kuit ki. Comparisons are unnecessary. There are here also difficulties in detail, but they may be surmounted in future. It seems well-nigh unimaginable that this part of Hrozný’s theory does not hit the nail on the head. Yet with it goes a remarkable corollary which is almost in the nature of a paradox. All students of Lycian seem now agreed that its stem ti is the relative stem = I. E. qi (Latin qui-), and that the combination ti-ke is the indefinite; e. g. in the epitaf, ti ñte hri alahadi tike, ñte ti hrppitadi tike, ‘qui intus violat (?) aliquem, vel intus superimponit aliquem’.[1] Lydian also has the words his, hid, which Littmann identifies with Lat. quis, quid; see his Lydian inscriptions. Danielsson, ‘Zu den Lydischen Inschriften’, p. 41, points out also Lyd. k as the enclitic copulative (Lat. que). Hrozný, pp. 191 ff. has an appendix of considerable length which deals with correspondences between Hittite and Lydian. A door must be either open or shut: if these comparisons are correct both Lycian and Lydian, as well as Hittite, are Indo-European, and that, too, of a degree of depravation, unparalleled in any pidgin-dialect.
A word as to the ‘Luvian’. Forrer, l. c., p. 1034, quotes from unstated sources a number of Luvian grammatical and lexical forms, some of which have I. E. coloring, others being decidedly strange. Thus he quotes as forms of ‘a pronoun’, kui, kuiha, kuiš, kuišha, kuištar, and kuinza. He notes a number of reduplicated verbs which look Indo-European: tatarhandu, tatarijamman, tatarrijamna, mimentōwā, hōhoijanda (by the side of hōijadda), and, with ‘Attic reduplication’, elelhāndu (by the side of ēlhādu). The endings of the verb are du, andu, indu, reminding Forrer of the Lydian -d and ẽnt. For the substantive he quotes -anza, and -inzi in the plural; they may bear upon our discussion of -zi and -za, above, p. 201 f.
Hrozný, in his above mentioned essay on the peoples and languages of the Chatti land, pp. 35 ff.,[2] quotes one or two Luvian passages and discusses some words. The passages, evidently obscure in meaning, are not translated, but they show some words which resemble Kanesian Hittite. Thus kuinzi, ‘which,’ with plural meaning and ending -nzi (see Forrer’s statement,
