The Anatolian reflexes of Indo-European τομή-, φυγή-, τόμος-, and τομός-type nominals and their historical implications Anthony D. Yates University of California, Los Angeles adyates@ucla.edu Abstract It is widely thought that Proto-Indo-European τόμος-type nouns are robustly continued in the Ana- tolian languages. I challenge this view, arguing that most of the alleged Anatolian reflexes of this class instead continue τομή- or φυγή-type nouns, or in a few cases, τομός-type adjectives. Based on this re- assessment of the Anatolian evidence, I propose a new historical account of the Hittite noun-forming suffix –a ˘ ¯tar/n– in which inherited τομή- and φυγή-type nouns play a crucial role. This evidence also prompts a reevaluation of the morphology of τομή- and φυγή-type nouns in Proto-Indo-European. I present empirical and morphophonological arguments in support of the view that φυγή-type nouns were primary derivatives, whereas τομή-type nouns were derived from τομός-type adjectives with the same suffix *–eh 2 –. Keywords: Indo-European; Anatolian; Hittite; nominal derivation; morphophonology §1 Introduction This paper is primarily concerned with two (or arguably three) classes of animate nouns standardly re- constructed for Proto-Indo-European (PIE), and more specifically, with the historical development of these nouns in the Anatolian languages. Notably, no clear functional difference has (thus far) been dis- cerned between these classes: the semantics of their attested reflexes suggest that all were event or result nouns in PIE, some of which developed more concrete meanings in its daughter languages. They were distinguished formally, however. The first class is comprised by nouns formed with a non-ablauting stressed suffix *–éh 2 –, which are continued as such in Anatolian and became feminines in the non- Anatolian IE languages. Among their reflexes two prosodic patterns are observed, but in the absence of an identifiable functional difference, they are plausibly viewed as sub-types of a single morphological class: 1 (i) a“τομή-type” characterized by *o-vocalism of the root; and (ii) a “φυγή-type” characterized by zero-grade of the root. Some non-Anatolian reflexes of these sub-types are given in (1) and (2) respec- tively along with their reconstructed PIE etyma. 2 (1) IE reflexes of τομή-type nominals : a. PIE *tomh 1 -éh 2 – > Gk. τομή ‘stump’ b. PIE *h x rot-éh 2 > Lat. rota;W rhod ‘wheel’ 1 Thus, e.g., Weiss (2020:320) presents both (i) and (ii) under “τομή-type nomina actionis.” See further §4, where I argue explic- itly that (i) and (ii) were formed with the same *–eh 2 -suffix. 2 On the examples in (1–2) see Penney 1978:310–20 with references to older literature (cf. Lundquist and Yates 2018:2109, Weiss 2020:320, i.a.). For specific treatment of (1e) see Vine 1999:565 (cf. Probert 2006 on the development of initial stress in lexical- ized τομή-type formations in Greek); of (1g) Adams 2015:179; of (2b) DPEWA #13956; and of (2f) Vine 1998:258 n. 9.