speaker, near the person addressed, and near the person spoken of, but more exact locations are often added. The Tlingit of Alaska differentiate between what is near him but nearer than you, and what is near him but farther than you; or positions in front, behind, above, or below the speaker may be designated. Among the tribes extending from Columbia River northward to Alaska-the same group which differentiates between proper names and common nouns-a different demonstrative concept is introduced, namely that of visibility and invisibility. The Chinook has demonstratives designating, for instance, 'near the speaker, visible'. The same occurs in Quilleute and Coast Salish, but not in the Salish dialects of the interior. It is a characteristic feature of Kwakiutl and is highly developed in Tsimshian. I do not know of its occurrence in any other group of neighboring languages. Still another feature characteristic of part of the same group is the separation of pronominal subject and object in transitive verbs. The verb unaccompanied by what we should call an adverb, takes a suffix consisting of pronominal subject and object combined. When a qualifying adverb accompanies the verb, the subject is attached to this qualifier which takes the form of an intransitive verb, while the object remains attached to the primary verb. 'I did not see him' would be expressed by 'not-I see-him'. This tendency occurs in exactly the same form in Quilleute, Coast Salish, and Wakashan. In Tsimshian it is less fully developed, in so far as in subjunctive forms the pronominal subject precedes the verb and is phonetically united with the preceding adverb. The analogy, however, is not strict. Another interesting comparison may be made between Chukchee and Eskimo. In regard to the general form, these two languages are quite distinct. Chukchee employs terminal reduplication, prefixes, suffixes, and vocalic harmony. Besides this there are rigid rules regarding initial consonantic clusters which bring about important modifications of stem form. Eskimo has nothing of the kind. There is no reduplication, no prefixes whatever, no trace of vocalic harmony. Whatever changes occur in stem are due to the influence of suffixes. On the other hand, a number of categories occur which are common to these two neighboring languages. The plural forms are alike; both Eskimo and Chukchee form the plural by a suffix t. The nominal subject in Eskimo is treated differently in the case of transitive and intransitive verbs. The subject of the transitive verb has what might be called a relational form, common to both the genitive and the transitive subject. The subject of the intransitive verb has the same form as the object of the transitive verb. This feature occurs also in other languages, as in Sahaptin, and it is found in the pronominal forms of many other languages. But in the circumpolar area only the Chukchee and Eskimo have this differentiation of the nominal forms. The processes by means of which this differentiation is made in Eskimo and Chukchee are quite distinct, for the object in Chukchee is formed by terminal reduplication; in Eskimo the subject is differentiated by a suffix. Furthermore we find in both languages a considerable number of post positions which express local relationships, such as 'at', 'towards', 'from', and so on. The analogy in the modal development of the verb is also quite striking. A considerable number of participial forms occur which may take personal pronouns and the group of concepts expressed by the modalities shows marked similarity. Considering these data as a whole, we may say that in a considerable number of native languages of the North Pacific Coast we find, notwithstanding fundamental differences in structure and vocabulary, similarities in particular grammatical features distributed in such a way that neighboring languages show striking similarities. The areas in which similar features are found do not coincide in regard to the various traits compared. It seems to me almost impossible to explain this phenomenon without assuming the diffusion of grammatical processes over contiguous areas. Stress must be laid here upon the contiguity of distribution, because comparative grammar shows clearly that similar features may develop independently in different parts of the world. Sex categories, phonetic similarity between the Northwest Coast and Chile, the application of reduplication, and many other traits appear in such distribution that historical connection is excluded. On the other hand the distribution of the same particular grouping of concepts, or of the same methods of expression over contiguous areas can hardly be explained on the basis of independent origin. So far as I can see an attempt to bring together the different languages of contiguous areas which have similar processes, is not feasible on account of the fundamental differences in conceptualization, in grammatical processes, and in vocabulary. The phenomena here discussed lead to a result analogous to that reached by Lepsius in his study of African languages. He concluded that a large number of mixed languages occur in Africa. His conclusions are largely corroborated by more recent investigations, particularly of the Sudanese languages. It is also parallel to the results ob tained by von der Gabelentz in his study of the languages of New Guinea and Melanesia, and his inferences are substantiated by the recent investigations of Dempwolff. The problem has been well formulated by Professor Prokosch who demands a detailed comparison of the European languages with all their neighbors no matter to what linguistic stock they may belong. It also agrees with the view of Schuchardt who points out that there is a gradation beginning with a slight amount of borrowing and extending through more intensive intermingling, to a complete change of language. The question in which we are interested is not that of the theoretical definition of relation of languages as defined by Meillet and Ween, but merely a question of historical development. If the view expressed here is correct, then it is not possible to group American languages rigidly in a genealogical scheme in which each linguistic family is shown to have developed to modern forms, but we have to recognize that many of the languages have multiple roots. HITTITE DENOMINATIVES IN a(i) AND ONE SOURCE OF INDO-EUROPEAN NOUNS IN LONG ā E. H. STURTEVANT YALE UNIVERSITY [That Hittite denominatives in a (i) correspond to IE verbs in -āyō is supported by etymologies (èfáw, ápfáoμai, mētāri, parāre) and by agreement with Latin in method of formation (cf. aestuäre but piscārī) from u- and i-stems. In Hittite no ā-stems have been recognized, the suffix is therefore not a conglomerate. This adds new interest to the fact that in IE (esp. Rig Veda and Homer) many -ōyō verbs have no corresponding a-stem. Probably the IE ā-stems are largely 'backformations' patterned on a number of a-stems that were (cf. Hirt) simply dissyllabic bases.] In his commentary on the Madduwattaš text (81-100)1 Götze has collected and discussed the Hittite verbs of the mi-conjugation whose stem ends in a(i). He lists (85) the personal endings as they appear in combination with the stem-final, as follows:2 1 Götze, Madduwattas (Hethitische Texte in Umschrift, mit Übersetzung und Erläuterungen, herausgegeben von F. Sommer, Heft 3), Leipzig, 1928. Götze cites the literature so fully that many citations can be omitted here. ? Here and elsewhere I omit the marks of long quantity which Götze employs. The usual assumption that double writing of a vowel may indicate length would strengthen the argument presented in this paper; but I am convinced that such an assumption cannot be carried through consistently. Pages 85-95 contain citations of the actual forms upon which the above table is based. On page 96 occurs this remarkable passage: "Soweit der Befund. Zur Erklärung scheint mir die Beobachtung fruchtbar, dass das 'eingeschobene' i dort fehlt wo wir im indogermanischen thematischen Verbum den Themavokal als o erwarten. Umgekehrt erscheint i regelmässig oder zuweilen, wo wir den Themavokal als e erwarten.” Götze thinks that hatraizzi 'he writes' came from an earlier *hatrayizzi and that from *hatrayezi, while hatranzi 'they write' came from *hatrayanzi by loss of y between like vowels and contraction. He might have cited in support of the loss of y between like vowels the nominative plural of i-stems in eš from Pre-Indo-European **eies (e.g. nom. pl. šarkantes beside nom. sing. šarkantis, the name of some domestic animal). There can be no doubt that hatraizzi came from *hatrayezi, although the intermediate stage assumed by Götze is uncertain, and although we do not know whether hatraizzi was pronounced in three syllables or in four. It is equally clear, as Götze points out, that many of these verbs are denominatives. On pages 81-3 he lists a number of derivatives of u-stem nouns and adjectives, of which these are perfectly clear: huišwa(i)- 'be alive': huišuš 'alive', aššuwa(i)- ‘be good': aššuš 'good', parkuwa(i)- 'be pure': parkuš 'pure', dankuwa(i)- 'be dark, impure': dankuš 'dark, impure', daššuwa(i)- 'be strong': daššuš 'strong', genzuwa(i)- 'show friendship': genzu 'friendly disposition', kutruwa (i)'be a witness': kutrus 'witness', halluwa(i)- 'quarrel': hallu- 'a quarrel', luluwa (i)- 'prosper': lulu 'prosperity', šaruwa (i)- 'plunder': šaru 'booty'. On page 99 Götze cites also iwaruwa (i)- 'give': iwaru 'gift'. From other types of nominal stem he lists (99) arša (i)- 'plant' from aršiš ‘a plant' <? or 'a field of plants'>, irha (i)- 'finish' from irhuš (acc. pl.) 'boundaries', takšula(i)- 'make peace' from takšul 'friend', warra(i)'help' from warris 'helpful', and gangata(i)- from gangati (meaning uncertain). I would add happara(i)- 'sell' from happar 'business transaction' (see below 11). Furthermore, tarkumma(i)- 'interpret, explain' seems to reflect Accadian TARGUMĀNU 'interpreter', and, if so, it implies a Hittite noun *tarkummaš, or the like. If the Hittite denominatives in a(i) from earlier ayo: aye are to be connected with anything in Indo-European, they must go with the denominatives in ajo:aje (e.g. Sanskrit prtanāyati 'he fights': prtanā See Friedrich, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Neue Folge 3.183 (1927). |