Re: [tied] Re:Status of Hittite

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re:Status of Hittite


>
> > This could be proved easily if one convincingly demonstrate: firstly, an
> innovation shared by all IE languages but Anatolian,
>
> The three-gender system -- more likely than the reduction of
> masculine/feminine/neuter to animate/inanimate in Anatolian (given the
> partial survival of the two-way pattern in the Rest).


In my opinion it is a good argument.
Are there others to add?


> > secondly, an innovation shared by all IE languages but Anatolian and
> Tocharian.
>
> The "thorny" metathesis of *tk clusters, as in *dg^Ho:m and *h2r.tk^os .


Piotr, could you please explain this in more details (examples are
appreciated)?


> > On the other hand, one should be ready to prove that all the common
> features of Tocharian and, say, Italic (or Celtic) are just shared
archaisms
> or coinciding results of independent developments. This task seems to be
> harder.
>
> Which particular features? The "r-middle"? That's safely an archaism.
>
> Piotr


I can't estimate how serious are the following correspondences between
Tocharian and Italic, however they have been reported:
- Genitive singular -í
- Relative pronouns kwis
- Medium voice in -r (is this the mentioned "r-middle"?)
- Subjunctive mood with -á- / -é-


Alexander