Abstract
This paper reviews the evidence from Hittite on morphological and syntactic marking of direct addresses. It is shown that the standard description of Hoffner, and Melchert in 2008 needs a revision. Careful examination of a considerable body of texts shows a mismatch between morphological (vocative case) and syntactic (separate syntactic unit) marking of direct addresses to gods and men. The real taxonomy of direct addresses in Hittite is as follows: (a) morphologically marked vocatives within the main clause, (b) morphologically marked vocatives in a separate syntactic unit, (c) morphologically marked nominatives (or unmarked logograms) in a separate syntactic unit, (d) morphologically marked nominatives (or unmarked logograms) within the main clause. All these structures are demonstrably different from appositional constructions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
