entirely from the connection. And the particle -mit at the end of yanniyanun and the end of the sentence is also curious.
On the other hand we must not neglect to point out sentences as beguiling as this:
Nu ku-iš A.NAilu ŠAMŠÎˇí i-da-a-lu-uš tu-uḳ-ḳa a-pa-a-aš i-da-a-luš e-eš-du ma-a-naš A. NA ŠAMŠÎˇí amêl KUR tu-uḳ-ḳa-aš amêl KUR e-eš-du: ‘Now he who is evil to my sun (i. e. my majesty) he shall be evil to thee. If he shall be an enemy to my majesty, he shall be thy enemy’. In support of this: ma-an šu-me-eš-ma ku-wat-ḳa i-da-a-lu i-ia-at-te-ni: ‘if moreover ye perform some evil’ (Sprache der Hethiter, pp. 110 and 117).
The Boghazköi inscriptions, as well as the Arzawa letters, go back to perhaps as early a date as 1500 B. C.; yet, according to any showing, both these Hittite forms are in a state of advanced or secondary development, far exceeding e. g. the Gothic of the fourth century A. D., or the Lithuanian of much later date. The archaic quality, or degree of preservation, of an I. E. language, corresponds in general with its antiquity. Yet here is said to be the oldest dated Indo-European in a condition which, if I guage it aright, might be compared to, but hardly reached by, a modern Italian dialect, remembering that such comparisons can be made only in a very general way. The relation of this Hittite Indo-European to the total of Indo-European is entirely passive or parasitic; it is explained from and as Indo-European, it explains practically nothing Indo-European. I must disarm here the prospective argument that Hittite is profoundly affected by the aboriginal or native non-Indo-European Anatolian with which it blended into the existing product. This may be so, but the secondary character of Hittite morfology is practically all due to Indo-European manoeuvers. A form like akkuškinun, ‘I drank’, contains the root aku or, elsewhere, eku (Lat. aqua), with the two present affixes sk and nu, and the personal ending m—all Indo-European: root, two present formatives, and personal endings; za-ah-hi-ia-u-wa-aš-ta-ti ‘thou shalt fight’, p. 182, l. 13 of the texts, is explained from a stem zahhaiš, zahhia, about equal to Skt. sahas, ‘strength’, Goth. sigis, with three denominative I. E. formatives -y, -w, and -št. Forms like these abound thruout the texts; even the most plastic secondary developments of I. E. speech in other quarters fail to produce types of this sort.
Another matter is scarcely less striking, tho perhaps more easily accounted for. It concerns the literary and stylistic
