The phonology, phonetics, and diachrony of Sturtevant’s Law

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic reassessment of Sturtevant’s Law (Sturtevant 1932), which governs the differing outcomes of Proto-Indo-European voiced and voiceless obstruents in Hittite (Anatolian). I argue that Sturtevant’s Law was a conditioned pre-Hittite sound change whereby (i) contrastively voiceless word-medial obstruents regularly underwent gemination (cf. Melchert 1994), but gemination was blocked for stops in pre-stop position; and (ii) the inherited [±voice] contrast was then lost, replaced by the [±long] opposition observed in Hittite (cf. Blevins 2004). I provide empirical and typological support for this novel restriction, which is shown not only to account straightforwardly for data that is problematic under previous analyses, but also to be phonetically motivated, a natural consequence of the poorly cued durational contrast between voiceless and voiced stops in pre-stop environments. I develop an optimality-theoretic analysis of this gemination pattern in pre-Hittite, and discuss how this grammar gave rise to synchronic Hittite via “transphonologization” (Hyman 1976, 2013). Finally, it is argued that this analysis supports deriving the Hittite stop system from the Proto-Indo-European system as traditionally reconstructed with an opposition between voiceless, voiced, and breathy voiced stops (contra Kloekhorst 2016, Jäntti 2017).

The morphophonological analysis of Hittite šipantaš, šipandaš ‘(s)he libated’

“…13 This idea is based 7 Cf. Melchert 1994, 14-21, 147;Kloekhorst 2008, 21-25;2014a, 544-547;2016, 213-223;Yates 2019. Note that the old idea that the phonological opposition between fortis and lenis stops was in fact voice (Vt-tV = /t/ vs. V-tV = /d/) has for a long time been the default assumption and can therefore be found in many handbooks (Luraghi 1997, 3-4;Kimball 1999, 54;Watkins 2004, 556;Vanséveren 2006, 39-40;van den Hout 2011, 64;Francia -Pisaniello 2019, 19;Weiss 2020, 99), and has recently been explicitly defended by Simon (2020).…”

Ejective stops in Hittite: evidence for a phonemic length distinction

“…10 See Kloekhorst 20132020: 155-65 for details. 11 Note that in the recent papers of Yates (2019) and Simon (2020), who both offer critical discussions of some aspects of my analysis of the Hittite stop system, my postulation of ejective stops is not commented on. 12 Patri's main problem with my 2010 paper seems to be the analogy I assume for the verb dā-i "to take" (for which see section 4.1 below), and the fact that the Old Hittite 3pl.pres.…”

“…4For the postulation of a synchronic phonological length difference between the fortis and lenis series, see Melchert 1994: 14–21 ( in nuce ); Kloekhorst 2008: 21–5; 2014: 546–7; 2016: 213–17; Yates 2019. This interpretation challenges the traditional view that the phonological distinction between the fortis and lenis series was voice (/t/ vs. /d/, etc.…”

“…11Note that in the recent papers of Yates (2019) and Simon (2020), who both offer critical discussions of some aspects of my analysis of the Hittite stop system, my postulation of ejective stops is not commented on.…”