c-HURRIAN-URARTIAN-9.htm

The purpose of this short essay is to establish as a hypothesis that IE and Hurrian-Urartian ⁽¹⁾ are both descended from a common ancestor, which, I term the Proto-Language — from the form into which it developed between 40K and 35K BPE.

This date is based on the estimates of Cavalli-Sforza for the separation of the peoples of Asia and Europe (The Great Human Diasporas, p. 123) from the "main" branch of the people speaking the Proto-Language.

During this phase of development, the Proto-Language was passing out of a ergative-type morphology into an nominative-type morphology (G. A. Klimov).

Hurrian-Urartian word order is predominantly SOV, corresponding to SOV established by W. P. Lehmann for IE; SOV word-order stems from the earliest syntax of the Proto-Language, in which the transitive subject is only loosely linked to the object-verb, which is primary.

Nostratic has come to mean a language super-family from which a number of other language families are believed to be descended. This essay attempts only to substantiate an early relationship of Indo-European and Hurrian-Urartian through Nostratic — specifically in its Pontic phase — and, in addition, to demonstrate that Nostratic is descended from the Proto-Language. Since we also maintain that all languages are descended from the Proto-Language, this affirms the major Nostratic Hypothesis since any language is, therefore, more or less distantly related to Nostratic.

It is, unfortunately, rather easy to see why the Nostratic Hypothesis — even in its minimal configuration — has not been widely accepted. I am reproducing a random page from the work of Hermann Möller which vividly displays the reasons for the scholarly hesitation: 1) the comparisons, which include devices like "Infix" and irregular and unconvincing correspondences (on the page illustrated, IE k[^]-u- shows up as Semitic S, sh, Z, and D).

Sadly, the work of Linus Brunner shows the same pattern irregular correspondences and implausibile mechanisms to enable comparisons.

Although he and I differ somewhat on details, I can recommend the work of Allan R. Bomhard, whose comparisons are regular and whose method is soundly consistent.

For truly interested students of Nostratic, an excellent and relatively inexpensive source of valuable current information

which can be purchased as a hardcover (for $71.00 + shipping) from SIGNUM Desktop Publishing, P. O. Box 151, Charleston, SC 29402 (803)729-8531 (FAX also), or by e-mail.

Although there has been an understandable negative reaction to linking 'race' and language notably because of the racial doctrines of the former National Socialists, responsible scholars have now begun to re-investigate the connections among genetic profiles of populations and culture and language, with the result that the basic Nostratic Hypothesis (and with it, monogenesis) is gaining substantial credibility through the results of research by physical scientists.

The kind of solid data being generated and careful analysis cannot be "quibbled away" by the liberal ideologues who still chase the butterflies of independent language invention and "borrowing frenzy".

In the Table of Correspondence found after the listing of lexical cognates below, the column entitled PROTO-LANGUAGE shows the earliest syllables before vocalic contrasts were replaced by a contrast of glides and no glide (during the Pontic stage). Similar tables of equivalence can and have been constructed for the Proto-Language, IE and Afrasian, Altaic, Basque, Beng (Southern Mandé), Blackfoot (Algonquian), Dravidian (incomplete), Etruscan, Hurrian-Urartian (present essay), Japanese, Mon/Hmong, Nama, Pama-Nyungan (incomplete), (Sino-)Tibetan, Sumerian, and Uralic.

An excellent online resource for Sino-Caucasian in particular and Nostratic in general is at the TOWER OF BABEL, founded by Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin, and now part of the Evolution of Human Languages project at the Santa Fe Institute.

An important new resource for Nostratic studies is the website Nostratica, instituted by Kirill Babaev, the founder of the Cybalist language discussion group at Yahoo! Groups.

(1)
^aHHA-P[?]FA(-¿E) ("^bwater-chin=drool=desire strongly(-like= desirous)"); H: not attested; U: ab(a) {**haba}, 'wish, desire, want, request'; (IE: *abh- {**H₂ebh-}, 'quick, intense'; in *abh-ro-, 'strong, intense' ); (cf. S ab-3, '**pre-coital emission(?)' or '**ejaculate' {J. #274 pictures a 'penis entering vulvae'}); (cf. A: Habba, 'desire, love'; HabHaba, 'to flow scantily, **dribble'); (cf. E: jb, 'will, desire, wish, think, suppose'; jbj, 'thirst after something' {a determinative for jb, 'kid' [note L ibex], shows a '**mouth with saliva dripping down from it'}); RATIONALE: The PL had a strong preference for visual metaphors of inner states.

(2)
HHA-P[?]E-¿E ("water-pour-out-like=water-hole)"); H: abi {**hap^?i}, 'hole, pit' (really '**well, spring, water-hole'); U: not attested; (IE: **abi-, an analogous formation to **a:pi- (listed under 2. *a/a:p-, 'water, river'), listed under *ab-, 'water, river'); (cf. S: ab, 'sea, hole'); (cf. A: in HabHaba, 'to flow scantily, **dribble'); RATIONALE: The idea here is either a cleft from which water flows or water dribbling.

(3)
T[?]SA-FA-T[?]SA-FA ("long-round=elliptic-orbit=spin-unsteadily: reduplicated=always-spinning-unsteadily=dizzy-in-love"); H: **tâ(+)d(û)- {**dava-dava}, 'love'); U: not attested; (IE 2. *dheu-dh- , 'shake, confuse, swirl confusedly' ); (cf. Hebrew: d-w-d, 'love', assumed to be based on '*swing, rock, dandle, fondle' but probably better '**swoon'); (cf. A: daudâh-un {dw-dw}, 'seesaw, swing'; RATIONALE: The idea is 'swooning, becoming dizzy' with love. The sequence - ava- coalesces to -â-.

(4)
HHA-T[?]A-¿E ("moving+hand-like=finger=plait, fix together"); H: not attested; U:
ath(u)- {**hat^?(a)g(i)(u)}, 'build'; (IE *de:i-, 'bind', listed under *de:- : d6- and de:i-, di/i:-, 'bind' {**H₂edey-); (cf. E: d3j {for **jdj3}, 'cordage'; jd(r), 'stitch') ; (cf. S: de-4, '**bind' {J. #680 reads de-4, and means 'bind'}); (cf. A: Hatâ {H-t-y} , 'sew, fasten'); RATIONALE: The final -u is considered by Melikišvili to be the sign of the transitive as opposed to -a, the ending of the intransitive. I believe that any verb normally ends in -a, and that the -u is added to indicate the imperfective aspect.

(5)
T[?]E(-¿A)-¿E + T[?]O-FA ("twist-off(-perfective)=piece- like=portion + lump-imperfective=lumping=putting-together"); H: tî(+)dû- {**t^?iyi + t^?uva}, 'part'; U: dî(+)dû-, 'divide'; (IE *da:i-/d6i- {**deH₂ey-}, 'divide, cut apart, tear apart', listed under *da:-/d6- + 2. *deu-, 'religiously honor, do'); (cf. S: basis in di(-kud), 'judge', i.e. 'cut parts, apportion, divide fairly'; di-x, '**part' {J. #798 reads di-x, and means 'part'}); di-5, 'pluck out, snatch away, pull up to one's self'); (cf. E: djj.t, 'gift, present, tribute' {Gardiner 1973: Sign X8, 'conical loaf', rather '**a pie-shaped part torn or cut off'}); (cf. A: basis in ta¿ta¿a, 'pluck out (a tooth)'); RATIONALE: Again, we have a concrete image ('twisting-off') to describe the abstract idea. Hurrian-Urartian -du, 'make, do', is a common, recognized formant for verbs from nouns or adjectives. The sequence -iya- coalesces to -î-; -uwa coalesces to û.

(6)
?A-K[?]E ("across+split-open=puncture=poke [with a stick]=goad"); H: ag- {**Øak^?}, 'lead, bring'; U: (')ag(u)-, 'plot, lead (canal), lead away (prisoners)'; (IE *ag[^]-, 'drive [really probably "drive by swinging arms"], swing, set into motion, lead'); (cf. E: in jkw, 'stone-quarry'; jkjj,‘quarryman [jk is written with Gardiner 1973: Sign A19 'bent man leaning on a stick']); (cf. S: ag, 'plant'; ag-2, 'send'); (cf. A: ?akara, 'till'; ?akamatun, 'rising ground' [cf. IE ag[^]ro-, 'field', ag[^]mo-s, 'furrow']); RATIONALE: The idea is 'goading' a pack animal; for Arabic 'till', the idea is using a dibble-stick to plant.

(7)
HA-¿E-T[?]SE-¿E + T[?]A-FA ("air-like-release- imperfective=shouting+ give-imperfective=giving"); H not attested; U: îzî(+)dû- {**hayidziyi+t^?a(va)}, 'order, command'; (IE **aidh- (cf. OHG eid, 'oath'), listed under 5.*ai- {**H₂eyedh-}, 'important speech'); (cf. E: Dd {for **jjDjd; cf. Coptic jo: but combining form ji-, 'say'}, 'say, expect, bid'); (cf. A: hâda {h-y-d} 'chide, distress, frighten'); RATIONALE: Urartian favors a combination with -d(û) as does Egyptian.

(8)
NA-HHE(-¿E) ("interior-go-(present participle)=enter(/ing)"); H: nahh(a)-, '**come'; nahh(u)-, '**bring' [both these meanings have yet to be generally accepted]; U: nah(a)- {**nax}, 'come, ascend (throne)'; nah(u)-, 'bring, carry away, lead away'; these meanings are established; (IE 1. *nei-, ney6-: ni:- {**neH₄ey- [cf. Hittite na:i-, 'guide, lead'}, 'lead, *go inside [cf. OInd nyeti, 'he enters, goes inside']); (cf. E njnj, greeting, '**come in! come in!'); (S not attested); (cf. A: naHâ {n-H-y}, 'direct one's self towards'); RATIONALE: In view of the attested Hittite reflex and OInd né:tar, it would be better to reconstruct IE **ne:i-.

(9)
K[H]E-¿E-FA ("shadow-like=gray-small-plural=grays"); H: kewa {better **kîva from **kiyiva}, '**old men', i.e. '**grey(beards)' , which is glossed by S ^(LÚ)+(MEŠ)šu.gi); U: not attested; (IE 2. *k[^]ei-, 'dark' [*k[^]e:-ro-, 'color designation', in Greek Kê:r, 'goddess of death' {K[H]E-R[H]A ("shadow-color"), and *k[^]i-wo- {K[H]E-¿E-FA ("gray-small-plural=shades(?)")}, 'color' (better, 'shades'); cf. Old Prussian sijwan, 'gray'}]); (cf. S: ku-10, 'darkness' {for **gu-x; better, '**shade(d area)'}, a derivation from ge-6, 'night, black, shadow'); (cf. E **k, 'soul' [in early spellings, k3 is written simply k, and as a plural: kkk for **k.w]; this strongly suggests that **k, '**shadow', was in competition with k(j)3 as a designation for the spirit or ghost of a man; E k(j)k(j), 'be dark', corresponds to S gig-2, 'night, black, shadow'); RATIONALE: Apparently, gray was the color associated with spirits from the earliest times.

(10)
T[?]SO-FA-R[H]E-P[?]A ("swing-imperfective-come- spot=approaching-swing=milling-towards-spot"); H: tur(u)b(i) {**duvarip^?a}, 'rebellion'; U: durba-, 'revolt'; (IE basis in *dhewer-, 'spin, storm, hurry, dizziness, foolishness', listed under 4. *dheu-, 'be in intense, boiling motion'; turba:, 'noise, disorder', is possibly a form from this root formerly containing s-mobile); (cf. E: in '3pp, 'Apep, serpent-demon bringing disorder'); (cf. S: basis in tur, 'uncontrolled'; tur-5, '*storm-flood' {J. #99 reads tur-5, and means 'storm-flood'}; tur-6, '*turn' {J. #834 reads tur-6, pictures a circle, and means 'turn'}); (cf. A: taDarraba {D-r-b}, 'be in commotion'); RATIONALE: What is intended is disordered swirling.

(11)
FE-HHA-¿E-RO ("strong-move-like-very=very-energetic"); H: ewr-i {**hayiviru, metathesis from **vihayiru}, 'lord'; U: eur-i, 'lord, ruler'; (IE *wi/i:ro-s {**weH₂eyero}, 'man, really "the strong one"'); (cf. E: wr {for **w(jj)r: cf. Coptic oue:r}, 'great, chief';); (cf. S: **g[~]îl-2, '**strength {J. #834 reads gil-2 and means 'strength'}'); (cf. A: basis only in waHHâ {w-H-y}, 'chief of a tribe, speediness'); RATIONALE: Leaders in a simple society are chosen for energy not lineage.

(12)
PF[H]O-¿E-¿O-T[?]O ("fat-like-hold-lump=fat=cattle"); H: peda-ri {**p^huyiyut^?u}, 'bull' ; U: not attested; (IE *poi-d- {for **p(h)oyeH₃-d-}, 'fat', in Germanic *faita, 'fat(noun)', listed under *pey(6)-, 'be fat, puff up'); (cf. E: not attested); (cf. S: pi-6, 'mountain sheep, gazelle, deer, fat, damage'; basis in pa-8, '*sheep'); (cf. A: fa¿uma, 'become fat' {cf. IE pi:-mo-s, 'fat'}); RATIONALE: The concepts of 'fat' and 'cattle' are difficult to disentangle.

(13)
?A-S[H]A ("here-immobile=sit"); H: ašš- {**Øasa}, 'sit' ; U: (')aš(u), 'let, permit, push from one's self, pursue, set down'; (IE **as-, alternate (transitive?) form of e/e:s- {**H₄es-} [based on Hittite ašaši, 'sets' {**H₂es-], 'sit'); (cf. E: in jzb.t, 'throne' (+ P[?]FO, 'leg, place'); s.t {for **jz.t), 'seat, throne'; the 'throne'-sign is used to indicate 'Isis' [J(j)s.t]} ); (cf. S: as/z-3, '*sit [Comb. #5 = J. #1, as/z-3 + J. #117, di-3, and means 'throne' {cf. IE **(a)sodyo-m, 'seat', listed under *sed-, 'sit'}]'; ^(GIŠ)aš-ti, 'throne'); (cf. A: ?asasa, 'lay the foundation, ground something'); RATIONALE: Apparently, the more narrowly defined idea is 'remaining contentedly in place'.

(14)
S[H]E-HHA-¿E ("separate-perfective-like=separated-completely"); H: šeh(a)-la/i- {for **siga from sih(a)yi}, 'pure (really '**purified')' ; U: in ši(e)(+)dû(+)e {**sihayi+t^?a(va)+yi, 'giving+like'}, 'flowing out(?), coming out(?)'; (IE 1. *se:(i)- {**seH₂ey-}, 'sift'); (cf. E: perhaps in zj(j)n, 'sever (neck)' ); (cf. S: še-3 / ši-4, 'sift' {J. #893 reads še-3, and means 'sieve'}; še-6, '*be purified' {J. #339 reads še-6, and means 'be purified'}; še-8, '*purify' {Jaritz #907 reads še-8, and means 'anoint'); (cf. A: saHâ {s-H-y}, 'scrape off, shovel (mud), shave'); RATIONALE: The idea of 'pure' involved physically separating something.

(15)
F[H]A-N[H]A ("around-move=go-around"); H: not attested; U: ul(a)- {**val-}, 'go'; ul(u)-, 'lead(?)'; (IE 7. *wel-, 'turn, revolve, rotate'); (cf. E: perhaps in wnj, 'pass by'; also in wnj-Hr, 'open the sight of', but better '**turn the face around to' [the determinative is Gardiner 1973: Sign O31, 'door(-leaf')]); (cf. S: un-2, '**pass by' {J. #750 reads un-2, and means 'pass by'}); (cf. A: wallâ {w-l-y}, 'turn away from, shun, turn back, escape'); RATIONALE: A rather straightforward composition.

(16)
ME-¿E-NA-¿A(-¿E) ("emit-like=stick-up+thing=fence-stake-(perfective)=staked(-like=staying {fixed in place})"); H: man-, 'be'; U: man(u)- {**mân- from **miyinya-}, 'be, exist'; (IE: 5. *men- {for **meyeneH₂ey-, cf. Lat maneo:, 'stay'}', 'stay, stand still while reflecting', derived from *1. mei- {**mey-}, 'secure, stake'); (cf. E: mn(j) {for **mjnjj}, 'establish, remain, moor, attach'); (cf. S: men- 3, '**stand' {J. #410 reads men-3, and means 'stand, set upright, fix firmly'}); (cf. A: mana¿a {**m-(y)-n-¿(-y)}, 'deny, hinder (stop[?])'); RATIONALE: The concrete idea is 'to be fixed in place'.

(17)
MO-HHA-F[H]A ("blood=dirty-red+water-small-definite- plural=water-course"); H: mu-li-, 'river'; U: mu-na- {**mû- from **muhav-}, 'river'; (IE: 1. *meu-, mew6-: mu/u:- {**meH₂ew-}, 'wet, musty, sprinkle, impure liquid (also urine), make dirty, also wash, clean'; cf. also *mo/o:ri, 'sea, also standing water'); (cf. E: m(j)w {cf. Coptic moueiooue, 'waters'}, 'water'); (cf. S: mu- 8, '**flood' {J. #970 reads mu-8, and means 'flood'}); (cf. A: maHwa-tun {m-H-w}, 'rain'); RATIONALE: For fast-moving ('white') water or pooled clear water, simply HHA-F[H]A was employed: e.g. IE 9. *aw(e)- , 'dampen, wet, flow'.

(18)
Q[H]A-N[H]A-¿E ("humped-ingressive=start-to-bulge- like=stout=healthy"); H: kel-di- {**kayil- from **kalayi-}, 'health'; U: not attested; (IE: *kali/u-, 'beautiful, healthy', listed under 2. *kal-); (cf. E: qnj {same as qnj(j), 'fat' [Coptic keni]; cf. qnw, 'much, many'}, 'brave, strong, sturdy, able, capable, dutiful, powerful, stout, active'); (cf. S: k[~]al / k[~]alag[~](**i), 'strong, powerful, sturdy, valuable, expensive'); (cf. A: perhaps ?istaqalla {q-l-l}, 'grow, raise one's self'); RATIONALE: Again, the outward sign of health, developed muscles/fat, is preferred to characterize the inner state of health.

(19)
HHA-¿E-SO ("water-like=reflective-skin=(polished-)metal(- surface)/bright"); H: eš-i- {**hayizu-yi}, 'heaven ('the bright one')'; U: eši-, 'heaven'; (IE: basis in 4. *a/a:i-, 'burn, illuminate' {cf. S e-3, 'shine'}; also in ai-dh-, 'burn, illuminate'; a/a:y-er-, 'day, morning'; ayos-, 'metal'; in ais-k-, 'clear, bright, illuminating'); (cf. E: J(j)s.t [cf. Coptic e:se], 'Isis, the bright one (fem.)=Sirius'); (cf. S: **eššu, '**heaven' {J. #636 reads aš and (d)eššu, and means 'heaven'}); (cf. A: not attested); RATIONALE: There are a number of roots grouped under 2. *ais-, 'be respectful, venerate', and 1. *eis- , 'move violently/fast', like Italic aiso-, 'god', that are probably related; this may be the element iš- in Akkadian Ištar, 'bright- god(?)'.

(20)
?A-HA-RO ("forehead-stative=high-raise=present"); H: ar- {**Øahar-}, 'give'; U: ar(u)-, 'give, bestow, present'; (IE: 1. *ar- {H₂eH₂er-}, 'fit together, fit, heap up'; 2. *ar-, 'allot, take, bring'); (cf. E: jr(j), 'do, **give'); (cf. S: possibly al, 'save, bear interest'); (cf. A: ?ahhala, 'to render fit for'); RATIONALE: .

(22)
IIi. Hurrian, not attested; Urartian karu-, 'conquer, overpower'; from PP kxhy6r(6), 'deer- tree, antler' (cf. PIE 1. k[^]er-, '(horn), antler'; Sumerian kir-6, 'cattle'), i.e., 'use an antler, chip off'; PIE 4. k[^]er(6)-, '"damage"; intransitive "fall apart, moulder"', *conquer (cf. Greek keraï'dzo:, 'lay waste, plunder'); Egyptian H3, 'run aground'; H3ii, 'naked'; in sH3, 'strip'); REMARKS: .

(23)
(probably also, with elision of u/w,^(LÚ)ere/ili, 'king' aryo-, lord, commander

(26)
IIId. Hurrian hari, 'way'; Urartian hare, 'way'. PP x6, '(oral) passage' + rhy6, 'come' + ¿a, derivative; PIE 1. gwer-, gwer6-, 'swallow, throat, *passage (cf. Old Russian verelo, 'river- mouth'); Sumerian hara-4, 'cattle-pen (chute)'; Egyptian š3, 'field, meadow(-path?)'.

(27)
IIIe. Hurrian hud-, '?'; Urartian hutia-, 'ask, implore, pray'; PP x6¿f(6), 'group of groans' + t?6, 'give' or t?sy6, 'release'; PIE: we do not find *gweyu- meaning 'throat sounds' but we do have gwei-, 'lament, yammer'; we also have PIE gwhedh-, 'ask, desire', which seems to be 'release laments' (for gwh from PP x6¿f(6), cf. also gwhe:i, 'bright', from which phaiós, 'shimmering', the underlying form of which seems to be *phai-wós; Egyptian šw, 'sun-light'); Sumerian, perhaps he-2, optative particle ('groan'?); hut-2, '*cry of distress' (Jaritz 1970: Sign 684 reads hut- 2, and means 'cry of distress').

(28)
IVa. Hurrian ša-wa[â?]-la, 'year'; Urartian ša:-li, 'year'; from PP s6-fhw6, 'strong (sinew) spider (weaver)', which I have shown, is the basis for words meaning 'sun' in Egyptian ((n)zw(.t)), '(the) king', and PIE (sa/a:wel), 'sun'.

PIE -le and Hurrian/Urartian -la are derived from PL nhá, 'wave, definite animate singular, inchoative) but at different times with different meanings.

In Egyptian where the spelling n masked any difference in pronunciation, we have the odd circumstances that the formant -n is used for an old pronominal plural (Egyptian -n, -Tn, -sn) and a singular definite article (animate or inanimate?), pn, 'this'; plural: ipn, 'these'. In Sumerian, which had the same reflex (n) for both nh and n, we have the same situation virtually: in the intransitive imperfect and perfect tenses (or aspects), transitive imperfect, and in the plural forms of the transitive perfect, we find -en; this constellation of uses certainly suggests a plural (durative) idea associated with n.

On the other hand, ergative case 'he' is a-ne (Old Sumerian), clearly PP ?6 + nh(6) + Hy6. But in Hurrian-Urartian, where nh -> l but n -> n, we have ša-wa[â?]-la, 'year', which is, most logically, 'the suns', and we have further evidence of a plurality associated with -l through the enclitic forms of the third person personal pronouns -(n)na/-(n)ni, singular, against -lla/-lli, plural. Yet the singular definite article is -ni matched by -na in the plural.

We have here two important signposts for linguistic horticulturists:

1) those languages that did not change PP nh to l (Sumerian and apparently Egyptian did not), which are opposed to PIE, PAA, and the main dialects of Hurrian and Urartian, which did (although some dialects did not25);

2) those languages that used l from nh6 primarily as a plural formant (Hurrian-Urartian) [but what of Armenian infinitives in -l-, plural?], which are opposed to those which used l from this source primarily as a definite article (PIE and PAA [Arabic ?al-, 'the']).

(31)
IVd. Hurrian ašte34, 'woman'; Urartian, not attested; PP shy6, 'individual' + thw6¿, 'associate-like'; PIE, not attested; Egyptian z.t, 'woman'.

(32)
IVe. Hurrian haš-, 'understand, hear'; Urartian hašu-, 'hear, hearken, listen'; hašia-, 'give an ear to'; from PP xhy6¿(6), 'bristle, be alert' + sw6, 'be covered', i.e. 'be intensely alert with raised hackles'; PIE kweis-, 'pay attention', listed under 1. kwei-(t-), 'pay attention to'; Egyptian, possibly in šs3 'be wise, skilled, know' ('apply what has been learned by paying intense attention'?). For this combination of meanings, cf. Arabic sha¿ura, 'know, feel' with sha¿run, 'hair' from PP xhy6¿(6).

(13)Il. Hurrian (h)aigalli, name of animal; PP ?6¿k?6¿ from PL ?á¿, 'plant-top-like', i.e. 'grass' (cf. PIE ai-ra:, 'kind of grass [+ rhá, 'bird, color(ful)']) + k?á, 'jaw' / k?à, 'chew' + ¿a, imperfective; this is the general designation for a cud-chewing animal; in Egyptian, PP k?6¿ becomes H, the normal reflex of k?x6: jH, 'bull' / jH.t, 'cow'; PP k?6¿ usually becomes PIE gy, e.g. in g/g[^](y)eu-, 'chew' but as the notation indicates, palatal g can develop also36; therefore, we have aig[^]-, 'goat', i.e. 'grass-chewer' and a/a:g[^](y)-, 'goat', showing that PP ?6 without ¿(6) also meant 'grass'; additionally, we should connect PIE ag[^]h-, 'pregnant animal', which should be emended 'grass-chewer' (cf. Old Indian ahi:-, 'cow'; it may be that, at some point, a distinction was made between ?6, 'grass' and ?6¿, 'brush' or vice versa, connecting one with 'goats/sheep' and the other with 'cattle'. Cf. also Sumerian ag-3, *cud-chewer (Jaritz 1970 Sign 893 reads ag-3, and means 'sheepskin, fleece').

(15)IIb. Hurrian attai, 'father'; Urartian ati; from PP ?6thw6¿, 'family-member' from PL ?á, 'forehead, here, family' + thó, 'associate' + ¿á, 'pertaining to'; without ¿6 in PIE a/a:to-s, 'family', listed under a/a:to-s, 'father, mother'; Egyptian it, 'father'; Sumerian ad/t/t@., 'father, mother'; with ?6, PIE atta (for *atyo), 'father, mother', listed under a/a:tos; cf. Arabic ?athatiyatun, 'inheritance'; ?athîlun, 'noble'

(39)
VId. Hurrian lutu, 'women'; Urartian, not attested; PP nhw6fh(6)t?s(a)fh(6), 'women', from PL nhó, 'snail, little' + fha, definite animate plural, + t?sá, 'body' + fha, definite animate plural; PIE 1. *leudh-, 'grow up, come up, *woman (cf. North German lüd/t, female, girl)'; Egyptian, cf. ndz, 'commoner, little, small' (+ shé, 'individual').

(40)
VIe. Hurrian, not attested; Urartian qi(u)ra, 'earth'; PP qh6(¿/f)r(6), 'hill', from PL qhá, 'cat, crab, hump' + rá, 'vertebra, tree, high(ness)'; IE 3. kar-, 'hard, stone(-heap), cliff'; Egyptian q3(3), 'hill'; Sumerian ña, 'high'; ñar-2, '*high' (Jaritz 1970 Sign 603 reads nar-2, and means 'elevated = high').

(43)
VIIb. Hurrian, not attested; Urartian arSibi, 'eagle'; from PP (hh6, 'water' +) rh6, 'bird' + ??? + p?fy6¿, 'track'???; PIE 1. er- (for *(a:)ra:- cf. MHG Aar, 'eagle'), 'eagle, larger bird in general'; Sumerian ara-2 (Jaritz 1970 Sign 684 [sun] + Sign 410 [go], i.e. 'go from out of the sun', a characteristic flight trajectory of eagles), a certain bird, *eagle'; erû, 'eagle, vulture' (Jaritz 1970 Combination 2023 = Sign 628 [a-2, 'strong'] + Sign 157 [mušen, 'bird']).

(44)
VIIc. Hurrian, not attested; Urartian irbu-, 'take away, seize upon'; from PP rhy6ph6, 'snatch away', from PL rhè, 'come, fall down' + pha, diminutive; PIE rep-, 'seize upon, snatch up'; Sumerian, perhaps rib/p, '*seize' (Jaritz 1970 Sign 597 reads rib/p, and means 'violent, let pass'); Arabic rafa¿a, 'raise, take away'.

(46)
VIIIa. Hurrian e-ni, 'god'; Urartian (not attested); from PP ?y6-n6¿, '(the) eye', a nomenclature due to the predominantly astral character of all early religion, "eye" representing star or planet. PIE *e, '*eye', occurs only on combination (e.g. okw-, 'see', which is PP ?y6-khw(6)-f(6), 'eye-cover-pair (definite inanimate plural)', i.e. '(pair of) eyelids'. Whoever has read Egyptian religious texts, the concern of which over the "eye of Horus" is startlingly pervasive, will easily understand this analysis.

Sumerian, which has en(i/u), 'lord', depicts a watch-tower to exemplify the core idea. For n6¿, see VIIIb. below. Arabic ¿ainun may be the rather irregular result of an ancient dissimulated or metathesized variant: ?y6¿n6 -> ¿ain- (cf. Assyrian ê/înu).

(47)
VIIIb. Hurrian -anni[î], 'that'; Urartian -ini, 'this'; from PP ?6(¿)-n6¿, 'the (inanimate) one here(-like)''24; from PP n6, 'nose, stone'; combined with ?6, 'here', in PIE 2. an, 'there'; with the addition of ¿6, PIE anyos, 'other'; Arabic ?an, 'that (particle)'; Sumerian -ne-en / -ne(-e), 'this'.

(48)
VIIIc. Hurrian aie, 'face, in front of (postposition); Hurrian a(w)i, same ???; or possibly from ef¿6, 'under the two eyes of ...???)'; Urartian aie, 'stay, residence'; aia, 'be located'; PP ?6¿(6), 'be here' from PL ?á, 'forehead, front' + ¿6, derivative; PIE, compounded differently in ant-s, 'frontside, forehead'; 4. an-, 'over, on'; 8. aw-, 'perceive sensually, apprehend', i.e. 'face towards' (Sumerian u-6, 'perceive, catch sight of'); and in PIE dative singular (-ei).

We should further compare the participle of purpose in Hurrian-Urartian in -ae and -a:/a(i) with the many dative forms among the various PIE verbal nouns as in Greek enégk-ai, deîk-s-ai, íd- men-ai, eid-én-ai, Old Indian pi:-táy-e:, dhá:-tav-e:, Greek kheû-ai, épe-sth-ai, Old Indian váha-dhy-a:i, etal. Notice that the Greek forms end in -ai rather than -ei. Interestingly, a variant reading of the sign, wz (PP f6sh(6), 'sit around, dwell'; PIE 1. wes-, 'stay, dwell, spend the night'; in Urartian uštu-, 'present', i.e. 'cause to be located') is the sign with which the great Egyptian psychopompic god of the dead, Mercury as the morning star, Osiris, is written: PP fhw6shy6rw(6), 'the great butterfly' (PIE awes-, 'shine, *god(dess) of morning' (cf. Breton gwere laouen, 'morning star'; Germanic austro:, 'goddess of spring'; Latin Auro:ra, 'goddess of dawn'; Egyptian Wzr, 'Osiris'; Akkadian 'Asar, Asal', divine name.

That a common conception of the sky was that it was a canopy (tent) over the earth is shown by Egyptian p.t, 'sky'; Sumerian bad-3, 'festival tent' (Jaritz 1970 Sign 281); bad is also a reading of Jaritz 1970 Sign 112, which has a recorded meaning of 'heaven'); bid, '*tent (Jaritz 1970 Sign 599 reads bit/d/T, and means 'house' - cf. Akkadian bîtu, 'house'); Arabic baitun, 'house, dwelling'; and finally, PIE baita:, 'tent, goatksin, skirt', all of which derive from PP p?6¿thw6, 'large collection of pieces, sewn skin'. The Egyptian determinative depicts a 'canopy'. Egyptian p, 'mat, base' will originally have designated a 'piece' of animal-skin.

(50)
Xa. Hurrian ište, 'I (absolute)'; Urartian yeše. 'I (absolute)'; the Urartian ergative 'I' is yeše also. I interpret these facts differently than Diakonoff. I analyze that the 'I'-element is PP ¿y6, 'voice, speaker' (Hurrian-Urartian i(e), and that we see the normal form for the ergative in Urartian (ie + še, which has been improperly substituted for *ie in the absolute. In Hurrian, the more distinctive form *iš, has been adopted as a base form (a phenomenon we see also in Caucasian languages: *-[']ez40; and so for the ergative, we see išaš. I have shown elsewhere that PL ¿é is the most common basis for 'I'31.

In the Hurrian-Urartian genitive, dative, and directive (šowe/i, šowa [Urartian šo:ki:], šoda, it is obvious that another stem, which corresponds to the reconstructed Caucasian form zo:40 is being employed.

Since the same dictionary referenced above carries the entry uo: for the second person singular, which can be compared with PP fw6, 'ear, hearer' --- and I have demonstrated its employment as a common second person singular31 --- it will come as no surprise that, among the forms for first person singular in Caucasian languages, we find Khinalug ja:, 'I (ergative)', i/e, 'my', and others incorporating this element, which corresponds to PP ¿y6. It is important to notice that we have also the Lakhic (and others') stem ina(/iu) for the absolute and ergative second person singular.

In the Caucasian languages, we have, therefore, minute traces of the alternation PP ¿y6/fw6 for the first and second persons singular, the situation we find in PIE31, a shift in the point of view of 'speaker' and 'listener' for social reasons, i.e. the actual speaker designating him/herself as the 'listener' when speaking to an actual listener of superior social status.

We do not have to look far for the ultimate origin of the Caucasian and Hurrian-Urartian forms in s/z-, it is seen in Urartian še, 'one', from PP shy6, 'separate'. This is also the starting point for PIE s(iy)o, 'this' (cf. Tocharian B se). Probably better S[H]E. Paired with PIE so in the oblique cases is to, which represents PP thw6, 'tribe, large number', an original plural being used as the singular oblique. This may be the basis for Lakhic t:u, 'me (oblique)', and other listed forms in dentals, as well as the source of -te in Hurrian ište. An even likelier derivation for this -te is the reflexive -te/i from PL t?sá¿, discussed in Ii. above and Note 32 below.

In any case, it is very difficult to accept a derivation of these dental forms from zo:.

As for PP ¿y6, it is easily seen in Egyptian -i, 'I', 'my'; Arabian -ya, 'my'. In Sumerian, PP ¿y6 is seen in the second person verbal element e-. For PIE, see my essay on 'I' and 'you'31, 42.

(8)
P[H]A-R[H]E ("flat/over-mouth=(tent-)entrance-flap"); H: purni / purulli {**paru-ni/lli [the first u is due to the influence of the following (u)}, 'temple, palace, house' ; U: not attested; (IE *poro-s, 'access', listed under 2. *per-, 'the traversing', and B. per(6)-, 'lead over or bring over or come over, set over, press through, fly'); (cf. E pr, 'temple, palace, house'; [since the hieroglyph portrays a courtyard with prominent gate-opening, and pr(j) means 'enter', it seems reasonable to assume that the ultimate semantic referent is 'entrance']); (cf. S: b/par(a)-2, '**curtain {J.#641 reads b/par(a)-2, and means 'sack, dwell, dwelling, room, king', and depicts a structure with curtains}; b/par(a)-3, 'net, **curtain/**tent, dwelling' {J. #534 reads b/par(a)-3, and means 'net, dwelling'});

[PP rw normally becomes Sumerian l but the following y-glide from PP ¿6 has produced r, the reflex of PP ry]; although it seems not to be found in Hurrian, we have U par(u)-, 'drive, bring, take away', the related verbal form, which corresponds to E pr(j), 'go, come out'; S bal(a), 'break through, dig through, pull through, cross over, rise up, alter, change'; IE B. per(6)-, 'lead over, bring over, come over, set over, force through, fly'; (cf. A: falâ/yaflû, 'journey'); RATIONALE:

This important root (and related roots) also provided words for 'prince' as 'palace-resident': Egyptian pr '3, 'Pharaoh'; Sumerian b/par(a)-2, 'king '; and paralleling Egyptian, in par-4-mah (for *b/para-3-mah), 'counselor, prince' (J. Comb. #1591 = #534, b/para-2 + #98, mah, 'large'); barag[~] {for *barag[~]i}, 'king'); PIE pro/o:-wo- (for *par6(w)i-; cf. AS fre:a, 'lord'), '*lord', listed under 2. per-, 'leading out over'; Arabic far¿u(n) (a)l-qaumi), 'chief (of a tribe)' [Arabic fara¿a, 'ascend, go down': PP ph6rhy6(¿); cf. also Urartian pari/e, 'up to']; RATIONALE:

If this is the correct interpretation, the Hurrian 1st person singular presently transcribed - iff(u) would represent a simpler i-"wa, which derives from PP ¿y6, 'voice, speaker, I'30 + f(6), circumlocative (see below). It would therefore meaningfully contrast with 2nd person singular -w for û (from *wau), representing PP fw6, 'ear, hearer, you'30 + f(6), circumlocative (see below).

Diakonoff surmises that forms such as Urartian athu-, 'build', may reflect the type of compound phonemes found in some Caucasian languages (th) but set in the Mesopotamian milieu, it is perhaps likelier that this (and many other initial vowels in polysyllabic words) represents an epenthetic (or better "dummy") vowel to shift the stress-accent to the following syllable as in the Arabic 7th form: ?in"kataba vs. "kataba.

Therefore, a form like Urartian athu-, 'build' may represent (a)t"xu and Hurrian ewri (i)v"ri]).

5. Conclusions

However, many more cognates than those offered could have been given but I chose to avoid those words already labeled as loans from Sumerian or Akkadian to hopefully strengthen my argument. If I have convinced the reader of the basic soundness of my approach, then we could expand the list of cognates with words like mahiri, 'commerce', which can be compared to PIE 2. *mei-(gw-), 'change, exchange', with Akkadian mahîru, and Sumerian ma-3-ma-3, 'buy', stemming all from PP m6, 'breast, retain, hand' (+ ¿6, imperfective), i.e., '(be) mutually retain(ing)'; and the related maganni, 'gift, present' (+ PP k?x6, 'hang', i.e. 'hang from the hand, be loosely held, and hence designated to be disposable as a gift in the potlatch sense'.

Again, if this basic approach is accepted, there is ample opportunity for others to expand on developments here so cursorily treated by coordinating these insights with the ancient texts, e.g Hurrian pudu-, currently listed without meaning, could be related to PIE pu/u:-to-, 'pure', a highly suitable epithet for a goddess like Heba(t), who is probably connected with waters, through PP phw6f(6), 'blown away', i.e. 'purified by winnowing'. This interpretation also provides a better explanation for the title of Apollo the healer, paió:n: not, as Pokorny has it, 'he who heals sickness with a magical blow' but simply, 'the purifier'.

6. NOTES

(10)
For example, from PL kxhé/è, 'deer, run', (English 'hie') PIE 7. ker-, 'jump, turn'; 2. (s)ker-, 'jump, jump around', also and really 'move (one's self) by turning, swing'; 2. k[^]ers-, 'run'; Sumerian kir-3, 'run, race'; k[^]er6-, 'mix, stir into'; the ideas can be expressed through the English derivates 'hurry' (animate) and 'scare' (inanimate), i.e. 'to cause to hurry (away)'.

(11)
For example, PIE *(s)k(h)e:s- in English 'hasten'; Sumerian ki/e/š-2, 'chase, drive'; the ideas can be expressed through the English derivate 'hasten' (animate) and 'chase' (inanimate).

(12)
For example, PIE 5. kel-, 'drive, force into fast motion'; (s)k[^](h)el-, 'jump'; Sumerian kil, 'run, race' (Jaritz 1970 Sign 834 reads kil, and means 'run, race'); PIE 3. ken-, 'come forth new (perhaps really: sprout), jump from, begin, also of young animals and children'; Sumerian kin, 'work, send (cause to be hurried to)'.

With a slight shift of meaning from inchoative/ingressive to prospective, the animate element nh6 is a good candidate for the basis of Hurrian-Urartian -l(l) [and -n(n) in Boghazköy], the marker(s) of the "irreal" mood.

(13)
For example, PIE ske/e:i-bh/p-, 'limping'; PIE forms have been additionally compounded with -w-: 2. keu-, 'bend, turn (one's self)' +-b/p; these ideas can be expressed through the English derivates 'skip', 'hop', and German kippen, 'lurch'.

(14)
For example, PIE *k(h)e:- as a part of k(h)e:i-, 'set in motion, be in motion', and PIE k(h)e:i-, 'set in motion, be in motion; Sumerian ke-6, 'hurry'; these ideas can be expressed through the English derivate 'hie'.

(15)
For example, PIE sk[^](h)e:u-, 'throw, shoot, push, shoot toward' (intransitive); Sumerian ku, 'throw'; these ideas can be expressed through the English derivate 'shoo (away)'.

(16)
For example, possibly PIE k[^]ekw-, 'defecate';

(17)
For example, PIE sk(h)e:t-, 'jump, hop, break forth'; these ideas can be expressed through the English derivates 'skittish, shoot, hide, shit'.

(27)
"he sharpens/ed the knife" (j)r zf.t.f "so that it will/would cut (again and again)"; "our hearts are/were not whole" (j)r h3.t.k "until you are/were coming"; "I (always) act(ed)" ir(ii) Hz.t.k "so that you were/will be praising". This is also the infinitive in -t of so-called "weak" verbs. It stresses the manifold repetition (hence prolonged duration) of the action.

(29)
Urartian šeb-uy-ar, 'try to harm' (Diakonoff: start to make damage; Ryan: 'want to [make] harm); an-ij-ar-(e)do-, 'reveal one's self as an enemy' (Diakonoff: 'start to make enemies...'; Ryan: 'want to be/make enemies'...).

(35)
PP thy6, 'heat' + h6, stative + rh6, 'color', i.e., 'heat-color, glow'; Egyptian d3.t, 'afterworld, night-sky, place of stars'; Sumerian dir-3, 'heaven, god, *star' (Jaritz 1970: Sign 14 reads dir-3, and pictures a 'star'); PIE te:ra:, '*star' cf. Greek teréo:n, 'stars', listed incorrectly under 2. ste/e:r-, 'star'; Chinese dì, 'supreme being'.

Since number is a later, secondary development, we should not be surprised to see me-based employments for the first or second persons in either singular or plural.

These forms should be kept separate from PL mhó-based forms in the third person, which, semantically, meant only 'human being'43, and, as a consequence could be applied to any person though usually evidenced only in the third.

Since PL did not have the formal category of pronouns, the nominals that were employed in lieu of them carried more information.

In Hurrian-Urartian, Sumerian, PIE, and a number of others44, we find a PL thó-based element which can represent all three persons. If we recognize that the original semantic reference of thó was 'tribe/clan(-member)', we can easily understand how it could be employed seemingly for all three persons, dependent on the social context and point of view of the speaker; similarly, shó, 'female/family(-member)'45;

If this were not complicated enough, we have a number of other forms which could be similarly person-indifferent/tolerant: shé, 'single, lone'; ná, 'one (inanimate)'; nhá, 'one (animate)'; khé, 'other'; ¿ò, 'what is held (usually third person but as relative-base, all persons).

PL MORPHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS IN HURRIAN-URARTIAN

press here to see

The correspondence of 50+ roots and many formants suffices for a
preliminary study to establish the presumption of a genetic relationship.

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Hurrian-Urartian

With ancient languages like Hurrian and Urartian, written in a script devised by a different people for a different language, and, as Diakonoff writes on page 40 of his book, wherein "das Vorgehen der Forscher auf diesem Gebiet ist leider nie von Intuition und Subjektivität frei," it is virtually impossible to be definitive about the phonemes present in such languages. I have chosen to accept, in the main, the preliminary inventory suggested by Diakonoff with a few exceptions.

---

Combinatory Modifications

for modifications of the vowels and consonants in combination, see the

Table of Modifications

---

Summary of Phonological Changes

from Proto-Language to Hurrian-Urartian

---

PROTO-LANGUAGE MONOSYLLABLES

In order for readers to judge the semantic plausibility of the analysis of Proto-Language (PL) compounds suggested here, I am including access to a table of Proto-Language monosyllables and the meanings I have provisionally assigned.

Most assignments can be exhaustively supported by data from actually attested forms but a few animates are very doubtful; and this list does not represent the "final" solution of these questions, which will only be approached when other scholars assist in refining it.

Patrick C. Ryan

Summer 1998

---

HURRIAN-URARTIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

the latest revision of this document can be found at

HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/proto-language/c- HURRIAN-URARTIAN-9.htm

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947

PROTO-LANGUAGE@msn.com

---

NOTES

a. I am aware that some readers, who may entertain the possibility of a Pontic-Nostratic connection between Indo-European and Afrasian, will not be able to accept the possibility of a reconstruction of a language as early as the Proto-Language. To those readers, may I suggest that the Proto-Language reconstruction be merely regarded as an expression of an arbitrary system of notation that allows for the regular relationships of correspondence between Indo-European and Hurrian-Urartian.

b. These semantic proposals are based on the meanings of Proto-Language monosyllables deduced from many languages but primarily Egyptian and Sumerian, which, I believe, have conservatively preserved the meanings of these early monosyllables through their writing systems. Whether the meanings are plausible to the reader or not has no bearing on whether the forms are phonologically related.

---

1. The Hurrians immigrated from the Armenian highlands into northern Syria and Mesopotamia and the foothills of the Zagros mountains in western Iran perhaps circa the end of the third millennium (Diakonoff 1971: 4-5).

Urartian, a language spoken around Lake Van, is related to the Hurrian language, and I. M. Diakonoff comparatively described both languages in 1971 (Diakonoff 1971).

It is believed that no living language derives from either Hurrian or Urartian.

As far as written records attest, Urartian ceased to be spoken circa 500 B.P.E. and Hurrian possibly circa 1000 B.P.E. though Hurrian personal names survived in Aramaic transcription.

An author who did pioneering work on the Hurrian language was E. A. Speiser but this early work has been refined by later linguists.

A look at a typical Hurrian dictionary reveals the sad state of affairs that a very substantial number of Hurrian, though listed, are untranslated. The number of words available for Urartian is more limited, and we are in somewhat better command of the meanings of the words attested.

Because the experts in the field believe Hurrian (and Urartian) to be unrelated to any other language family except possibly Northeast Caucasian, the fruits of the comparative method have been denied.

A way out of the existing impasse that otherwise only extensive bilingual inscriptions could provide (if they can ever be found) lies in the recognition of Hurrian-Urartian as related to the other language families of the area, specifically PIE through Proto-Pontic; Proto-Pontic, in turn, derives from Proto-Language, the first language of mankind.

By relating Hurrian-Urartian to PIE, Hurrologists will have a new key for unlocking the obscure meanings of words recorded but presently and for the forseeable future not capabale of being understood.

We hypothesize that Hurrian-Urartian is relatable to PIE (and PAA as well as Sumerian and various Caucasian languages) through Proto-Pontic.

G. B. Dzhaukyan, according to Diakonoff (1971), entertained similar thoughts in Vzaimootnoshenie indoevropeiskikh, khurrito-urartskikh i kavkazkikh yazykov (Erevan 1967) and in other publications. Though he may have anticipated me in various respects, I cannot, unfortunately, accord him possible proper recognition for the hypothesis contained in this essay since his writings have been unavailable to me.