Kretan) makes Hittite write its numerals by wedge count; the nouns of relationship are either nursery words, or in Akkadian writing. Not so the pronouns. They appear in syllabic Hittite writing. Thus the personal pronouns, reduced to their lowest terms, present themselves in the following rhythmic shape:
I | Thou | |
Nom. | ug, uga, ugga | zig, ziga, zigga, ziḳḳa |
Gen. | ammêl | tuêl |
Dat. Acc. | ammug, ammuga, ammugga, ammuḳḳa |
tug, tuga, tugga, tuḳḳa, duḳḳa |
We | Ye | |
Nom. | anzâš | šumêš, šumâš |
Gen. | anzêl | šumêl, šumênzân |
Dat. Acc. | anzâš | šumáš, šummêš, šumêš |
After recovering from the general effect of this list, there are a few interesting circumscriptions. ug, etc., is, of course, assumed to be ego, whereas zig, etc., are compared with σύγε. But it is unlikely that the g of one form is not the g of the other, and zi is not σύ nor, as far as can be seen, anything else Indo-European. The forms ammug, etc., are both nom. and acc.; they are compared with Gr. ἐμοίγε, but it seems far more natural again to identify the final syllable with the fundamental ug, etc. Therefore, the same seems true of the sound ug in tug, etc. The ‘ye’-stem šuma is not so easily correlated with I. E. yusme as the author thinks; and its genitive šu-me-en-z-an, by the side of which exists a-pi-en-za-an ‘eorum’, and also an independent šu-raš en-z-an ‘your’, is perplexing (pp. 115, 116). Doubtless some of these difficulties can be ironed out by assuming sundry processes of analogy which will present themselves in different ways to different experts.[1] Perhaps more important is the almost impalpable air of Indo-Europeanism which pervades this sfere of expression, and I personally have felt at times in the mood to capitulate right here.
The question reaches its climax in the relative, interrogative, and indefinite pronoun kuiš, neuter kuit, genitive singular kuêl; nominative plural kuêš. The indefinite is expressed also by duplication, kuiš kuiš, neuter kuit kuit; or by kuiš ki, neuter
- ↑ Cf. Marstrander, pp. 7 ff.