as an even more corrupt I. E. language and dialect than Kanesian. I shall refer to its character below.
Hrozný’s work will certainly count among the most memorable events in the history of language and ethnology. The acumen, learning, and infinite diligence displayed by the author is excelled only by the depth of his sincerity and the fervor of his conviction which almost reminds one of the profet. I should say that there is not the least attempt to minimize difficulties, or to bend the object to his purpose. If, nevertheless, his exposition, especially in the matter of etymology, does at times become what we might call teleological, let him who finds himself in the lure of such a theory, yet applies it more objectively, or is more keenly intent upon the all-important truth,—let him throw the first stone.
On the face value of his text-readings, interpretations, and grammatical estimates Hrozný makes out a strong case. There are, however, from the start, difficulties and tangles. Cuneiform is, at the best, a poor vehicle for Indo-European. The Kanesian Hittite inscriptions are unilingual, in the main to be explained out of themselves. But a large part of this Hittite is expressed in Sumero-Akkadian ideograms, as well as in syllabic Akkadian words. It may be presumed that such words were pronounced Hittite, in the manner in which words written in a sort of Hebrew were pronounced by their Persian equivalents in Pehlevi. This has both its good and its bad side. The good side is, that the lexical meaning of many words is relatively clear from the beginning, which often insures a general conception of what a given passage is about. On the other hand it leaves uncertain the pronunciation of these semi-Akkadian words, for they were pronounced Hittite. The final outcome is this: the Akkadian material, by itself fonetically and grammatically indeterminable, really furnishes the start and the concrete basis for Hittite interpretation. The known meaning of the Akkadian words leads on to the interpretation, and to some extent the text reading of the unknown Hittite words. There is in the volume of texts of 1919 scarcely a sentence that is not part Akkadian. I have, however, the impression that there are few sentences whose sense is perfectly clear. Hrozný himself leaves much untranslated, and resorts to many an interrogation mark. Aside from material imperfections, i. e., fractures, lacunas, and indistinct writing, the subject matter is often turgid, or guess-work. In other words, the filological basis of Hittite is by no means stable; it will require
