The Pronunciation of Written a-i and a-u in Hittite

Abstract

Twenty years ago' I discussed the Hittite development of the original diphthongs. My views on the vowel system of Proto-Indo-Hittite and of Hittite have undergone several important changes in the past twenty years; but I still hold essentially the same opinion as then about the Hittite development of IH long diphthongs, and for about the same reasons. I find, however, that more or less serious doubts prevail about this feature of Hittite phonology; I must try again. The original key to the interpretation of Hittite cuneiform writing was, of course, furnished by our knowledge of Akkadian writing. Since, however, Akkadian possessed no diphthongs, we cannot expect to learn from that source how the Hittites wrote whatever diphthongs their language may have possessed. In early IE languages such as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Oscan, and Gothic there were diphthongs as well as clear traces of earlier diphthongs which had become monophthongs. If, then, Hittite of the second millennium B.C. is to be grouped genealogically with these languages, we cannot decide to refuse it diphthongs just because Akkadian cuneiform had no clear means of writing them. We must patiently examine the Hittite words and inflectional endings that show diphthongs in related languages. We must, in other words, consider the etymological evidence.