ხეთური ტექსტები გაშიფრულია და არანაირ ნათესაობას ე.წ. ქართველურ ენებთან არ ავლენს. სამაგიეროდ მიჩნეულია ინდოევროპულ ენად
ჯერ ამას გადახედე, კარგი სტატიაა:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_languageმერე ნახე
http://www.premiumwanadoo.com/cuneiform.la...hp?page=accueilhttp://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/hitol-0-X.htmlhttp://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/texte2.htm#heth საზოგადოდ, თანამედროვე ლინგვისტიკაში აღარ დაობენ იმ ფაქტზე, რომ ხეთური არის ინდოევროპული ენა... საყოველთაოდაა აღიარებული...
შენ რა ენათმეცნიერულ საბუთს მომიყვან ხეთურის ქართულთან ნათესაობის დასამტკიცებლად?
* * *
webdesignხეთური ტექსტები პირველად ჩეხმა მეცნიერმა ბედრიხ ჰროზნიმ გაშიფრა და აჩვენა, რომ ეს არის ინდოევროპული ენა.
აი ჰროზნიზე, თუ გაინტერესებს:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedrich_Hroznyგატყობ ინგლისური იცი და ეს წაიკითხე:
http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/WestCivI/hittite_cuneiform.htmHITTITE CUNEIFORM
The bronze tablet found at Boghazkoy in 1986, the finest surviving Hittite cuneiform inscription.
The Hittites and the Riddle of the Scripts
An important key to unlocking the enigma of the Hittite clay tablets from Bogazköy was Indo-European philology. The man who first used this key was not an Indo-European philologist but an Assynologist, Friedrich (or Bedneh) Hrozny, a lively, gifted Czech bone in Poland in 1879. Hrozny at the age of twenty-four had participated in excavations in northern Palestine and had published highly esteemed reports on cuneiform texts. His reports, in part, led to his appointment at the age of twenty-six to an appointment to professorship in Vienna.
After the First World War broke out Hrozny was drafted into the Austro-Hungarian army where he fortunately had a tolerant superior in Lieutenant Kammergruber, an easy-going Viennese, who took a liking to the young professor. As far as possible Kammergruber gave Hrozny the freedom to pursue his research. The thirty-five-year old scholar was even given the opportunity to spend weeks in Constantinople examining cuneiform Hittite material. It was material that was scarcely accessible to any other European scholar.
Hrozney began his study of the Hittite texts with phenomenal knowledge and an enormous scientific audacity. He worked directly from the evidence in an unbiased approach. He did not want to let the suggestions of other scholars to predetermine his conclusions and he was thoroughly prepared to be led by his observations to contradictions of established views. After innumerable false starts and fresh insights, his endless patient labor of formulating, comparing, and rejecting idea led to a single idea which proved to be crucial. That single idea, which was the fruit of so much effort, was strikingly simple.
In the course of tiresome examination of the closest details of the Hittite cuneiform in the texts, one day he discovered (simply by changes in the form of words and despite the fact that he could not yet arrive at the meaning of a single sentence) that Hittite grammatical forms were typical of the Indo-European linguistic group. In particular he recognized a participial form.
This discovery was extremely confusing and unsettling. He knew that in the large number of theories about the Hittite language none, with the exception of a single scholar (a Norwegian orientalist, Knudtson), who afterward recanted his idea after it was greeted with universal scorn, had suggested that Hittite was an Indo-European language. There was no objective basis for Hrozny's idea which would mean that Indo-Europeans had been dominant in central Anatolia in the middle of the second millennium B.C. Such an idea was contradictory to all that historians of the Near East had learned.
Wary of his discovery, Hrozny continued to push on and continued to note more indications pointing to the Hittite language being part of the Indo-European family of languages. As he continued to work on the thesis that was emerging he thought "If I am right about the interpretation of this line, there is going to be a scientific storm." But the line he was laboring over was clear and unambiguous. Further conclusions followed.
On November 24, 1915 Hrozny presented his ideas on the Hittite language in a lecture to the members of the Near Eastern Society of Berlin. In December his lecture on the decipherment was printed. In 1917 his book The Language of the Hittites: Its Structure and Its Membership in the Indo-European Linguistic Family was published. For the most part, his book presented definite conclusions. Hardly any of his statements were hypothetical or provisional.
Since archaeologists were able to establish the period of origin of the Bogazköy texts as the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C., and since the Bogazköy texts indicated that many of the texts were copies of much older documents, Hrozny could claim that he had deciphered the oldest texts in the Indo-European language. The texts he worked to decipher were at least as old as the oldest parts of the Rig-Vada, the Hindu scriptures, which were also dated to the middle of the second millennium B.C.
This discovery was extremely confusing. There already existed a large number of theories about the Hittite language. But with the exception of a single scholar, who afterwards recanted, it had occurred to no one that Hittite might be an Indo-European language. There was no objective basis for this idea, for to assume that Indo-Europeans had been dominant in inner Anatolia in the middle of the second millennium BC was to contradict all that historians of the Near East had learned.
No wonder, then, that Hrozny was wary of this conclusion. It looked to him as though he was being deceived by accidents of language. But as he worked on, he was reluctantly forced to note more indications pointing to the membership of Hittite in the Indo-European family of languages.
But then came the day when Hrozny, setting over a certain text, took a deep breath and, conscious of the boldness of his own thesis dared to think: 'If I am right about the interpretation of this line. there is going to be a scientific storm.’ But the sentence he was reading seemed clear and unambiguous. He had only one choice: to say what it was he saw - even if it overturned the views of all specialists in ancient history.
And then, in the course of wearisome examination of the closest details, he groped his way forward from word to word, from form to form-until one day he discovered (simply by changes in the form of words and despite the fact that he could not yet arrive at the meaning of a single sentence) that Hittite displayed grammatical forms typical of the Indo-European linguistic group. In particular he recognised a participial form.
So it is evident that Hrozny tackled his task equipped with phenomenal knowledge. He was also blessed with enormous scientific audacity. His approach was altogether unbiased; he did not want to let the suggestions of others predetermine his conclusions and was thoroughly prepared to be surprised himself. He would work directly from the evidence, even if his observations should contradict all the established views.
We know on his own testimony that at the beginning of his labours he had not the faintest idea what kind of language would be revealed to him.
Again and again in the history of such discoveries as Hrozny’s there comes a climax at which the innumerable false starts and fresh insights, the endless patient labour of formulating, comparing, and rejecting, culminate in a single idea which proves to be the crucial one. And this idea, the fruit of so much toll and searching, is as a rule strikingly simple.
The starting point of Hrozny’s work was the usual determination of proper names. The second point was the perception that the Hittite texts contained what were called ‘ideograms'.
In addition to the tried and tested methods which had led to the decipherment of dead languages and scripts throughout the nineteenth century, Indo-European philology now contributed a new key with which to unlock the enigma of the Hittite clay tablets from Boghazkoy. Oddly enough, the man who first used this key was not an Indo-European philologist. He was an Assyriologist - linguistically speaking, a student of the Semitic group of languages, for Babylonian Assyrian is reckoned among the East Semitic tongues.
After Winckler's death, the German Orient Society of Berlin had handed over the collection of Hittite cuneiform material from Boghazkoy to a group of young Assyriologists, in order that they might arrange and transcribe it. From the start there were two diametrically opposite personalities in this group: the rather ponderous, grave German Ernst F. Weidner, and the lively, gifted Czech Friedrich (or Bedrich) Hrozny - born in Poland in 1879.
When the First World War broke out, the Germans promptly put such useless creatures as students of ancient languages into uniform. Weidner, a great hulk of a man, was assigned to the Heavy Artillery. While he was slowly working his way up to the rank of corporal, his rival Hrozny fell into a feather bed. Drafted into the Austro-Hungarian army, he found a tolerant superior in Lieutenant Kammergruber, an easy-going Viennese who took a liking to the young professor and who, as far as lay within his powers, gave Hrozny the freedom to pursue his researches. Hrozny gratefully acknowledged that his first paper, 'The Solution of the Hittite Problem', ‘was only given its definitive form during the author's military service'. In fact he tells us that his second paper was also completed during this period. When we consider that these articles were far from easy to write, that they represented scientific pioneering of the highest type, we can well imagine that the thirty-five-year-old scholar's military service was not especially burdensome. He was even given the opportunity to spend weeks in Constantinople examining cuneiform Hittite material which at that time was scarcely accessible to any other European scholar.
But we certainly do not want to imply that Weidner, sweating over his cannon, might have, but for that, outstripped the more fortunate Czech - especially since we know now that Weidner was on the wrong track. And it would be foolish to maintain that Hrozny deciphered the Hittite language solely because he had more time at his disposal than his rival. Hrozny was a man who had already done a great deal in his field; at
The Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform writing in the Boghazkiy texts had in its earliest form (like all other scripts) been picturewriting which later developed into a syllabic script. A large number of the earlier pictures had been retained in this syllabic script. Such ideograms had been taken over by the Hittites and could be ‘read’ by scholars of cuneiform writing - that is, they could be understood without knowledge of the language.
An example will make the matter clear. As readers of English alone, we can see the numeral ‘10’ in an English, German, and French text and understand it immediately. The fact that a Frenchman may call this figure dix and a German zehn in no way affects our understanding.
In this fashion, with the aid of ideograms, Hrozny read the words 'fish’ and ‘father'.
The text which led Hrozny to this resolve was the sentence nu ninda~an ezzatteni vadar-ma ekutteni.
In this sentence there was only a single known word: ninda. It could be deduced from the Sumerian ideogram that this word meant 'bread'.
Hrozny said to himself. 'A sentence in which the word bread is used may very well (though it need not necessarily, of course!) contain the word "eat".' Since at this point the indications that Hittite might be an Indo-European language were already becoming overwhelming, he drew up a list of various Indo-European words for ‘eat'. Was it possible that he was dealing here with a Hittite cognate? English 'eat' was in Latin edo, in Old High German ... As soon as Hrozny wrote down the Old High German word he knew that he was on the right track. Ezzan certainly bore a strong resemblance to the Hittite ezzatteni.
The next significant word, which seemed to cry out for such cornparisons, was undoubtedly the Hittite vadar. Since it occurred in the same line as 'bread' and 'eat', it might very well be related to food. Hrozny, a veritable bloodhound on the trail of an Indo-European language, saw a similarity to the English water, German Wasser, Old Saxon watar. We need not go into the complicated grammatical considerations which led him to an interpretation of the Hittite sentence, but at this point he ventured a translation: 'Now you will eat bread, further you will drink water.'
Such a reading of the sentence was an amazing confirmation of the idea which had been suggested as early as 1902 by Hittite after all was an Indo-European language!
The present work undertakes to establish the nature and structure of the hitherto mysterious language of the Hittites, and to decipher this language ... It will be shown that Hittite is in the main an Indo-European language.'
The excavator who finds golden treasure and the mummies of long dead kings is not the only one who experiences that moment of illumination when he seems to lay his hand on the very past. The same thrill can come to a man sitting bent over books in his study, pondering a single sentence, until suddenly he feels that shudder of awe which voices from immemorial tombs evoke. There is more to such a matter than dry philology. For does not 'water', uttered as a cry in a desert landscape, mean parching thirst? Vadar, water, Wasser-how staggering it is to realise that with three thousand years intervening, a Frisian living on the North Sea coast of Germany and a Pennsylvania Dutchman of eastern North America would understand a Hittite's cry of thirst!
Pecularity of the Hittite method of writing may be mentioned here, namely "alography", the practice of writing a different word from that which was actually pronounced. Hittite texts are liberally interspersed with purely Akkadian and Sumerian words, the latter usually written by single signs, the use of which as "ideograms" can often be recognised only by means of context, for they maybe the same signs that are normally used for mere syllables. But these "foreign" words were probably not pronounced in reading; they merely conceal the corresponding Hittite word, which the reader was expected to substitute for them . This was undoubtedly intended as a kind of shorthand by the scribes.
This post has been edited by Chkoni on 24 Aug 2006, 20:32 
სვანური და იტალიური გვარები, გთხოვთ, სვანური გვარები მომაშველოთ
