The Relation of Hittite, Tocharian and Indo-European
By Arthur Berriedale Keith
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.
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.