2.1 CVX- data

In both Hittite and Luwian (and also Lycian, although the evidence is quite limited), whenever the base begins in a CV sequence, the reduplicant takes the shape CV, where the C (and sometimes the V) are identical to the corresponding base-initial segments. The table in (4) below lists all such reduplicated forms that stand beside an independently occurring verbal base in the language (“paired stems”). The table in (5) shows other attested reduplicated forms whose presumed verbal base is attested elsewhere in Anatolian. As might be expected, CVX- bases constitute the vast majority of the available data on partial reduplication in Anatolian.⁸

(4) Reduplication with CVX- bases (paired stems)

	Gloss	Base	Reduplicated stem
Hitt.	‘happen’	kiš-	kikkiš-	[ki-kːis-]
	‘cut’	kuwarške-	kuwakuwarške-	[kwa-kwːar-]
		kuraške-	kukkurške-	[kwu-kwːur-]
	‘bend’	lak-	lelakk-	[le-lakː-]
	‘chant’	mald-	mammalt-	[ma-malt-]
	‘fall’	mau(šš)-	mum(m)iye-	[mu-m-]
	‘shoot’	šiye/a-	šišiye-	[si-s(i)-]
	‘place’	d(a)i-	titti-	[ti-tːi-]
	‘step’	tiye/a-	titti-	[ti-tːi-]
	‘cry out’	wai-	wiw(a)i(ške-)	[wi-w(a)i-]
	‘wipe’	warš-	wawarš-	[wa-warsː-]
	‘demand’	wēk-	wewakk-	[we-wakː-]
CLuw.	‘run’	ḫuiya-	ḫuihuiya-	[χwi-χwi-]
	‘take’	la-	lala-	[la-la-]
	‘pour’	lūwa-	lilūwa-	[li-luː-]
	‘give’	pī(ya)-	pipišša-	[pi-pi-]
	‘break’	malḫu-/	mammalḫu-/	[ma-m(ː)alχw-] /
		malwa-	mammalwa-	[ma-m(ː)alwa-]
	‘strike’	dūp(a)i-	dūdupa-	[tuː-tupa-]
HLuw.	‘exalt’	sarla-	sasarla-	[sa-sarla-]
	‘release’	sa-	sasa-	[sa-sa-]
	‘fill’	su(wa)-	susu-	[su-su-]
	‘stand’	ta-	tata-	[ta-ta-]
Lyc.	‘give’	pije-	pibije-	[pi-βi-]

(5) Paired CVX- stems reconstructible for PA by Anatolian-internal comparison

Hitt. lipp-	‘lick’	:	Luw(o-Hitt). lilipa(i)-
Hitt. pašš-	‘swallow’	:	Luw(o-Hitt.) papašša-
Hitt. nai-	‘turn’	:	CLuw. nana-
Hitt. tar-	‘say’	:	CLuw. tatariya- ‘curse’ /
			HLuw. ta-ta-ra/i-ya- [tatar(i)ya-] ‘id.’

While consistent C₁-copying is clearly observed in (4–5), certain aspects of this data call for further comment. First, several different sub-patterns are observed for the reduplicative vowel. While most forms show identical copy vocalism (e.g. Hitt. kikkiš-, mammalt-; virtually all of the Luwian forms), there appear to be at least a few forms with fixed [e] (e.g. Hitt. wewakk-) or fixed [i] (e.g. Hitt. wiw(a)i(ške-), CLuw. lilūwa-).⁹ Given that [e] and [i] are the most common fixed vocalisms found in the other Indo-European languages (especially Greek; see Keydana 2006, Zukoff 2017a, 2017b), it is likely that these represent archaisms, and that copy vocalism should be identified as the productive pattern for Hittite and Luwian.¹⁰ In any event, as will be shown in the analysis of TRVX- bases in Section 3.2 below, the reduplicative vowel in Hittite must be standing in correspondence with the base vowel, whether or not it is an identical copy. For the remainder of this article, however, we focus primarily on reduplicant shape, leaving a fuller investigation of reduplicant vocalism in Anatolian as a question for future inquiry.

In the data in (4) it can also be observed that some partially reduplicated verbal stems show orthographic gemination of the base-initial consonant. Such gemination is observed regularly in Hittite for stop-initial bases, as seen in paired stems like Hitt. kikkiš- and titti- in (4), as well as in synchronically unpaired but historically reduplicated stems like Hitt. papparš- ‘sprinkle’ and pippa- ‘overturn; destroy’ (on which see Dempsey 2015:198–203). We assume that these consistent intervocalic orthographic geminates represent phonological geminates just as elsewhere in the language, and accordingly transcribe them as long in (4) and in subsequent forms cited below.¹¹ It remains an open question how these base-initial geminates—which historically resulted from the operation of Sturtevant’s Law in Pre-Hittite (Sturtevant 1932; cf. Pozza 2011, 2012)—should be analyzed synchronically.¹² We provisionally assume here that they arise synchronically from a morphophonological gemination process specific to the context of reduplication, but the issue merits a fuller investigation elsewhere.¹³

While non-stop consonants generally do not show this gemination pattern, it is attested for verbal stems that begin with [m], including all of the paired stems in (4) and the unpaired reduplicated stem mem(a)i- ‘speak’. In these cases, however, the phonological reality of the orthographic geminate is dubious. The geminate -mm- spellings occur only in New Script (NS) manuscripts, by which period such spellings more broadly “are not always reliable indicators of a genuine geminate” (Hoffner and Melchert 2008:19). Moreover, the oldest attestation of mummiye- in (4) shows an orthographic singleton stop (3sg ⟨mu-mi-e-ez-zi⟩; KUB 36.44 iv 8, OH/MS^? per CHD L–N: 328), and mem(a)i- is well-attested in Old Script (OS) and Middle Script (MS) manuscripts with consistent singleton spelling (see CHD L–N: 254–263 for attestations).¹⁴ In view of these facts, we interpret the geminate -mm- spellings in these stems as a purely orthographic effect and thus transcribe them with [m] in (4).

A third and final point concerns a few examples in (4) in which the formation of a verb’s reduplicated stem involves more than simply the addition of a reduplicative prefix. Both šišiye/a- and mum(m)iye- show further suffixation of -ye/a- (< PIE *-ye/o-), with historical syncope of the root vowel in at least the latter.¹⁵ A different problem is presented by Hitt. lilakk- and wewakk- in (4): the stem-final geminate of their reduplicated forms are synchronically irreconcilable with the final singleton stops in their bases (cf. 3sg.npst lāki; 1sg/3pl.pst wekun/weker).¹⁶ This discrepancy awaits a satisfactory explanation. Lastly, there is CLuw. dūdupa-, which appears to have a long vowel in the reduplicant and a short vowel in the base, the latter mismatching the long vowel observed in the simplex form dūp(a)i-. The phonological interpretation of this is unclear, especially in view of CLuw. lilūwa, where the reduplicant appears to be short and the long vowel of the base remains long.¹⁷ However they are ultimately resolved, such issues do not materially affect the present study; these stems conform to the regular C₁-copying pattern observed everywhere in Anatolian and elsewhere in Indo-European for CVX- bases.

2.2 VCX- data

For each of the remaining base types, the data is much more scarce. Vowel-initial bases in both Hittite and Luwian show a VC-VCX- reduplicative pattern, as shown by the forms in (6). The forms of the shape VR-VRTX- will be especially significant for understanding the development of the *PCR constraint within Anatolian (cf. Section 7).

(6) Reduplication with VCX- bases

	Gloss	Base	Reduplicated stem
Hitt.	‘mount’	ark-	ararkiške-	[ar-ark-]	(D:58–60, 260)
	‘seat’	ēš-	ašāš-	[as-aːs-]18	(D:61–65, 282–284; K:218–219)
CLuw.	‘wash’	īlḫa-	ililḫa-	[il-i(ː)lχa-]	(D:218–219, 263)

2.3 TRVX- data

For obstruent + sonorant–initial bases (TRVX-), Hittite has a cluster-copying pattern TRV-TRVX-, while Luwian exhibits the more typical IE C₁-copying pattern TV-TRVX-. The attested forms are shown in (7) below. If analyzable as reduplicated forms, the Lycian verbs pabra- and pabla- (of unknown meaning; cf. Dempsey 2015:273–274), would be consistent with the Luwian and IE pattern of TV-TRVX- reduplication.

(7) Reduplication with TRVX- bases

	Gloss	Base	Reduplicated stem
Hitt.	‘blow’	par(a)i-	parippar(a)i-	[pri-pːr(a)i-]	(D:121–126, 275–276; K:631–632)
	‘kneel’	ḫal(a)i-	ḫaliḫal(a)i-	[χli-χl(a)i-]	(D:66–71, 319–320; K:273–274)
CLuw.	‘carry off’	par(a)-	papra-	[pa-pra-]20	(D:230, 272–273)

Due to the well-known limitations of the Hittite cuneiform script—specifically, its inability to faithfully represent word-initial consonant clusters (cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008:12–13)—the Hittite forms in (7) are potentially ambiguous, reflecting either: (i) partial reduplication, with a purely graphic “empty” vowel after the word-initial consonant; or (ii) “intensive” total reduplication, with a real a-vowel after this word-initial consonant (as in Hitt. wariwar ([war-i-war-]) ‘burn up’ from war/ur- ‘burn’).

For parippar(a)i-, there is both formal and functional evidence in support of the former analysis. First, as discussed in detail by Dempsey (2015:121–126), its meaning is consistent with partial (rather than “intensive”) reduplication: it occurs in contexts in which iterative or habitual readings are appropriate, and, like other partially reduplicated stems, it shows an affinity for the imperfective suffix -ške- (~20 % of attestations; see CHD P: 155), which “reinforces” these semantics. In addition, the reduplicated stem is twice attested with gemination of the base-initial stop (⟨pa-ri-ip-pa-ri-ya-an-zi⟩, KBo 13.177 i 16; ⟨pa-ri-ip-pa-ra-a⟨-i⟩⟩, KBo 25.60 ii 3); gemination is characteristic of partial reduplication (as noted in Section 2.1 above), but is unattested in unambiguous examples of “intensive” reduplication (cf. kunnikunk- ‘sway back and forth’; see Dempsey 2015:87–88, 320–321).²² We therefore follow both Dempsey (2015:275–276) and Kloekhorst (2008:273–274) in assuming partial reduplication in parippar(a)i-.

Partial reduplication is also likely for ḫaliḫal(a)i- (cf. Kloekhorst 2008:273–274), although less certain. There is no positive evidence that the orthographic a in the word-initial or base-initial cluster of the reduplicated stem is phonologically real. Moreover, the reduplicated stem exhibits a similar affinity for the suffix -ške- (~33 % of attestations; see HW² Ḫ: 34), and in all of the examples treated by Dempsey (2015:67–70) has semantics appropriate to partial reduplication.

Regardless, the broader analysis advanced in this paper does not depend on the morphological status of ḫaliḫal(a)i- alone; it is necessary only that at least one of parippar(a)i- or ḫaliḫal(a)i- is derived by partial reduplication. Given the relative security of parippar(a)i- as partial reduplication, the phonological generalization set out at the beginning of this section—i.e., that TRVX- bases show cluster-copying in Hittite—can be maintained.

2.4 STVX- data

For inherited s + obstruent–initial roots (PIE/PA *STVX-), Hittite and Luwian again diverge, as shown in (8). Hittite shows copying of the full cluster (as in TRVX- bases), plus a prothetic [i]. The word-initial [i] must be epenthetic, and outside of the reduplicant proper; if the root were underlyingly vowel-initial, it would be expected to exhibit the copying pattern for VCX- roots, thus yielding ^xiš-ištu-, contrary to fact.²³ Luwian synchronically lacks STVX- bases; the Luwian reduplicated forms in (8) are relics of the Proto-Anatolian *STV-STVX- pattern, with deletion of *s in Pre-Luwian according to regular sound change (see Section 5.1 below for further discussion).

(8) Reduplication with STVX- bases

	Gloss	Root/base	Reduplicated stem
Hitt.	‘become evident’	ištu- (/stu/)	išdušdu-ške-	[istu-stu-]	(D:71–73, 263; K:419)
CLuw.	‘become evident’	PA *stu-	dušdu-ma/i-	[tu-stu-]	(K:419–420)
	‘bind’	PA *sh2(o)i-	ḫišḫi(ya)-	[χi-sχi-]	(D:212–213, 261–262)

Two additional Hittite forms should be mentioned here: (i) Hittite šišd- ‘prosper’ (Dempsey 2015:204–205, 301–302), and (ii) Hittite šišḫa- ‘decide, appoint’ (Dempsey 2015:206–207, 303–304). If these were to be viewed as productively generated reduplicated forms within synchronic Hittite, they would clearly run counter to the generalization presented above, showing C₁-copying rather than cluster-copying. Dempsey (2015:301–304), however, argues convincingly on both semantic and formal grounds that neither of these was synchronically analyzed by Hittite speakers as reduplicated, and we follow him on this point. If these verbs are rightly analyzed as reduplicated stems formed at some earlier stage,²⁴ they could be showing the same inner-Hittite syncope process seen in Hitt. titḫa- ‘thunder’ and lilḫuwai- ‘pour’ (see Section 7.7 below).

3.1 CVX- bases in Hittite

First, we consider the most basic type, the CV- copying pattern to CVX- bases. Most of the interesting analytical points arise only in other base types, but this pattern can serve to illustrate one noteworthy point, namely, that post-nuclear segments (e.g. C₂ and V₂ in a C₁V₁C₂V₂- base) are not generally copied. (The crucial, principled exception to this generalization will be with vowel-initial roots, where exactly one post-nuclear consonant does get copied; see Section 3.4 below.) This fact can be derived in part by using a “size minimizer” constraint (see Spaelti 1997, Hendricks 1999, among others) that prefers smaller reduplicants.

In this article, we will employ the size minimizer constraint Align-Root-L for this purpose.²⁵ As defined in (9), this is an alignment constraint (cf. McCarthy and Prince 1993) dictating that the output exponent of the root be as far to the left as possible. Since the reduplicant necessarily intervenes between the root and the left edge of the word, Align-Root-L will prefer the smallest reduplicant possible (subject to the requirements of higher-ranked constraints). Align-Root-L trades off with the Base-Reduplicant faithfulness constraint Max-BR, defined in (10). This constraint prefers maximal copying from the base, which is directly at odds with the goals of Align-Root-L. The fact that maximal copying is not observed shows that Align-Root-L must outrank Max-BR.

(9) Align-Root-L

Assign one violation mark * for each segment which intervenes between the left edge of the word and the left edge of the root.

(10) Max-BR

Assign one violation mark * for each segment in the base without a correspondent in the reduplicant.

(11) Hittite Ranking: Align-Root-L ≫ Max-BR

This ranking is demonstrated in (12) with the root warš- ‘wipe’. Copying one post-nuclear consonant (candidate (12b)) or both post-nuclear consonants (candidate (12c)) increases the number of violations of Align-Root-L, since there are now more segments preceding the root than necessary.²⁶ This ranking will generally promote minimal copying in reduplication in Hittite.

(12) CVX- bases: warš- ‘wipe’ → wa-warš-

/RED, wars-/			Align-Root-L	Max-BR
a.	☞	wa-wars-	**	**
b.		war-wars-	***!	*
c.		wars-wars-	***!*

3.2 TRVX- bases in Hittite

Bases with initial obstruent + sonorant (TR) clusters copy both base-initial consonants, plus the reduplicative vowel; for example, prai- ‘blow’ → pri-prai-. The constraint that is crucial in preferring the desired cluster-copying candidate (16a) pri-prai- over a cluster-reducing CV reduplicant candidate (16b) pi-prai- is Contiguity-BR, defined in (13). In order to select the cluster-copying candidate, Contiguity-BR must dominate Align-Root-L, as cluster-copying introduces additional segments intervening between the root and the left edge of the word.

(13) Contiguity-BR

Assign one violation mark * if two segments which are contiguous in the base have correspondents in the reduplicant that are not contiguous.

To make use of this constraint for the example under discussion, we must assume that the reduplicative vowel corresponds either to the entire diphthong of the base [ai], or the first base vowel [a], such that the base correspondent of the reduplicative vowel is contiguous with the base-second consonant. Alternatively, we could assume that the reduplicant is calculated relative to the weak stem (see n. 7 above), which regularly exhibits zero-grade ablaut for this type of verb, i.e., pri-pri-. Either way, this problem does not arise with monophthongal nuclei, as in the STVX- example below. Nevertheless, since this constraint is crucial in the analysis, we must assume that in all cases, whether or not the vowel of the reduplicant is identical to the base vowel, the vowel of the reduplicant stands in BR-correspondence with the vowel of the base.²⁷

A third candidate considered here is (16c) ri-prai-, which copies just the second root consonant rather than the first. This strategy avoids creating a reduplicant cluster and thus improves satisfaction of Align-Root-L without violating Contiguity-BR. However, it does so at the expense of another constraint, Anchor-L-BR—defined in (14)—which is undominated in Anatolian. With the ranking shown in (15) below, the cluster-copying candidate is selected, as demonstrated in the tableau in (16).

(14) Anchor-L-BR

Assign one violation mark * if the leftmost segment of the reduplicant does not correspond to the leftmost segment of the base.

(15) Hittite Ranking: Anchor-L-BR, Contiguity-BR ≫ Align-Root-L

(16) TRVX- bases: prai- ‘blow’ → pri-prai-

/RED, prai-/			Anchor-L-BR	Contiguity-BR	Align-Root-L
a.	☞	pri-prai-			***
b.		pi-prai-		*!	**
c.		ri-prai-	*!		**

This copying pattern is quite noteworthy from the Indo-European perspective. Hittite appears to be the only Indo-European language that attests reduplication to TR-initial bases but does not maintain the C₁-copying pattern for them.²⁸ While the motivation for this change remains largely mysterious (cf. Sections 5.2 and 7.1), its ramifications for the ranking of *PCR relative to other constraints will have serious implications for the reduplication patterns of other base types—in particular, of vowel-initial bases.

3.3 STVX- bases in Hittite

Bases beginning in s-obstruent (ST) clusters constitute a special case of cluster-initial bases. In Hittite, they exhibit the same cluster-copying pattern as do TRVX- bases, but additionally display prothesis of [i] to the (word-initial) reduplicant cluster: simplex ištu- ‘become evident’ → reduplicated ištu-štu-. This complication follows directly from the independent process of prothesis to initial ST clusters.

(17) Hittite prothesis: Ø → [i] / #__ST

Prothesis must be a synchronically active process in Hittite (as opposed to a sound change which has run its course and altered underlying representations). This is clear from reduplication: this root (simplex ištu-) does not behave like the real vowel-initial roots laid out in Section 2.2 (analyzed in Section 3.4 below). If it were underlyingly vowel-initial (i.e., /istu/), the reduplicated form should be ^xiš-ištu-, contrary to fact. Moreover, the facts of stress assignment in Hittite provide additional evidence for the synchronic status of prothesis. As discussed in detail by Yates (2017:137–139), the prothetic vowel [i] is “invisible” to stress assignment: the regular phonological preference for word-initial stress that arises in the absence of lexically stress-attracting morphemes ignores the prothetic vowel, placing stress instead on the root vowel immediately following the ST cluster; for example, Hitt. /skar-i/ → iškāri [iskáːri] ‘pierces’ (not ^x[ískari]). Such invisibility is a characteristic property of epenthetic vowels cross-linguistically (see, e.g., Hall 2006:396, 2011:1586), and offers a neat explanation for the otherwise aberrant stress patterns of verbs with historical *#ST clusters.²⁹ In view of this convergent evidence, we assume that Hittite surface forms like [istu-] are stored with an initial ST-cluster (i.e., /stu/), and that the prothetic vowel arises in the course of the derivation: /stu-/ → [istu-].

To generate this pattern of prothesis, the constraint militating against initial ST clusters (*#ST in (18a)) must outrank the constraint militating against epenthesis (DepV-IO in (18b)), as illustrated in (20). DepV-IO must also be dominated by other faithfulness constraints whose violation could repair an initial ST cluster—for instance, MaxC-IO (18c), which penalizes consonant deletion.³⁰

(18) Constraints involved in epenthesis

a. *#ST

Assign one violation mark * for each word-initial ST cluster.³¹

b. DepV-IO

Assign one violation mark * for each output vowel without an input correspondent.

c. MaxC-IO

Assign one violation mark * for each input consonant without an output correspondent.

(19) Hittite Ranking: *#ST, MaxC-IO ≫ DepV-IO

(20) Epenthesis to ST roots: /stu-/ → [istu-]

/stu-/			*#ST	MaxC-IO	DepV-IO
a.		stu-	*!
b.	☞	istu-			*
c.		su-/tu-		*!

Epenthesis could solve the *#ST problem in one of two ways: (i) prothesis (i.e., external epenthesis), as is attested; or (ii) anapytxis (i.e., internal epenthesis), as in an unattested output like ^xšitu-. To select prothesis over internal epenthesis, we need to consider the ranking of *#ST and two additional constraints: Contiguity-IO and Onset.³²

(21) Constraints for epenthesis site

a. Contiguity-IO

Assign one violation mark * for each pair of segments which are adjacent in the input that have non-adjacent correspondents in the output.

b. Onset

Assign one violation mark * for each onsetless syllable.

Contiguity-IO prefers external epenthesis, as internal epenthesis would disrupt adjacency relationships. Onset, on the other hand, prefers internal epenthesis, because external epenthesis would create a word-initial (and thus syllable-initial) vowel. Furthermore, Align-Root-L actually prefers internal epenthesis as well, since external epenthesis introduces a new segment between the root and the left edge of the word. Since external epenthesis is selected, it is clear that Contiguity-IO must dominate both Onset and Align-Root-L, and also that *#ST dominates Onset and Align-Root-L, or else epenthesis would not constitute harmonic improvement. This ranking is shown in (22) and illustrated in the tableau in (23) below.

(22) Hittite Ranking: *#ST, Contiguity-IO ≫ Onset, Align-Root-L

(23) Epenthesis site in ST roots: /stu-/ → [istu-]

/stu-/			*#ST	Contiguity-IO	Onset	Align-Root-L
a.		stu-	*!
b.	☞	istu-			*	*
c.		situ-		*!

Since ST roots are stored underlyingly with an initial ST cluster, these roots can act just like other cluster-initial roots (i.e., TRVX-), subject only to the additional condition of prothesis, which applies now to the reduplicant cluster rather than the base cluster. This results from combining the constraints and rankings already established independently for TRVX- roots in reduplication (cf. (16) above) and STVX- roots in isolation (cf. (20) and (23) above). The tableau in (24) illustrates this prediction.

(24) Reduplication of STVX- bases: /stu-/ → [istu-stu-]

/RED, stu-/			*#ST	Anchor-	Contig-BR	DepV-IO	Align-Root-L
				L-BR
a.		stu-stu-	*!				***
b.	☞	istu-stu-				*	****
c.		su-stu-			*!		**
d.		tu-stu-		*!			**

The simple cluster-copying candidate (24a)—which is equivalent to the pattern exhibited by TRVX- bases—is impossible here, because it would result in an initial ST cluster (prohibited by the undominated markedness constraint *#ST). Copying a non–base-initial consonant as in (24d) is also suboptimal, as it violates Anchor-L-BR. Lastly, candidate (24c), which just copies the root-initial s, is not permitted because it violates Contiguity-BR, since the s and the vowel are not adjacent in the base while they are in the reduplicant. (It also violates *PCR, but this constraint must be lower ranked; see further below.) This leaves (24b), which is equivalent to the cluster-copying candidate (24a), except that it additionally has prothesis before the reduplicant. As long as DepV-IO and Align-Root-L (and indeed Onset, which is also violated in the winning candidate due to its prothetic vowel) are dominated by the three highest ranked constraints, this candidate remains optimal.

(25) Hittite Ranking:

*#ST, Anchor-L-BR, Contig-BR ≫ DepV-IO, Onset, Align-Root-L

It is crucial that the epenthetic i does not belong to the reduplicant proper, as this would lead to a fatal Anchor-L-BR violation. This is reflected below in the difference between candidates (28b) and (28c) (indicated notationally with a difference in underlining). In desired candidate (28b), the epenthetic vowel is analyzed as being external to the reduplicant; it is thus irrelevant for the calculation of Anchor-L-BR, and the constraint is satisfied because the reduplicant-initial s corresponds with the base-initial s. On the other hand, in suboptimal candidate (28c), the epenthetic vowel is parsed as part of the reduplicant, and indeed as its leftmost segment; this creates a mismatch between reduplicant-initial and base-initial segments, yielding a fatal violation of Anchor-L-BR.

Given that the epenthetic vowel must not be treated as part of the reduplicant, this shows that the constraint which militates for the reduplicant to be at the left edge of the word—Align-Red-L, defined in (26)—is violable, and indeed is violated in service of prothesis (in candidate (28b)).³³ (Align-Red-L must outrank Align-Root-L in order to ensure that the reduplicant precedes rather than follows the root.) The comparison between desired candidate (28b) and suboptimal candidate (28e)—in which epenthesis occurs inside the base of reduplication and its result is copied into the reduplicant³⁴—further shows that Onset must also outrank Align-Red-L, as the hiatus at the base-reduplicant juncture is evidently not preferred to better left-edge alignment of the reduplicant. The tableau in (28) shows that, given these assumptions and rankings, we continue to select the desired output.³⁵

(26) Align-Red-L

Assign one violation mark * for each segment that intervenes between the left of the reduplicant and the left edge of the word.

(27) Hittite Ranking:

*#ST, Anchor-L-BR ≫ Onset ≫ Align-Red-L ≫ Align-Root-L

(28) Reduplication of STVX- bases: /stu-/ → [istu-stu-]

/RED, stu-/			*#ST	Anchor-	Contiguity-	Onset	Align-Red-L
				L-BR	IO
a.		stu-stu-	*!
b.	☞	istu-stu-				*	*
c.		istu-stu-		*!		*
d.		is-tu-tu-			*!	*	**
e.		istu-istu-				**!

3.4 VCX- bases in Hittite

Vowel-initial roots/bases in Hittite show VC copying: for instance, ark- ‘mount’ → ar-ark-isk-. This pattern follows completely from the rankings necessary to generate the iSTV-STVX- pattern above. This is demonstrated in the tableau in (29) below. In addition to revealing several new rankings (Onset ≫ Align-Root-L ≫ *PCR), this pattern for the first time gives occasion to consider the status of *PCR in Hittite (Section 3.5.2 immediately below).

(29) VCX- bases: ark- ‘mount’ → ar-ark-

/RED, ark-/			Anchor-L-BR	Contig-BR	Onset	Align-Root-L	*PCR
a.		ark-ark-			*	***!
b.	☞	ar-ark-			*	**	*
c.		a-ark-			**!	*
d.		ak-ark-		*!	*	**
e.		r-ark-	*!			*	*
f.		k-ark-	*!			*

Copying from non–root-initial position (29e,f) provides ideal syllable structure (i.e., no Onset violations), but incurs a fatal Anchor-L-BR violation. Copying the vowel and the second root consonant as in (29d) violates Contiguity-BR. Copying just the root-initial vowel as in (29c) creates hiatus, and thus an additional Onset violation. (This justifies the ranking Onset ≫ Align-Root-L.) Copying the full post-nuclear cluster (29a) leads to having three segments in the reduplicant, and thus three violations of Align-Root-L. Since copying just the root-initial vowel and the first post-nuclear consonant—the pattern observed in the winning candidate (29b)—only incurs two Align-Root-L violations and does not violate any of the higher-ranked constraints, Align-Root-L selects it as optimal.

3.5 Hittite summary

4.1 TRVX- bases in Luwian

Whereas Hittite shows cluster-copying for TRVX- bases (TRV-TRVX-), Luwian shows the more typical IE C₁-copying pattern: TV-TRVX-. The Luwian pattern can be generated straightforwardly by taking the ranking proposed for Hittite (cf. (16) above) and reversing the ranking of Contiguity-BR relative to Align-Root-L, as illustrated in (33). This is the pattern that we will argue is reconstructible for Proto-Anatolian in the next section, and we will use the same ranking to generate it there.

(32) Luwian Ranking: Align-Root-L ≫ Contiguity-BR

(33) TRVX- bases: para- ‘carry off’ → pa-pra- (cf. Hittite prai- → pri-prai-)

/RED, pra-/			Anchor-L-BR	Align-Root-L	Contiguity-BR
a.		pra-pra-		***!
b.	☞	pa-pra-		**	*
c.		ra-pra-	*!	**

4.2 VCX- bases in Luwian, and the ranking of *PCR

Just like in Hittite, vowel-initial bases in Luwian show VC copying: īlḫa- ‘wash’ → il-ilḫa-. As shown in (34), this reduplicative pattern can be analyzed just like the identical Hittite pattern (cf. Section 3.4). The difference in the relative ranking of Align-Root-L and Contiguity-BR between Hittite and Luwian does not affect the outcome of the derivation. Each ranking shown in (34) is crucial, and represents the complete ranking for Luwian reduplication (with the addition of the ranking Align-Root-L ≫ Max-BR).

(34) VCX- bases: īlḫa- ‘wash’ → il-ilḫa-

/RED, ilχa-/			Anchor-L-BR	Onset	Align-Root-L	Contig-BR	*PCR
a.		ilχ-ilχa-		*	***!
b.	☞	il-ilχa-		*	**		*
c.		i-ilχa-		**!	*
d.		iχ-ilχa-		*	**	*!
e.		l-ilχa-	*!		*		*
f.		χ-ilχa-	*!		*

5.1 Reconstructing the behavior of STVX- bases

Hittite and Luwian appear to show incompatible behavior for STVX- bases. It can be observed in (38) that both languages attest a reduplicated stem to the PA root *st(e)u- ‘become evident’ (< PIE *steu-; see LIV²: 600–601). The Hittite form shows copying of the entire ST cluster (just like in Gothic), plus the prothetic vowel i (cf. Section 3.3 above). In Luwian, on the other hand, it seems that just the second member of the cluster (i.e., the non-sibilant obstruent) has been copied. On the surface, this looks like the C₂-copying pattern that is productive for STVX- roots in Sanskrit (see, e.g., Steriade 1988, Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 5) where, for instance, the root stamb^h- ‘prop’ forms a perfect stem ta-stamb^h- ‘PERF-prop’. Given that both the Hittite cluster-copying pattern (ignoring the prothetic vowel) and the apparent Luwian C₂-copying pattern are attested elsewhere in Indo-European, either pattern would a priori be a possible reconstruction for PA. However, once the effects of sound change are taken into account, it becomes clear that the Hittite pattern must be closer to the original situation.

(38) Reduplication with STVX- bases (repeated from (8) above)

	Gloss	Root/base	Reduplicated stem
Hitt.	‘become evident’	istu- (/stu/)	išdušduške-	[istu-stu-]
CLuw.	‘become evident’	PA *stu-	dušduma/i-	[tu-stu-]
	‘bind’	PA *sh2(o)i-	ḫišḫi(ya)-	[χi-sχi-]

In Section 3.3, it was demonstrated that the prothetic vowel which marks reduplicated STVX- bases in Hittite must be synchronically epenthetic; that is to say, if the prothetic vowel were analyzed as part of the underlying representation of the root, these roots would incorrectly be predicted to show a VC-VCX- reduplication pattern rather than the attested cluster-copying pattern. Yet while prothesis to word-initial ST clusters remained a synchronic process in Hittite, it can also be viewed from a diachronic perspective as a sound change relative to PA. The fact that not all of the other Anatolian languages show prothesis in this environment (either as synchronic process or historical change) strongly supports viewing it as a post-PA, pre-Hittite innovation.³⁸ Historically, then, a simple way to account for Hittite reduplicated forms of the shape iSTV-STVX- is to assume that they were inherited as such from PA but without the prothetic vowel (i.e., PA *STV-STVX-), which was subsequently inserted by regular Hittite sound change.

Given that Hittite forms like those in (38) diverge from their inherited forms only by the application of regular sound change, it is worth considering whether the Luwian forms in (38) can be analyzed in the same way. We pursue this hypothesis below, starting from the observation that Luwian differs from Hittite in its historical treatment of word-initial *ST clusters, showing deletion of the initial *s rather than prothesis.³⁹ These differing developments are illustrated in (39a) with non-reduplicated Luwian forms and their Hittite cognates: wherever a Hittite form has #iSTV, the corresponding Luwian form has just #TV. The same holds for the reduplicated forms in (39b): Hittite #iSTV stands in correspondence with Luwian #TV. Meanwhile, the table in (40) shows that these developments are restricted to word-initial position; intervocalic *-ST- sequences are retained faithfully in both languages.

(39) Treatment of PA #ST (cf. Melchert 1994:30–32, 2016a:187–188; Yates 2014, 2016b)

	PA		CLuw.			Hitt.
a.	*or-	>	arritti	‘spreads’	cf.	āri	(K: 406–408)
	*(e)h3men-	>	ummān	‘ear’		āmanan	(K: 411–413)
b.	*i(-sh2i)-	>	išḫiyanti	‘bind’		(a)i-
	*u(-stu)-	>	ušdu(miš)	‘manifest’		u-

(40) Treatment of PA medial ST-clusters

PA		CLuw.			Hitt.
*h1é-r̥	>	āar(-sa)	‘blood’	cf.	ēar
*-oi-	>	lump-ai-	‘regret’		dalug-ai- ‘length’
*h1éi	>	āi	‘is’		ēi

The major take-away from (39) is that the historically reduplicated TV-STVX- Luwian verbal stems in (39b) can be traced back directly to PA forms of the shape *STV-STVX-, which—by the regular Luwian sound change deleting *s in inherited *#ST clusters—would yield their attested forms.

We summarize these Hittite and Luwian developments in (41), where (41a) gives the diachronic correspondences (i.e., sound changes), and (41b) gives the synchronic phonological processes that were operative in effecting these sound correspondences. Prothesis was continuously synchronically active in Hittite from the inception of this sound change in Pre-Hittite through all subsequent periods of the language (including all attested periods). For Luwian, it is possible to demonstrate only that the *s-deletion process was operative in some period of Pre-Luwian, as this process appears to have altered underlying representations by the time of attested Luwian.

(41)	a.	Sound Changes:
		i.	Proto-Anatolian *#ST	>	Hittite #iST
		ii.	Proto-Anatolian *#ST	>	Luwian #T

	b.	Synchronic Processes:
		i.	(Pre-)Hittite	Ø → [i]	/	#__ST
		ii.	Pre-Luwian	/s/ → Ø	/	#__T

The precise diachronic developments in Luwian call for further comment. Under the proposed scenario, the crucial innovation of Pre-Luwian was the *s-deletion process in word-initial *ST clusters, which would most likely have begun its life as a gradient, postlexical phenomenon (see, e.g., Bermúdez-Otero 2015). However, this innovative Luwian deletion rule eventually became categorical, at which stage the */s/ of *ST-initial roots would no longer have surfaced in simplex verbal forms. This */s/ might have been recoverable if supported by alternations, but Luwian has no productive prefixing morphology other than reduplication. In principle, reduplicating verbal stems like (39b) could have sustained an underlying root-initial /s/. However, the historical simplex verbs corresponding to the attested reduplicated forms of Proto-Anatolian *ST-roots appear to have been lost exceptionlessly; thus, for instance, while Luwian attests reduplicated ḫišḫi(ya)-, it does not attest a simplex ^xḫai- equivalent to Hittite išḫ(a)i- ‘bind’. The lack of direct evidence for *[s] then led to restructuring of historically *ST-initial roots, with */s/ uniformly lost from underlying representations—i.e., PA */STVX-/ > Luw. /TVX-/. *STVX and *TVX roots would then have merged as /TVX/ synchronically.⁴⁰

Meanwhile, historically reduplicated verbs like Luw. ḫišḫi(ya)- which synchronically lacked an independently occurring base came to be interpreted as non-derived stems(/roots) in Luwian rather than stems derived via reduplication. Whether such stems were still perceived as reduplicated by Luwian speakers cannot of course be known for certain; however, it is at least suggestive that the author of the ritual of Zarpiya (CTH 757) used the Luwian reduplicated stem ḫišḫi(ya)- (3pl.npst ḫišḫiyanti; KUB 9.31 obv. ii 24) and the Hittite simplex stem išḫai- (ptcp.anim.nom.pl išḫiyanteš; KUB 9.31 obv. i 31) in what appear to be Luwian and Hittite versions of the same incantation.⁴¹ The equivalence of these stems in this context may support the idea that ḫišḫi(ya)- had lost the semantics associated with reduplicated stems and thus that it may no longer have been viewed as such by speakers. The historical scenario that we propose does not depend on this point, however, and we leave it as an open question here.

We conclude, then, that Luwian does not actually provide direct evidence for a synchronic treatment of STVX- bases, as its lexicon lacked them entirely. Nonetheless, the fact that both languages display the diachronically regular outcome of a Proto-Anatolian *STV-STVX- pattern—especially given the necessary non-productivity of that output within Luwian—is strong evidence in favor of reconstructing this pattern for Proto-Anatolian.

5.2 Reconstructing the behavior of TRVX- bases

Hittite and Luwian disagree also on the treatment of TRVX- bases, as illustrated in (42) below. Hittite shows full copying of the initial TR cluster: TRV-TRVX-, as in pri-prai- ‘blow’ (^xpi-prai-). Luwian, on the other hand, copies only the initial obstruent: TV-TRVX-, as in pa-pra- ‘carry off’ (^xpra-pra-). The primary argument for reconstructing the Luwian pattern rather than the Hittite pattern for PA comes down to considerations of parsimony.

(42) Reduplication with TRVX- bases (repeated from (7) above)

	Gloss	Base	Reduplicated stem
Hitt.	‘blow’	par(a)i-	parippar(a)i-	[pri-pːr(a)i-]
	‘kneel’	ḫal(a)i-	ḫaliḫal(a)i-	[χli-χl(a)i-]
CLuw.	‘carry off’	par(a)-	papra-	[pa-pra-]

Luwian reflects the pattern that is clearly reconstructible for PIE based on the comparative evidence outside of Anatolian. This C₁-copying pattern is clearly found in Ancient Greek (e.g., ke-kri- ‘PERF-judge’ not ^xkre-kri-), Sanskrit (e.g., pa-prac^h- ‘PERF-ask’ not ^xpra-prac^h-), Gothic (e.g., ge-grōt ‘PRET-weep.3SG’ not ^xgre-grōt), and elsewhere. If the Hittite cluster-copying pattern were to be reconstructed for PA, it would be necessary to posit a change between PIE and PA (C₁-copying > cluster-copying), and then posit another change—in fact, the exact opposite change—between PA and Luwian (cluster-copying > C₁-copying). On the other hand, if the Luwian C₁-copying pattern is reconstructed for PA, it would require positing only a single change between PA and Hittite (C₁-copying > cluster-copying) and no change at all in this domain between PIE and PA.

Based on comparative evidence from across the ancient IE languages, Zukoff (2017a: Ch. 7) has argued that PIE should be reconstructed as having displayed C₁-copying to STVX- roots (i.e., SV-STVX-), which would entail that PIE did not show basic *PCR effects in reduplication (see Section 8.1 for further discussion). If this hypothesis is correct, then the PA treatment of STVX- bases (i.e., the cluster-copying STV-STVX- pattern) is innovative relative to PIE (C₁-copying > cluster-copying). Adopting the C₁-copying pattern for the reconstruction of PA TRVX- bases would then provide a unitary direction of change within the development of Anatolian—schematized in (43)—from C₁-copying to cluster-copying: the STVX- bases change first (explainable with *PCR), then the TRVX- bases follow in the same direction (explainable with Contiguity-BR). While the motivation for adopting cluster-copying to satisfy *PCR at that particular moment in time (i.e., at the point when the innovative cluster-copying pattern arises) may be mysterious, it is also not at all unexpected from a comparative IE perspective, since the same innovation occurs in (the prehistory of) all of the IE phonological systems that show basic *PCR effects. Yet, for whatever reason the change to cluster-copying in STVX- bases occurred in PA, this innovation may itself offer an explanation for the subsequent change in Hittite to cluster-copying for TRVX- bases, which might be motivated by a misanalysis of the newly emergent STV-STVX- pattern. This hypothesis will be explored further in Section 7.

(43) Change in cluster-initial bases from PIE to Hittite (assuming PA TRVX- C₁-copying)

	PIE	>	PA	>	Hittite
TRVX-	C1-copying	=	C1-copying	>	cluster-copying
STVX-	C1-copying	>	cluster-copying	=	cluster-copying

An alternative scenario under which cluster-copying for TRVX- bases (TRV-TRVX-) is reconstructed for PA is outlined in (44) below. As can be clearly observed, the result of this reconstruction for Luwian TRVX- bases would be a diachronic “Duke of York” scenario: PIE *A > PA *B > Luwian A. Under this view, it is necessary to assume that, not only was there a wholesale change from across-the-board C₁-copying in PIE to across-the-board cluster-copying in PA, but, in addition, that this change was then immediately undone in the prehistory of Luwian. This scenario therefore requires more assumptions than the one represented in (43), and the latter change, in particular, lacks any obvious motivation (cf. 7.1 below). Accordingly, we view reconstructing cluster-copying for TRVX- bases in PA as an unparsimonious and unattractive solution.

(44) Change in cluster-initial bases from PIE to Luwian (assuming PA TRVX- cluster-copying)

	PIE	>	PA	>	Luwian
TRVX-	C1-copying	>	cluster-copying	>	C1-copying
STVX-	C1-copying	>	cluster-copying	(>)	(Ø)

Beyond the argument from parsimony, there may be archaisms in Hittite that support the reconstruction of an earlier *TV-TRVX- C₁-copying pattern (cf. n. 19 above). One is Hitt. tatrant- ‘sharp-edged; prone to goring’ (cf. Melchert 1984:33 n. 68, Kloekhorst 2008:857), which serves as the derivational base for the verbal stem tatraḫḫ- ‘incite’. Another is Hitt. paprant- ‘impure’, which serves as the derivational base for the verbal stems (factitive) papraḫḫ- ‘make impure’ and (fientive) papre(šš)- ‘be(come) impure’. If either of these adjectives were to derive diachronically from an earlier reduplicated formation, it can be expected to reflect the synchronic treatment of TR-clusters in reduplication at the historical stage at which it was formed. While it is certainly conceivable that the relevant stage is PIE itself, if it could instead be demonstrated that the formation was properly of PA antiquity—i.e., produced for the first time in PA or renewed according to the productive PA pattern—it would constitute evidence for reconstructing the C₁-copying pattern to TRVX- bases in PA.

For tatrant-, in fact, there is reason to think that this may be the case.⁴³ While the a-vocalism of the (historical) reduplicant is extremely difficult to motivate from a PIE perspective, a straightforward inner-Anatolian explanation is available: it might show copy vocalism which—as discussed in Section 2.1—is likely to have become the productive pattern in (Proto-)Anatolian. Accordingly, the Hittite adjective tatrant- may continue PA *dó-dr-ont-, the expected participle of a reduplicated ḫi-verb derived from the root *der- (< PIE *der-; see LIV²: 119–120);⁴⁴ this participle was then subject to lexicalization and preserved in Hittite among the productive class of -ant-adjectives. If this analysis is correct, it would provide further confirmation that the *TV-TRVX- reduplicative pattern should be reconstructed for PA.

5.3 Against reconstructing VCX- bases

Since the VC-VCX- reduplicative pattern is found in both Hittite and Luwian, it might be natural to assume that it should also be reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian, as well. In this section, however, we present arguments against this reconstruction, contending instead that the VC-VCX- pattern observed in Hittite and Luwian was independently innovated in each language. While we acknowledge that the principle of parsimony has an important role to play in guiding historical reconstruction (and indeed, it was applied to this end immediately above), it is nevertheless not the only factor that must be taken into account, and in the case at hand, there are independent reasons to believe that the VC-VCX- pattern did not yet exist in PA.

The first argument against reconstructing the VC-VCX- pattern for PA comes from the phonological grammar itself. In Section 6 below, we develop an analysis of PA reduplication that successfully generates the CV-CVX-, TV-TRVX-, and STV-STVX- patterns (to CVX-, TRVX-, and STVX- bases, respectively), all of which were shown to be reconstructible for PA in the immediately preceding sections. The constraint ranking necessary to produce these patterns, however, is incompatible with the VC-VCX- pattern. Specifically, generation of the STV-STVX- pattern alongside the TV-TRVX- pattern requires *PCR to be ranked high, while the VR-VRTX- sub-type of the VC-VCX- pattern would require *PCR to be ranked low. The presence of this pattern in the language would therefore give rise to an insurmountable ranking paradox.

The fact that our analysis predicts that the VC-VCX- pattern should not exist in PA does not on its own constitute sufficient grounds to reject this reconstruction, since there is an obvious alternative possibility—namely, that the analysis itself is incorrect. Yet this prediction encourages a closer examination of the data relevant to this reconstruction. In the remainder of this section, we argue that this re-examination vindicates our analysis: the VC-VCX- pattern did not exist in PA because PA did not yet have the vowel-initial bases (i.e., VCX-) from which it was generated.

7.1 The relative chronology of constraint re-rankings into Hittite

The crucial innovation for the development of Hittite was the change in TRVX- bases from the inherited C₁-copying pattern (PA *TV-TRVX-) to full cluster-copying reduplication (Hitt. TRV-TRVX-). In terms of the ranking of the constraints, the adoption of this pattern amounts to the promotion of Contiguity-BR over Align-Root-L. This change is represented in the transition between the stage in (52) below and the stage in (53) below. (The ✗ symbol indicates a diachronically prior stage’s winner that now loses under the new constraint ranking.)

(52) Proto-Anatolian

/RED, prai–/			Align-Root-L	Contig-BR
a.		pri-prai-	***!
b.	☞	pi-prai-	**	*

↓ Re-rank Align-Root-L & Contig-BR ↓

(53) Pre-Hittite I

/RED, prai–/			Contig-BR	Align-Root-L
a.	☞	pri-prai-		***
b.	✗	pi-prai-	*!	**

Is there any rationale for this change? Despite its prevalence within Indo-European, the C₁-copying pattern is cross-linguistically rare, with direct parallels (perhaps only) in Klamath (Barker 1964; see Steriade 1988, Fleischhacker 2005, Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 6) and possibly (in a much more restricted fashion) some dialects of Gbe/Ewe (Capo 1989, Ameka 1991).⁵⁶ This apparent typological asymmetry might reflect a bias towards contiguous copying—i.e., a bias towards the high ranking of Contiguity-BR. From a learning perspective, one might view it through the lens of a general learning bias in favor of Output-Output faithfulness constraints (McCarthy 1998, Hayes 2004:188), as Base-Reduplicant correspondence could well be subsumed under the broader category of Output-Output correspondence.⁵⁷

Whatever its motivation, the change from TV-TRVX- to TRV-TRVX-—i.e., the change from the PA grammar in (52)/(54) to the Pre-Hittite grammar in (53)/(55)—had significant implications for speakers’ analysis of the pattern for STVX- bases, although not for the surface properties of the pattern itself. At the stage in (55) (“Pre-Hittite I”), the losing C₁-copying candidate (b) violates both Contiguity-BR and *PCR. But unlike *PCR, Contiguity-BR is independently necessary to account for TRV-TRVX- reduplication. In the absence of unambiguous evidence for the activity of *PCR, Hittite learners converged on a simpler analysis: the STV-STVX- pattern was reanalyzed as being driven by Contiguity-BR, while *PCR—with no forms requiring its activity—was demoted to the bottom of the grammar, resulting in the stage in (56) (“Pre-Hittite II”). It is crucial that this process results in the total demotion of *PCR, all the way below Align-Root-L, in order to derive the behavior of VCX- bases at the following stage.⁵⁸

(54) Proto-Anatolian

/RED, stu–/			*PCR	Align-Root-L	Contig-BR
a.	☞	stu-stu-		***
b.		su-stu-	*!	**	*

↓ Re-rank Align-Root-L & Contig-BR (cf. (52) > (53)) ↓

(55) Pre-Hittite I

/RED, stu–/			*PCR	Contig-BR	Align-Root-L
a.	☞	stu-stu-			***
b.		su-stu-	*!(?)	*!(?)	**

↓ Demote *PCR ↓

(56) Pre-Hittite II

/RED, stu–/			Contig-BR	Align-Root-L	*PCR
a.	☞	(i)stu-stu-		***
b.		su-stu-	*!	**	*

Provided that the innovations in (55) and (56) chronologically precede the loss of *h₁ (a plausible assumption based on the discussion in Section 5.3 above), the new grammar generates VC-VCX- reduplication straightforwardly, as shown in (58). Note again that *PCR must be demoted not just below Contig-BR but also below Align-Root-L in order to generate the VC-VCX- pattern.

(57) PIE/Proto-Anatolian

/RED, h1Vrǵh-/			*PCR	Align-Root-L	Contig-BR
a.	☞	h1V-h1Vrǵh-		**
b.		h1Vr-h1Vrǵh-		***!

↓ … ↓

(58) Pre-Hittite III (= Hittite)

/RED, ark–/			Contig-BR	Align-Root-L	*PCR
a.	☞	ar-ark-		**	*
b.		ark-ark-		***!
c.		ak-ark-	*!	**

Prior to the changes between Proto-Anatolian and “Pre-Hittite III”, *h₁VC- roots would have reduplicated like ordinary CVX- roots, as shown in (57). (A PIE/PA form like *h₁V-h₁Vrǵ^h-, if it had been subject only to regular sound change and not grammatical remodeling, would have evolved into something like Hittite ^xārk-, which is clearly not the attested form.) However, after (i) the constraint re-ranking motivated by the changes for cluster-initial bases and (ii) the loss of *h₁, these newly vowel-initial roots in Hittite are correctly predicted to show VC-VCX- reduplication, i.e., (58). A summary of the proposed changes from Proto-Anatolian to Hittite and their relative chronology is given in (59).⁵⁹

(59) Hittite relative chronology

Stage		Ranking
(I)	Proto-Anatolian
	– TRVX- roots: C1-copying pattern changes to cluster-copying pattern
	– Indeterminacy about ranking of *PCR vis-à-vis STVX- roots
(II)	Pre-Hittite I
	– *PCR is unnecessary to account for STVX- roots, so it is demoted
(III)	Pre-Hittite II
	– *h1 deletes / #_V
	– Newly vowel-initial roots fed into grammar, generate VC-VCX- pattern
(IV)	Pre-Hittite III / Hittite

7.2 Maximally Informative Recursive Constraint Demotion (MIRCD)

To generate the full set of changes posited between Proto-Anatolian and Hittite, it is necessary for *PCR to go from the top-ranked constraint (among the three under discussion) in PA to the bottom-ranked constraint in Hittite, despite there being a period during which *PCR remained a surface true constraint (at least within the domain of reduplication). Notably, this scenario would seem to constitute a counter-example to the “subset principle” of phonological learning (cf. Prince and Tesar 2004 and references therein).

The subset principle states that, when learners are choosing between multiple possible grammars consistent with the positive evidence, they ought to select the grammar that is most restrictive (i.e., allows the fewest unseen forms), because doing otherwise has the potential to overgenerate relative to the target language and make it impossible to later arrive at the more restrictive target language. In phonology, this reduces mainly to a preference for the higher ranking of markedness constraints than Input-Output faithfulness constraints, as implemented in, for example, Biased Constraint Demotion (BCD; Prince and Tesar 2004) and Low Faithfulness Constraint Demotion (LFCD; Hayes 2004). It is standardly assumed that it is a desideratum of a phonological learning procedure for it to capture the subset principle. Capturing the subset principle is thus taken as one of the key arguments in favor of BCD and LFCD over simple Recursive Constraint Demotion (RCD; Tesar 1995, Tesar and Smolensky 1998, 2000).

However, if the current question regarding the diachronic development of *PCR within Anatolian has been correctly framed here, then it constitutes a case in which learners have failed to learn the subset language, as a superset language emerges in a diachronically subsequent stage. That is to say, despite having no positive evidence that *PCR was violable in their language, (Pre-)Hittite learners acquired a grammar that tolerated the emergence of a pattern (viz., the VC-VCX- pattern) that violated *PCR, rather than the more restrictive grammar (appropriate to a prior stage) that would have outlawed forms of this type. Therefore, resolute adherence to the subset principle would in fact not be consistent with the empirically available data. What is needed, rather, is a learning procedure that—under the right circumstances—is capable of learning a grammar other than the most restrictive one. Accordingly, we propose below a modification to the RCD algorithm (which can be made consistent with BCD as well) that is capable of accounting for the *PCR problem in Anatolian without completely undermining the restrictiveness of the approach.

The logic of the argument presented here is that *PCR lost its explanatory power in the development of Hittite with the advent of the TRV-TRVX- pattern, and that this lack of explanatory power is ultimately responsible for its complete demotion. As alluded to above, this type of logic is not consistent with most established procedures for phonological learning. With no evidence for the violation of *PCR, RCD—which is concerned only with whether or not a constraint prefers a losing candidate (henceforth, loser) to the winning candidate (henceforth, winner)—would install this constraint in the top stratum of the ranking, not the bottom one. This holds all the more for BCD and LFCD, where the fact that *PCR is a markedness constraint would further bias it towards high ranking.⁶⁰ Nor will this work in standard error-driven weighted constraint learning models like the Gradual Learning Algorithm (GLA; Boersma 1997, Magri 2012), because weight accrued by erroneously picking a *SV-STVX- output will be assigned to both *PCR and Contiguity-BR.⁶¹ While we will entertain an alternative solution in Section 7.6 below based on inherent bias for Base-Reduplicant faithfulness constraints (in the mode of BCD), we believe that the most successful solution is the following.

We propose here that a slight adjustment to the Recursive Constraint Demotion algorithm can capture the logic of the problem and properly derive the ranking issues. What is needed is a procedure that prefers to install constraints with greater explanatory power. Namely, rather than RCD installing all constraints that prefer no losers (or even only winners) among the current Winner~Loser pairs which have not yet received a W from an installed constraint (the “support”), RCD installs only the constraint or constraints which prefer the most winners.⁶² Such a system can be described as aiming to explain observed Winner~Loser pairs using the fewest constraints possible.⁶³

The standard formulation of the RCD algorithm collects all constraints that prefer no losers among the current support—i.e., those constraints which have only W’s and/or e’s in their column—and installs them (recursively) in the highest stratum.⁶⁴ The way that Becker (2009:164) formalizes the algorithm, which is reproduced in (60) below, is very slightly different, but in an interesting way (though this divergence is made without comment, as far as we can tell). Rather than selecting all the constraints that prefer no losers, this formulation selects only those constraints which prefer at least one winner and no losers (60a). For the *PCR ranking problem in Pre-Hittite currently under discussion, either version would result in *PCR being placed in the top stratum, because it prefers no losers and one winner (see (62) below).⁶⁵ Since the goal is to generate a ranking where *PCR is at the bottom, this approach is not going to be sufficient.

(60) RCD Algorithm (Becker 2009:164)

	Given a Support S,
	Given a set of constraints in S, not-yet-ranked constraints,
	H := a new constraint hierarchy.
	While S is not empty, repeat: current-stratum := all the constraints in not-yet-ranked constraints that have at least one W and no L’s in their column in S If current-stratum ≠ Ø, remove winner-loser pairs that are assigned a W by any constraint in current-stratum. put current-stratum as the next stratum in H, and remove current-stratum from not-yet-ranked constraints
	Put not-yet-ranked constraints as the next stratum in H.
	Return H.

The relative difference between the Becker approach and the standard approach hints at a solution to the problem. Our proposal—which we term Maximally Informative Recursive Constraint Demotion (MIRCD), formalized in (61) below—is that only the maximally informative winner-preferring constraints are installed in the highest stratum. We formalize this by introducing a new category into the RCD algorithm, the maximally-informative-winners (61b). This selects from among the winner-preferring constraints (or indeed the non–loser-preferring constraints) the one or more constraints which prefer the most winners. These constraints are maximally informative in the sense that their installation will explain the greatest number of data points, i.e., Winner~Loser pairs. It is then the maximally-informative-winners which are the set of constraints that get installed (61c), rather than the entire “current-stratum” as in the standard algorithm.

(61) Maximally Informative Recursive Constraint Demotion (MIRCD)

	Given a Support S,
	Given a set of constraints in S, not-yet-ranked constraints,
	H := a new constraint hierarchy.
	While S is not empty, repeat: current-stratum := all the constraints in not-yet-ranked constraints that have (at least one W and) no L’s in their column in S maximally-informative-winners := all the constraints in current-stratum for which no other constraint in current-stratum has more W’s in their column in S If maximally-informative-winners ≠ Ø, remove winner-loser pairs that are assigned a W by any constraint in maximally-informative-winners. put maximally-informative-winners as the next stratum in H, and remove maximally-informative-winners from current-stratum return current-stratum to not-yet-ranked constraints
	Put not-yet-ranked constraints as the next stratum in H.
	Return H.

This proposed change will only be compatible with Biased Constraint Demotion if the “biased” part of BCD—viz., the preferential installation of Markedness constraints before Faithfulness constraints—takes the maximally-informative-winners as its input, not if the maximally-informative-winners are chosen from among the markedness-biased set of constraints in the current-stratum. This is because *PCR is a markedness constraint while Contiguity-BR is a faithfulness constraint,⁶⁶ yet in the present case it is necessary that some aspect of the system prefer Contiguity-BR over *PCR. Therefore, the preference for markedness over faithfulness must be located after the step in (61b), not the step in (61a). Nevertheless, this shows that the adoption of MIRCD is not wholly incompatible with the mechanisms that advocate for the subset grammar, only that it overrides this mechanism in one particular case—namely, when multiple winner-preferring constraints differ in their explanatory power. Further consideration of exactly how this impacts views of the subset principle in phonological learning and what other empirical facts bear on this question is an important direction for future research.

7.3 From Proto-Anatolian to Hittite

With the MIRCD algorithm in place, it is now possible to demonstrate how this proposal actually derives the proper result for *PCR in Pre-Hittite. The violation profile in (62) shows two candidate comparisons for the two cluster-initial base types at the stage following the change from C₁-copying to cluster-copying in TRVX- bases—i.e., “Pre-Hittite I” from Section 7.1 above. The comparisons are (i) between the winning cluster-copying candidate and the losing C₁-copying candidate, and (ii) between the winning cluster-copying candidate and the losing “over-copying” candidate.

It will be helpful to consider the relationship between Align-Root-L (abbreviated Align) and Max-BR (abbreviated Max), so these derivations will assume that the base has additional copyable material after the first base vowel—i.e., specifically CCVCV- rather than just CCVX-. The “over-copying” candidate is the one that has copied the second syllable, and thus incurs extra violations of Align-Root-L relative to the winning cluster-copying candidate. In addition to Align-Root-L and Max-BR, the violation profile in (62) and the tableaux that follow include the violation profile of these Winner~Loser pairs with respect to *PCR and Contiguity-BR (abbreviated Contig).

(62) MIRCD for Pre-Hittite I: Initial Support

		*PCR	Contig	Align	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TRV-TRVCV- ≻ TV-TRVCV-	e	W	L	W
ii.	TRVCV- → TRV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	e	e	W	L
i.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-	W	W	L	W
ii.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ STVCV-STVCV-	e	e	W	L

With traditional RCD, both *PCR and Contig would be installed in the first stratum, as both of them prefer no losers, and indeed both prefer at least one winner (i.e., their columns have only W’s and e’s). This is not what we want, since this ranking would not be consistent with the VR-VRTX- pattern. However, if we employ the MIRCD update, which installs only the maximally-informative-winners, we achieve a different result, namely, the one we are looking for. While *PCR has one W in its column, Contig has two. This means that only Contig belongs to the maximally-informative-winners set, and it alone gets installed. This is shown in (63).

(63) MIRCD (round 1) for Pre-Hittite I: Install maximally-informative-winners, i.e., Contig

		Contig	*PCR	Align	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TRV-TRVCV- ≻ TV-TRVCV-	W	e	L	W
ii.	TRVCV- → TRV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	e	e	W	L
i.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-	W	W	L	W
ii.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ STVCV-STVCV-	e	e	W	L

The gray rows in (63) indicate the Winner~Loser pairs which are removed from the support by the installation of Contig. Crucially, the single Winner~Loser pair which provides *PCR with its W (STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-) is among those removed from the support. This means that, in subsequent iterations of the algorithm, *PCR will never get installed in a stratum above another constraint, since it will never again be a constraint that actively prefers a winner—even though, of course, it prefers no losers. Put another way, installing Contig first has entirely robbed *PCR of its informativity: all remaining Winner~Loser pairs in the support fare equally well on *PCR.

Among the remaining Winner~Loser pairs, Align is now a winner-preferring constraint. Since it is in fact the only winner-preferring constraint, it is identified as a member of the maximally-informative-winners set, and gets installed, as shown in (64) below. Installing Align takes care of the remaining support, and thus MIRCD completes without having installed *PCR (or Max) in an upper stratum. *PCR is ranked at the very bottom of the grammar, which is precisely the desired result; the ranking in (64) is exactly the one required in order to generate the VR-VRTX- pattern at the subsequent stages.

(64) MIRCD (round 2) for Pre-Hittite I: Install maximally-informative-winners, i.e., Align

		Contig	Align	*PCR	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TRV-TRVCV- ≻ TV-TRVCV-	W	L	e	W
ii.	TRVCV- → TRV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	e	W	e	L
i.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-	W	L	W	W
ii.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ STVCV-STVCV-	e	W	e	L

To summarize, the MIRCD update of RCD has a property that we will call “informativity-based constraint bounding.” If a constraint ℂ₁ is informative (i.e., winner-preferring) about some non-zero set of Winner~Loser pairs, and another constraint ℂ₂ is informative about a proper superset of those Winner~Loser pairs (i.e., all the Winner~Loser pairs about which ℂ₁ is informative, and one or more additional Winner~Loser pairs), ℂ₁ will always be installed in the very lowest stratum of the ranking. This is because the preference for installing maximally-informative-winners will always install ℂ₂ first, which will remove all W’s from ℂ₁’s support.⁶⁷

7.4 (MI)RCD in Proto-Anatolian

When the situation of informativity-based constraint bounding is not present in the support, MIRCD appears to be functionally equivalent to standard RCD. We briefly illustrate this point using the case of Proto-Anatolian. At this stage, where TRVX- bases show C₁-copying but STVX- bases show cluster-copying, *PCR and Contiguity-BR do not have the same scope, as can be seen in (65). Contiguity-BR is now not a uniquely winner-preferring constraint, because it is violated by the winning C₁-copying candidate for TRVX- bases. This lets *PCR, with its one W and no L’s, be installed on the first round, since there is no other winner-preferrer with more W’s (in fact, there are no other uniquely winner-preferring constraints in the initial support). This is reflected in (66). Lastly, Align takes care of the remaining support. MIRCD thus completes—as shown in (67)—properly yielding the necessary PA constraint ranking which was established in Section 6.

(65) MIRCD for Proto-Anatolian: Initial Support

		*PCR	Contig	Align	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRV-TRVCV-	e	L	W	L
ii.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	e	L	W	L
i.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-	W	W	L	W
ii.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ STVCV-STVCV-	e	e	W	L

(66) MIRCD (round 1) for Proto-Anatolian: Install maximally-informative-winners, i.e., *PCR

		*PCR	Contig	Align	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRV-TRVCV-	e	L	W	L
ii.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	e	L	W	L
i.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-	W	W	L	W
ii.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ STVCV-STVCV-	e	e	W	L

(67) MIRCD (round 2) for Proto-Anatolian: Install maximally-informative-winners, i.e., Align

		*PCR	Align	Contig	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRV-TRVCV-	e	W	L	L
ii.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	e	W	L	L
i.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-	W	L	W	W
ii.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ STVCV-STVCV-	e	W	e	L

Notice that the invocation of maximally-informative-winners was never required for this data, as at each step of the process there was only ever one constraint that was uniquely winner-preferring. In at least cases of this sort, then, MIRCD and RCD are completely equivalent.

7.5 From Proto-Anatolian to Luwian

In the development from Proto-Anatolian into Hittite, the crucial means of demoting *PCR to the bottom of the grammar was getting the independently necessary high ranking of Contiguity-BR to depress the ranking of *PCR via MIRCD. In other words, *PCR’s status as a winner-preferring constraint was eliminated when the support that was explained by Contiguity-BR was removed after Contiguity-BR’s installation. Similarly, in Luwian, the total demotion of *PCR can be explained in terms of the removal of support for *PCR; however, rather than being removed in the process of MIRCD, it is (at least in part) removed from the language via sound change.

As argued in Section 5.1 above, (Pre-)Luwian lost the synchronic contrast between roots of the shape /STVX/ and /TVX/ due to the operation of a categorical rule of /s/-deletion in inherited *#ST clusters. Insofar as any remnants of the earlier treatment of */STVX/ roots/bases remain in the language, they are treated as frozen archaisms, and perhaps not even analyzed synchronically as reduplicated. As a consequence, when (Pre-)Luwian learners were constructing their reduplicative grammar with respect to cluster-initial bases, the only data that they could have taken into account was the data for TRVX- bases, which still show C₁-copying.⁶⁸

The initial support for (MI)RCD would therefore be equivalent to that of Proto-Anatolian (65) but without any Winner~Loser pairs for STVX- bases. These would-be data points are grayed out in (68); the only data points available in the initial support are the white rows. Here it is now important whether basic RCD selects all non–loser-preferring constraints (the standard formulation) or just all winner-preferring constraints (the formulation of Becker 2009). If we assume that it selects only those constraints that actively prefer winners, then nothing further needs to be said; it will uniquely select Align for installation in the top stratum. High-ranked Align explains the entirety of the support; under this approach, then, *PCR and the other constraints get installed in the bottom stratum, as shown in (69).

(68) MIRCD for Pre-Luwian: Initial Support

		*PCR	Contig	Align	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRV-TRVCV-	e	L	W	L
ii.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	e	L	W	L
i.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ SV-STVCV-	W	W	L	W
ii.	STVCV- → STV-STVCV- ≻ STVCV-STVCV-	e	e	W	L

(69) MIRCD (round 1) for Pre-Luwian: Install Align

		Align	*PCR	Contig	Max
i.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRV-TRVCV-	W	e	L	L
ii.	TRVCV- → TV-TRVCV- ≻ TRVCV-TRVCV-	W	e	L	L

However, under the standard formulation of RCD, which installs all constraints which have no L’s among the current support, Align and *PCR would be treated equally on the first run. This would result in *PCR being installed in the top stratum, crucially ranked above Contig. This ranking is the opposite of the one required for Luwian (see Section 4), and cannot generate the VR-VRTX- pattern. The apparent facts of (Pre-)Luwian are therefore inconsistent with the standard formulation of RCD, and so require some update to the algorithm that prefers the installation of winner-preferrers over constraints that have only e’s. Becker’s (2009) approach is one such solution; MIRCD is another. MIRCD is here equivalent to Becker’s version of RCD, because they both have a mechanism for selecting a constraint with W’s (or W’s and e’s) over a constraint with just e’s. Insofar as MIRCD can be viewed as a ramped up version of Becker’s RCD, Luwian therefore also provides evidence in favor of adjusting RCD in the direction of MIRCD.⁶⁹

MIRCD is thus consistent with the development of Luwian argued for above. A summary of the proposed changes from PA to Luwian and their relative chronology is given in (70).

(70) Luwian relative chronology

Stage		Ranking
(I)	Proto-Anatolian
	– Emergence of rule deleting *s in *#ST
	– Deletion rule becomes categorical, eliminating evidence for /s/
	– */STVX/ roots are restructured as /TVX/
(II)	Pre-Luwian I
	– No synchronic contrast in cluster-initial roots, thus no evidence for *PCR
	– *PCR is demoted to the bottom of the grammar
(III)	Pre-Luwian II
	– *h1 deletes / #_V
	– Newly vowel-initial roots fed into grammar, generate VC-VCX- pattern
(IV)	Pre-Luwian III / Luwian

7.6 MIRCD or a bias for BR-faithfulness?

There is one way in which the demotion of *PCR might be generable without a change to the RCD algorithm per se, namely, by appealing to Biased Constraint Demotion (Prince and Tesar 2004), or some other learning procedure that can incorporate ranking bias by constraint type. As alluded to earlier, it is frequently assumed that learners have a bias towards the high ranking of Output-Output faithfulness constraints, at least over Input-Output faithfulness constraints (McCarthy 1998), and perhaps even over markedness constraints as well (Hayes 2004).⁷⁰ The two constraints whose relative ranking is at stake in the development from Proto-Anatolian to Hittite and Luwian, respectively, are *PCR and Contiguity-BR. Contiguity-BR, and Base-Reduplicant faithfulness constraints generally, might reasonably be classified as Output-Output faithfulness constraints for the purposes of learning biases, because both types of faithfulness constraints exclusively reference material that is visible in the output. If this is an appropriate characterization, and if *PCR is indeed to be classified as a markedness constraint, then a learning procedure which implements a bias for Output-Output faithfulness constraints over markedness constraints will install Contiguity-BR before *PCR when they explain the same set of data. This is the ranking we are trying to derive in both cases. Therefore, if these assumptions hold, it would seem that we might not need to revise our learning procedures, and that this might not really represent a counter-example to the subset principle. However, there is (to our knowledge) little to no work on the question of whether Base-Reduplicant faithfulness constraints should truly be afforded the Output-Output faithfulness bias. Furthermore and more importantly, it is not clear whether this approach could successfully generate the proper relative ranking of *PCR and ALIGN in at least the Hittite case.

One additional reason to doubt this approach is the behavior of Max-BR. Max-BR plays no role in any of the IE reduplicative systems (see Zukoff 2017a), and indeed is wantonly violated in all languages with partial reduplication patterns. If there were an underlying bias towards the high ranking of BR-faithfulness constraints, and Max-BR is properly characterized as a member of that set, then one should perhaps expect partial reduplication (or at least the sort of minimal partial reduplication evident in Indo-European; see also Hendricks 1999 on other sorts of minimal reduplication patterns) to be much less frequent than it actually is.

Note, finally, that even if BCD is adopted, the Luwian facts still require Becker’s version of the constraint selection step, i.e., preferentially selecting active winner-preferrers. If not, then *PCR would incorrectly be selected in the first run. Given that the difference between the Becker update and MIRCD is fairly small, MIRCD may still be a reasonable proposal even if a ranking bias for BR-faithfulness constraints is justified.

7.7 Further support for the late demotion of *PCR (in Hittite)

The diachronic account developed in the preceding sections argues that *PCR was demoted to the bottom of the rankings independently in Hittite and Luwian. Additional support for this notion comes from the existence of several consonant-initial *PCR-violating reduplicative forms that most likely have arisen within the internal (pre-)history of Hittite. These are given in (71) below.

(71) Consonant-initial *PCR-violating forms in Hittite

a.	titḫa	[títχa]	‘thunders’	(3sg.npst.mid)
b.	lilḫuwai	[lílχwai]	‘pours’	(3sg.npst.act)
				(cf. simplex laḫ(ḫ)u- ‘pour’)

In the case of (71a), the base-initial cluster [tχ] that, when preceded by C₁V-copying, incurs a *PCR violation is demonstrably not reconstructible to PIE or likely even PA, since *h₂ was regularly lost in that environment: PIE *Th₂V > PA *TV, as evidenced by (e.g.) Hitt. paltana- ‘shoulder’ < *pl̥th₂-eno-.⁷¹ As argued by Oettinger (1979:514) and Dempsey (2015:304–306), (71a) Hitt. titḫa is cognate with the Vedic Sanskrit root tanⁱ- ‘thunder’, both deriving from the PIE root *(s)tenh₂-. The Hittite form can thus be derived via the developments in (72).

(72) Historical derivation of Hitt. titḫa ‘thunders’

PIE/PA *tí-tn̥h₂-o > Pre-Hitt. *títaχːa > Hitt. titḫa [títχa]

This derivation explains the synchronically anomalous stem-final cluster -tḫ-, which arises only after the PA stage at which *h₂-deletion applied in the sequence *Th₂V. At that time, *h₂ was separated from the preceding stop by the syllabic nasal, which subsequently vocalized within Pre-Hittite (i.e., *n̥ > *a).⁷² Finally, the resulting vowel was subject to syncope, yielding the attested -tḫ- cluster.

The important question posed by this derivation is why syncope was allowed to create a new *PCR-violating sequence [títχ]: if *PCR had been active—as it was in PA (cf. Section 6 above)—when the new *a-vowel was targeted by syncope, why was syncope not blocked by this highly ranked constraint? The proposed chronology of constraint re-ranking outlined in Section 7 above offers a simple solution to this question: *PCR did not block syncope because it had already been demoted within the internal development of Hittite.⁷⁴ At an early prehistoric stage (i.e., Pre-Hittite I; see (59) above) following the inner-Hittite vocalization of syllabic nasals, syncope may have been blocked by *PCR; but when *PCR was eventually demoted (Pre-Hittite II in (59) above), the blocking effect ceased to exist, and syncope occurred.⁷⁵

A similar set of developments may have led to the emergence of (71b) Hitt. lilḫuwai- (< PIE *leh₃-w-). Reduplicative forms of (at least) the shape *LV-LT- (L = liquid) are systematically unattested in the IE languages (cf. Sandell 2014).⁷⁶ For instance, there is no *lelǵ- (to the root of Latin lēgī, Tocharian B lyāka, etc.) although there are several morphological contexts (e.g., perfect weak stems) where this configuration theoretically could have arisen.⁷⁷ If this gap is non-accidental and driven by (a version of) *PCR at the PIE level (cf. Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 6 & 7), then [lílχ^w-] could only have emerged within Hittite after the demotion of *PCR. We suggest, then, that this form is the result of the same inner-Hittite syncope process that yielded Hitt. titḫ-. Potentially relevant here also is the hapax spelling ⟨li-la-ḫu-i⟩ (KUB 21.47 ii 13)—the oldest attested form of the verb (OH or MH/MS; cf. CHD L-N: 57)—which could directly reflect a pre-syncope stage (i.e., [líːlaχ^wi]). If so, it would even support the possibility that the demotion of *PCR occurred within the historical period of Hittite.⁷⁹

In sum, the Hittite historically reduplicated stems titḫ- and lilḫu- may provide independent support for the chronology of constraint re-ranking proposed in Section 7: *PCR was active in PA, but was separately demoted in the post-PA (pre)history of Luwian and Hittite, allowing for the creation of new *PCR-violating sequences in the latter.

8.1 Anatolian and the reconstruction of PIE reduplication

Having reconstructed and analyzed the reduplication patterns of PA in Sections 5–6 above, we are now in a position to assess the implications of the Anatolian evidence for the reconstruction of the reduplicative system of PIE. Since we have focused here on reduplicant shape, our analysis bears primarily on the question of whether PIE made a distinction in reduplication between TRVX- vs. STVX- bases, and thus, in turn, on whether an active *PCR constraint can be reconstructed for PIE as in PA.

Concerning the potential distinction in PIE reduplication between these two base types, two main views are represented in Indo-Europeanist literature. The more traditional view reconstructs for PIE the distribution found in Gothic and, according to the proposal advanced here, in Proto-Anatolian as well: C₁-copying for TRVX- roots (TV-TRVX-) but cluster-copying for STVX- roots (STV-STVX-). Such an asymmetric distribution is indicative of *PCR effects, and would provide evidence for reconstructing a relatively high-ranking *PCR constraint in PIE.

The alternative view—found (e.g.) in Byrd (2015:119–121) and argued especially by Zukoff (2017a: Ch. 7)—is that PIE had across-the-board C₁-copying in reduplication. That is to say, *PCR was not sufficiently high-ranked in PIE proper as to divert STVX- bases away from the default C₁-copying pattern. Thus, under this view, both TRVX- and STVX- roots (and indeed all types of root-initial clusters) exhibited C₁-copying, i.e., TV-TRVX- and SV-STVX-, respectively. Despite the newly established agreement between the Gothic and PA reduplicative patterns, we endorse this view here.

The strongest evidence in favor of this reconstruction comes from archaisms in Greek and Latin (Brugmann and Delbrück 1897–1916:40–41), and their agreement with Iranian (Byrd 2015:120), which all point to SV-STVX-. Specifically, there is exact correspondence between the archaic reduplicated present forms of the PIE root *steh₂- ‘stand’ in Ancient Greek ἵστημι [hí-stɛː-mi] (< Proto-Greek *si-stā-mi) and Latin sistō ([si-st-oː]), despite neither belonging to the productive pattern of the language, which is reflected (e.g.) in the (non-copying) Ancient Greek perfect ἔσταλκα [é-stal-k-a] ‘I have prepared’ and the (infixing) Latin stetī ([s-te-t-iː]) ‘I stood’. Avestan and Old Persian appear to match the archaic treatment shown by Greek and Latin: Avestan hi-štaⁱti, vi-ša-star^ə, Old Persian a-hi-štatā (Byrd, 2015:120). The fact that the Latin and Greek forms agree with the Iranian forms can only be explained if that pattern obtained in the last common ancestor of those three branches, namely, PIE.⁸⁰

Possible further support for reconstructing across-the-board C₁-copying in PIE comes from Anatolian, where there is attested at least one verbal form that—like Greek ἵστημι and Latin sistō—may historically reflect this reduplicative pattern (i.e., C₁-copying for STVX- bases) and thus bear witness to the earlier PIE grammar. This potential archaism is the Hittite root šip(p)and- ‘libate’. Melchert (2016a) has argued that this root should be analyzed as deriving from an earlier reduplicated formation *se-spónd-, which then underwent deletion of root-C₁ (possibly with compensatory lengthening) to *sē̆pónd-. This deletion process—which is perhaps equivalent to what is observed in the CēC reduplicative patterns attested in Sanskrit and Germanic (see Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 5)—is plausibly viewed as an effect of *PCR, since the sequence repaired by deletion is exactly one which would incur a *PCR violation. If this analysis is correct, it implies that Anatolian inherited the SV-STVX- C₁-copying pattern from PIE, and that the reduplicated form ancestral to Hitt. šip(p)and- underwent a *PCR-driven deletion process prior to PA’s adoption of the STV-STVX- cluster-copying pattern. While the evidence is perhaps too limited to assert much more about the transitional stage between PIE and PA, it is possible that the process which shaped šip(p)and- was some of the first evidence that Anatolian learners received for the activity of *PCR, which was later generalized in a different way to create the PA cluster-copying pattern.

Yet the reconstruction of the SV-STVX- C₁-copying pattern for PIE ultimately does not depend on Hitt. šip(p)and-. When C₁-copying is compared to the traditional cluster-copying reconstruction, the primary appeal of the latter is that it offers a way to understand the productive STVX- treatments of Ancient Greek (V-STVX-), Sanskrit (TV-STVX-), and Latin (S-TV-TVX-) in terms of ordinary (if not regular) mechanisms of sound change: these patterns could be seen as different kinds of reductions (often referred to as “dissimilation”) from the original type. However, the precise means by which these reductions are meant to have happened are rarely (if ever) made explicit, and none of them are matched by independently observed types of dissimilation in those languages. This problem is obviated under the approach to diachronic change in reduplication pursued in this article, which has shown that the changes observed within Anatolian can be explained primarily in terms of grammatical reorganization. Significantly, this approach does not deny that ordinary sound change plays a role in the emergence of new reduplicative patterns; on the contrary, we have argued—above all, in our analysis of the diachrony of Luwian reduplication in Section 7.5—that sound change is instrumental in shaping the learning conditions that give rise to systemic morphophonological change, and that when these learning conditions are properly understood, the direction of the change can be predicted (at least after the fact).

When the diachrony of PIE reduplication is similarly approached in terms of grammatical reorganization, it becomes clear that the various changes attested in the ancient IE languages can be characterized in a unified way: each change results from the promotion of *PCR. In PIE, *PCR would have been ranked below all the constraints whose violation would have resulted in some pattern other than C₁-copying. The change in pattern is the result of the re-ranking of *PCR above (at least) one such constraint. The reason why the different languages develop different patterns for STVX- roots is because they each “choose” different constraints to promote *PCR above—for instance, the Proto-Anatolian (and Gothic) system arises by re-ranking *PCR above Align-Root-L.⁸¹ In a certain sense, then, the changes in overt reduplication patterns indeed all arise from the same underlying change: an emergent, increased sensitivity to the repetition avoidance constraint. Assuming that *PCR was independently promoted in the various languages—rather than retained as an active constraint from PIE—is logically consistent with the fact that the languages differ both in which repair is enacted and in exactly which repetition sequences are targeted by *PCR (Zukoff 2017a: Ch. 7).

8.2 Synchrony, diachrony, and phonological change

In this article, we have examined the reduplicative systems of the Anatolian languages from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives, which are crucially integrated in our analysis of the observed differences between Hittite and Luwian reduplication. Our explanation of these differences is founded, first, on synchronic theoretical analyses of the reduplicative systems of Hittite, Luwian, and their reconstructed ancestor, Proto-Anatolian. The phonological grammars of these diachronically distinct stages were then compared, such that the differences between the stages could be characterized not just phenomenologically (as is typical in traditional historical linguistic approaches), but in terms of the systemic differences in constraint rankings and/or underlying representations that comprise the individual grammars. This mode of comparison allowed us to bring to bear considerations of (morpho)phonological learning for explanatory effect, deriving one stage from the next through the language learning process and alterations to the learning data resulting from sound change.

What might be overlooked within this larger picture is how the theoretical analysis of PA reduplication developed in Section 6 also contributed to one purely empirical finding of this study: the loss of *h₁ in at least some environments was a post-PA development. The assumption that the wholesale loss of *h₁ was dateable to PA itself had not been seriously questioned since Melchert (1994:65) cautiously situated it at this stage. A re-examination of the evidence for this assumption (in Section 5.3) was prompted by a prediction of our analysis—namely, that the VR-VRTX- pattern associated with certain vowel-initial roots in Hittite and Luwian should not exist under the constraint ranking necessary to generate the other PA reduplication patterns (i.e., CV-CVX-, TV-TRVX-, STV-STVX-). This prediction was ultimately borne out: we adduced evidence from three separate phonological developments in support of the hypothesis that the loss of word-initial pre-vocalic *h₁—and thus the creation of the vowel-initial roots on which the VR-VRTX- pattern is based—occurred only after the break-up of PA. None of the evidence treated was in fact novel, but the theoretical analysis provided a context in which its historical implications could be more easily recognized.

More broadly, then, this article adds to the substantial body of evidence that synchronic analysis of the phonological grammar has a crucial role to play in the study of historical phonology. Not only can it serve as a complement to traditional comparative-historical methods in the identification of sound change, but when integrated with a theory of (morpho)phonological learning it can offer insight into, and potentially even explanation of the direction of systemic (morpho)phonological change.