Map languages Anatolia,North Syria and Upper Mesopotamia 1700 BC.

In: Bamberger Orientstudien, edited by Lale Behzadi, Patrick Franke, Geoffrey Haig, Birgitt Hoffmann,Christoph Herzog, Lorenz Korn & Susanne Talabardon. Bamberg: Bamberg University Press., 2014

The languages of East Anatolia exhibit a number of striking structural parallels, leading some authors to refer the region as a "linguistic area". This paper takes a closer look at one of the features that has been proposed as a diagnostic: the shared morphological template for indicative present tense verb forms (Matras 2010). It transpires that this apparent commonality is entirely absent in at least three languages of the region (Zazaki, all forms of Turkish, Laz), and its presence in the Semitic and Iranian languages in part reflects independently motivated genetic tendencies in these languages, although they were very likely mutually reinforced through intense contact. Thus rather than a pan-Anatolian feature that has diffused across a multi-lingual region, this feature is more cogently accounted for as the result of straightforward bilateral Iranian influence on (some of) the neighbouring Semitic languages (Anatolian and Mesopotamian varieties of Arabic, and Neo-Aramaic). This feature is taken as exemplary for the difficulties involved in establishing an East Anatolian linguistic area, and I conclude that the notion is probably not tenable, if it is intended to include, for example, Laz. Instead, an alternative approach in terms of two sub-regions is proposed, a Mesopotamian and a Caspian/Caucasian zone, and an intermediate region of Central Anatolia exhibiting features of both.

In: Caroline Waerzeggers – Melanie M. Groß (eds.): Personal Names in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonia (c. 750–100 BCE). An Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2024, 213-223.

East Anatolia is, both geographically and culturally, a transitional region, saddling the overlap of larger linguistic macro-areas. The languages of the region are characterized by a network of structural similarities, most of which also radiate outward into neighbouring areas. This paper plots a number of structural similarities across languages of four distinct genetic groups, and re-assesses the question of whether East Anatolia can meaningfully be considered a "linguistic area". I conclude that, contrary to claims in the literature, an approach in terms of a pan-Anatolian linguistic area is not convincing. An alternative is proposed, involving two spheres of influence, a Mesopotamian region, centred on the Iraqi/Turkish border region, basically dominated by a Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic convergence, and a Caspian/Caucasian region, where Turkish and Armenian have been most influential. Languages located between these two regions display mixes of both.

2018

News from the Lands of the Hittites. Scientific Journal for Anatolian Research 7, 2023, 45-59 [Proceedings of the conference Languages and Cultures in Contact in the Ancient Mediterranean, Verona, 11-12 May 2023]

Version April 2023. These are synchronic entries. Reconstructions, if available, can be found under the same URL but written by my colleagues. ‒ This is a continuously updated list. Updates will be uploaded approx. at the beginning of every month. New entries are marked by red. ‒ Note the distinction between “Cuneiform Luwian” (i.e. Luwian in Luwian clauses) and “Luwian in Hittite Transmission” (i.e. alleged Luwian in Hittite clauses) as well as “Glossenkeilwörter” (any word marked in this way at least once in Hittite texts). ‒ To open directly the entries you need to use the URL given in the file, where X should be replaced by the ID number of the entry as shown below in the file.

Journal of Language Relationship , 2021

The purpose of this paper is to assess complications in Luwian dialectal geography in the second millennium BCE, which became apparent in the course of the ongoing work on the edition of Luwian cuneiform texts. On the one hand, a number of Luwian incantations embedded into the ritual traditions of Puriyanni and Kuwattalla (CTH 758-763) and traditionally assigned to the dialect of Kizzuwadna in the southwest of Asia Minor can now be linked to the Lower Land in the central and central-western part of Asia Minor. The increasing Kizzuwadna features of the Kuwattalla tradition, including the Hurrian loanwords in the respective texts, likely reflect its secondary evolution at the court of Hattusa. On the other hand, a large group of Luwian conjurations that is booked under CTH 764-766 can now be linked to the town of Taurisa situated to the northeast of Hattusa. Their language shows dialectal peculiarities, while their formulaic repertoire finds non-trivial parallels in Hattic and Palaic texts. The concluding part of the paper addresses the relevance of these new empirical findings for the dialectal classification of the Luwian language.

The paper presents a discussion of some topics touched upon in the book on the language of Hipponax by Sh. Hawkins which I had recently an opportunity to review. Some of the notes immediately pick up the problems set up in the book, critically re-examining the results and proposing alternative solutions. Some other have less direct connection with the main topic of the book, having been merely triggered by some rather incidental statements and secondary discussions. Except for several sections which treat Greek and PIE lexica, all notes concern the issues of the ethnic, linguistic or religious milieu of western Anatolia (Caria, Lydia, Phrygia), and, partly, the Balkan region.

F. Giusfredi – A. Matessi – S. Merlin – V. Pisaniello (eds.), Contacts of languages and peoples in the Hittite and Post-Hittite world. Volume 2: The 1st Millennium and the Eastern Mediterranean Interface. Leiden – Boston: Brill, pp. 338-359. [doi:10.1163/9789004729704_016] Check bibliography at https://brill.com/display/book/9789004729704/back-3.xml