologically a synthetic and in ecting language C like those named above with recognizable Indo-European morphology but it appeared to re ect either a more primitive or a more advanced stage of evolution than the other oldest attested representatives of the family And precisely the choice between those alternatives quickly became the focus of a debate that has continued to the present First Responses Strictly speaking there were nearly as many responses to the ??Hittite problem ? as there were Indo-Europeanists and any generalizations run the risk of oversimpli ?cation Nevertheless most reactions may be fairly characterized as adopting one of three fundamental approaches The ?rst was to treat Hittite respectively Anatolian as merely one more subgroup of the Indo- European family like any other and to derive its features from the PIE already reconstructed with a bare minimum of revisions to that model ??as represented by the Grundri? of Karl Brugmann Two articulate and nuanced presentations of this viewpoint may be found in Pedersen and Eichner but there have been many others Since this account must assume that the features of ??classical ? PIE missing in Hittite are due to their having been lost there it is often simplistically labeled the ??Schwund-Hypothese ? While there have been important exceptions see below it is fair to say that this approach was dominant among Indo-Europeanists in Europe until the s C Some however adopted essentially a diametrically opposed position namely that the major features cited above and arguably others represent massive common innovations of non-Anatolian Indo-European in which Hittite did not take part In terms of the family-tree Stammbaum model Hittite Anatolian is thus not a descendant of ??classical ? PIE but a co-equal branch both being