Indo-Hittite (was "Wife" (was: Homosexuality etc.)

(Eventually all the subject "was"'s will fall off the edge of the world)

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here.


> JS Bangs scripsit:
>
> > What do you mean by "Indo-Hittite hypothesis" ? If you mean the fact
that
> > Hittite is related to IE, then my impression (from reading current
> > articles) is that the theory is alive and well, and has become accepted
> > fact.
>
John Cown scripsit
> Quite true and not what I meant.
Right.  Hittite has been recognized as IE since early last century.  Its
_place_ in the IE scheme of things is what's controversial.
>
> > If you mean the re-drawing of IE trees to split immediately to
> > Proto-Hittite and Proto-Everything-Else, then I agree that the theory
> > isn't current.
But as I understand it, that _is_ the current view; it just isn't called
Indo-Hittite anymore.  Hittite is recognized as clearly divergent from all
other IE; IIRC it lacks/has lost the feminine gender; lacks/has lost some of
the verbal system; plus it retains traces of two of the laryngeals
(transliterated "-h-" and "-hh-") that show up in all other IE only by their
affects on surrounding V or C.

The assumption seems to be that Hittite was first to break away from PIE and
underwent separate development isolated from the rest of IE  but in contact
with non-IE languages. Some time afterwards, IE itself broke up.

My current understanding is that Hittite and
> > otherwise-reconstructible PIE are more or less sister languages,...
yes...
 ...descended
> > from a common ancestor that can't be reliably reconstructed.
No, the parent is still IE, I think.  This may seem contradictory, but
apparently the IE-ists haven't adopted the strict position (unlike some
AN-ists) that a form isn't truly IE unless it's attested in Hittite.  Still,
I'm not entirely sure-- I will pose the question to the experts at Cybalist
(they always appreciate an On-Topic question, and relief from the strange
Romanian who is currently plaguing (but amusing) them :-)))).

Related problem that all historical linguists have to cope with:  is a form
"X", found only in one language or subgroup, an innovation peculiar to that
group, or a retention of somthing lost everywhere else in the language
family.

> These two sentences seem to contradict each other.  My understanding of
> current orthodoxy is that Hittite is just another branch like Germanic,
> Greek, Italic, or Tocharian,
I don't think so.........but we'll find out....maybe  To paraphrase, "Ask
two IE-ists, you'll get three opinions."

Reply