The Mirage of Correspondence in Comparative Linguistics:Greek -μᾱν, Hittite -(ḫ)ḫaḫat(i) and Lycian -χagã

Abstract

The 1 sg. mediopassive endings, Greek -μᾱν(non-Attic-Ionic), Hittite -(ḫ)ḫaḫat(i) and Lycian -χagã at first glance seem to show an undeniable correspondence in terms of form and meaning, going back to the Proto-Indo-European iterated ending *-h2eh2e. However, a close examination of the iterated ending -(ḫ)ḫaḫa and uniterated ending -(ḫ)ḫa within the history of the Hittite language shows that Greek -μᾱν, Hittite -(ḫ)ḫaḫat(i) and Lycian -χagã are independent developments in the prehistory of each language. Neo-Hittite historical texts still have the uniterated endings as well as the iterated endings. From a functional point of view, there is no discernible opposition between them. If we assume that Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Anatolian had the iterated ending available, it would turn out that *-h2e and *-h2eh2e remained functionally undistinguished from a Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Anatolian stage to the Neo-Hittite period. Having two free variants coexisting over such a long period does not seem likely. Needless to say, the comparative method is a powerful tool for reconstructing proto-languages, and there is a constant temptation when practicing the comparative method to attribute too much to the common ancestor, but it is important to recognize its limitations.