On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:35:41 -0000, "petegray"
<
petegray@...> wrote:
>I have read that there is no evidence at all that the sound transcribed as
><h with a thing underneath it> was actually a velar fricative in Hittite.
>It could simply have been /h/ as in English. The transcription comes from
>the tradition of transcribing it that way within all cuneiform inscriptions,
>which itself can be questioned. In Hittite there is no other /h/ sound.
>
>How far is this accurate?
The evidence we have for [x] is indirect, but pretty solid. There is
internal evidence, such as the occasional variation between <h> and
<k> (hameshants/hameskants "spring"), which is best explained if <h>
were a velar fricative, and there is external evidence, in particular
the rendering of the name <Hatti> in hieroglyphic as <xt3> (Egyptian
had <x> (h-ring) = /x/, <h> (h) = /h/, <X> (h-bar) = /รง/(?) and <H>
(h-dot) = /H/, the pronunciation of which [except for "h-bar"] can be
solidly established by comparing the Egyptian rendering of West
Semitic names and words, and the West Semitic rendering of Egyptian
words and names).
In Akkadian cuneiform, <h> represents the PSem. velar fricatives */x/
and */G/ (while the PSem. glottals */?/, */h/ and epiglottals/
pharyngeals */3/ and */H/ are unmarked), so I don't think there is
much reason to question the tradition of reading cuneiform <h> as /x/.
It's harder to say whether Hittite had more than one H-sound:
cuneiform spelling did not provide more than one series. It has been
suggested that medially, <h> was distinct from <hh>.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...