Indo-european accent and ablaut

Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence

111

Concluding, we must reconstruct the static paradigm as follows: nom.sg. 

*CéC-C, acc.sg. *CéC-C(-m), gen.sg. *CéC-C-s, loc.sg. *CéC-C.

3  Proterokinetic / proterodynamic

e pattern that is called ‘proterokinetic’ in the Erlangen model is in the 

Leiden model called ‘proterodynamic’. Since this latter term is the term 

originally coined by Pedersen (1926: 24, cf. Kuiper 1942: 4), I prefer to use 

‘protero dynamic’ as well. In Anatolian, a well-attested proterodynamic para-

digm is exhibited by the Hittite word for ‘fire’:

nom.-acc.sg. 

paḫḫur 

< *péh₂-ur 

i.e. *CéC-C

gen.sg. 

paḫḫuenaš  < *ph₂-uén-s

16 

 *CC-éC-s

Unfortunately, this paradigm does not possess an original (i.e. endingless) 

locatival form (instead, the dative form paḫḫueni is used). In the word 

for ‘heaven’, which goes back to an original proterodynamic neuter s-stem 

*nebh-es-,

17

 an endingless locative is attested in the form nepiš, which ulti-

mately goes back to *nbh-és. is form is the Anatolian pendant to forms like 

Skt. sā́nau ‘on the back’ < *són-ēu << *sn-ḗu, which proves the existence of a 

proterodynamic loc.sg. *CC-éC.

18

Before we have a look at the “hysterokinetic” and “amphikinetic” pat-

terns of the Erlangen model and the “hysterodynamic” pattern of the Leiden 

model, we must first discuss the Hittite word for ‘hand’, keššar.

4 Hittite 

kešsar ‘hand’

e attestations of keššar are the following:

19

16  With generalization of the full grade in the root: paḫḫuenaš reflects *peh₂-uén-os, 

which must have replaced original *ph₂-uén-s.

17  Cf. section 8 for a more detailed treatment of the prehistory of the s-stem 

*nebh-es- ‘heaven’ in Anatolian. 

18 In sā́nau << *sn-ḗu, the *é was in pre-PIE lengthened to *ḗ before a word-final 

resonant, as discussed in section 8.

19  Cf. Puhvel 1997: 160f., Rieken 1999: 278f. and Kloekhorst 2008: 471 for attesta-

tions. In Friedrich 1952: 108 an endingless locative form keššar is cited, but the 

interpretation of this form is incorrect, cf. Neu 1980: 33–5. e abbreviation OS 

stands for ‘Old Script’ (i.e. Hittite texts written in the Old Hittite period), MS 

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---

Alwin Kloekhorst

112

OS

MS

NS

nom.sg.

ke-eš-šar

ki-iš-šar-aš

ke-eš-ši-ra-aš, 

ki-iš-ši-ra-aš

acc.sg.

[ki-i]š-še-ra-an

ki-iš-še-ra-an

ke-eš-ši-ra-an, 

ki-iš-ši-ra-an 

gen.sg.

--

ki-iš-ra-aš, 

ki-iš-ša-ra-aš

ki-iš-še-ra-aš

dat.-loc.sg. ki-iš-ša-ri-i

--

ki-iš-ri, 

ki-iš-ši-ri

all.sg.

ki-iš-ra-a

--

ki-šar-ra

abl.

--

ki-iš-ra-az, 

ki-iš-ša-ra-az,

ki-iš-šar-az

instr.

ki-iš-šar-ta

ki-iš-šar-at, 

ki-iš-šar-ta

ke-eš-šar-ta, 

ki-iš-(ša-)ri-it, 

acc.pl.

--

--

ki-iš-še-ru-uš

dat.-loc.pl. --

--

ki-iš-ra-aš

In 1967, Schindler discussed keššar and reconstructed its paradigm as “Nom. 

*g̑hés-ōr f., Gen. *g̑hes-r-és, Dat. *g̑hes-r-éi, Akk. *g̑hés-or-, Lok. *g̑hes-ér(-i) 

mit derselben Suffixabstufung, wie wir sie bei den n-Stämmen kennen” (1967: 

246), i.e. according to the “amphikinetic” pattern. Yet, not all reconstructed 

forms can easily account for the Hittite forms. Especially the reconstruction 

of the acc.sg. form is remarkable: the preform *ǵhés-or- as postulated by 

Schindler can in no way explain the attested acc.sg. form kiššeran. He him-

self is aware of this as well. In a footnote he remarks: “Da im idg. Paradigma 

*-er-, *-or-, *-r- wechselten, […] werden sich die alten Ablautstufen über ih-

ren jeweiligen Geltungsbereich hinaus verbreitet haben, ohne daß eine feste 

Norm erreicht wurde. So erklär[t] sich auch Akk. keššeran statt *keššaran” 

(1967: 247 n. 40). Yet, if we look at the overview of forms above, we see that 

in OH and MH texts in each case form the vowel of the suffix is consistent. 

Only in NH times do we find a slight productivity of -er- (also spelled -ir-). 

In Schindler’s defence, in 1967 it was not yet possible to date Hittite texts, so 

Schindler did not have the diachronic overview at his disposal that we have 

today. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that Schindler was biased towards 

a reconstruction similar to the n-stem paradigm to such an extent that he did 

for ‘Middle Script’ (texts written in the Middle Hittite period) and NS for ‘Neo-

Script’ (texts written in the Neo-Hittite period).

@ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2013

---