楔形文宇スペリングの言語学的解釈 : 3つの事例

Abstract

There are a number of intrinsic deficiencies in the cuneiform syllabary for writing Hittite and other Anatolian languages. The syllabary can directly represent only single initial or final consonants and internal clusters of two consonants within words. It is, however, impossible for scribes to render initial or final consonant clusters or internal clusters of three or more consonants without using empty vowel signs. Linguistic interpretation of these vowels is not always easy because consonant clusters may potentially be broken up by prothetic, epenthetic or epithetic vowels. The 3 sg. active preterite endings of the mi-conjugation, when attached to the consonantal verb stem, offer a case in point; e.g., Hittite e-ip-ta '(s)he seized', Cuneiform Luvian a-aš-ta '(s)he was'. The 3 pl. active preterite ending in Cuneiform Luvian such as a-ú-i-in-ta 'they came' also presents a case of the problem. As for the Hittite 3 sg. ending -ta, the final a therein is graphic because the extra -ta sign in e.g., li-in-kat-ta '(s)he swore' (never spelled **li-in-ka-at) is used to indicate an unlenited quality of the final consonant. On the other hand, comparative evidence speaks for the reality of the vowel included in the Cuneiform Luvian preterite 3 sg. ending -ta, whether attached to consonantal stems (e.g., a-aš-ta) or vocalic stems (a-ú-i-ta '(s)he came'), and 3 pl. ending -nta (e.g., a-ú-i-in-ta). Neither of the endings has a non-etymological prop vowel, but they both continue the Proto-Indo-European mediopassive endings *-to and *-nto.