either a noun or an adjective. The paradigms of a-stems, on pp. 44, 45, look very good on paper; still, nominative and genitive singular, as well as genitive and dative plural end alike in aš; the loc. sing. in az is entirely unexplained; the acc. plur. ends in uš. Outside the paradigm there is considerable mixture between aš and iš; the number ‘one’ in nom. sing. masc. appears as 1-aš or 1-iš (Hrozný 92), and see in general pp. 16, 24, 29, 36, 38. The like of this is not unknown elsewhere. There is also mixture between aš and uš; see p. 30. Still there seems no reason to question that us, iš, and aš figure in subject words very regularly; all three occur together in the sentence, p. 166, line 10 of the text volume: memir A. BU. ŠU-wanaš kuiš LUGAL MÂTHatti ešta nuwaraš UR. SAG-iš LUGAL-uš ešta, ‘They said, “His father, who was for us king of the land Hatti, now he was a brave king.”’ Morfologically this pervades the language as, perhaps, its strongest plea for I. E. character. Still there are notable cross circumstances: all these stems show also a nominative in ša: Telibinuša ‘name of a Hittite god’ (p. 3); by the side of IR-aš and IR-iš ‘slave’, also IR-ša (p. 30); Mariaša ‘name of a person’ (p. 36); apāša, ‘this one’ (texts, p. 100, l. 15); EN-urtaša, ‘name of a person’, (texts, p. 136, l. 8); and in Arzawa first letter, l. 23 halugalataša, ‘messenger’. There is, moreover, an independent post-positive pronoun nominative aš, accusative an, which differs in no wise from the nom. and acc. case-endings -aš and -an; this may be added to an existing inflected expression, as in the expression kuiš-aš imma kuiš ‘whoever’, accusative kuinan imma kuin; tu-uk-ka-aš ‘he to you’ (p. 110). Out of this perplexity seems to arise the question whether all these, aš, iš, uš, are not, once more, post-positive deictic particles. With every inclination to follow Hrozný's methodic and brilliant exposition, it seems difficult that the material body of all I. E. u-, i-, and a-stems should have disappeared while leaving behind their ghostly endings; better the opposite alternative, that a variety of cuneiform syllables containing š preceded by different vowels chance to lend themselves, in a surprising manner to be sure, to correlation with the endings of these stems current in I. E.
Still, a theory as to linguistic appurtenance derives its strength from cumulation. Hittite exercises its most bewitching enchantment in the domain of pronouns. I have always held that the best test for admission to I. E. membership is thru numerals, pronouns, and nouns of relationship. A puckish prank (as in
