Skip to content
Browse articles

The Relation of Hittite, Tocharian and Indo-European

By Arthur Berriedale Keith

Vol. 14 · No. 2June - 1938pp. 201–223English

Summary

This article examines the linguistic relationship between Hittite, Tocharian, and Indo‑European languages. Scholars have debated whether Hittite belongs within the Indo‑European family or forms a separate 'Indo‑Hittite' branch, and how Tocharian fits into the picture. The author surveys phonological and morphological evidence—including the retention of the consonant h, vowel lengthening, denominative suffixes, pronoun forms, and case endings—to assess competing hypotheses. By comparing Hittite words like nebbi, mablas and labha with Sanskrit, Greek and Latin cognates, the article shows that Hittite shares important features with Indo‑European languages yet preserves archaic traits. It reviews arguments by Sturtevant and others about compensatory lengthening, hiatus fillers, and the treatment of Indo‑European aspirates. Discussion extends to Tocharian and its similarities and differences, situating both languages as early divergent dialects. The conclusion is that Hittite and Tocharian are better viewed as archaic Indo‑European languages than as isolated linguistic isolates, though some questions remain unresolved due to limited evidence. Overall the paper emphasises careful linguistic comparison and cautions against speculative reconstructions.

AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.

Conclusion

The article concludes that while Hittite exhibits unusual features compared with classical Indo‑European languages, the weight of phonological and morphological evidence supports its classification as an archaic Indo‑European language rather than as a separate Indo‑Hittite family. Tocharian likewise belongs to this broad family. The relationships among these languages illustrate the diversity of early Indo‑European dialects. Although some proposed correspondences remain speculative, the author argues that the balance of evidence favours viewing Hittite and Tocharian as divergent branches within the Indo‑European family rather than as independent linguistic isolates.

Works cited in this article

  1. AJP, 111. 193
  2. Etudes indoesropéennes
  3. Origines de la Formation des Noms en Indo-enropéen
  4. Berricoare 11111.

Discussed in this article

People

  • Sturtevant
  • W. Petersen
  • Professor Sapit
  • E. Benveniste
  • de Saussure

Places

  • Kirghis steppes
  • Transylvania
  • Ural region

Texts & works

  • Relation of Hittite, Tocharian and Indo-European

Dynasties, sects & groups

  • Tocharian
  • Indo-European
  • Indo-Hittite
  • Proto-Tochartans

AI guide

Discuss this record

Ask about the article, its topics, issue context, selected passages, or reading strategy.

Start with the record

I can unpack the summary, turn it into study questions, explain a selected passage, or compare it with the other articles in this issue.

Article order

In this issue

Vol. 14 · No. 2

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.

Same author

More by Arthur Berriedale Keith

All articles →
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Indo-Europeans in the Mediterranean Area

By Arthur Berriedale Keith

September - 1940
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Reviews

By Kalidas Nag, A. B. M. Habibullah, Arthur Berriedale Keith

March - 1938