pizzarna-

The communis opinio regarding the underlying root PIE *pei̯k̑- is to connect various formations some of which are collected above sub Transmission. The semantics of these lexemes range from ‘sharp; to cut’ (Ved., Pashto, OPers., Gk.) over ‘to decorate, to color’ (Ved., Av., Gk., BSl.) to ‘to draw, write’ (BSl., OPers.).The meaning ‘to write’ in the Baltic and Slavic as well as the Iranian languages is of course not original due to the relatively recent development of writing, cf., e.g., ALEW 2.0 s.v. piẽšti (2020-11-30).According to LIV²:466f. (referring to EWAia II:168), the basic meaning of the root is ‘to carve out, to cut out’. The semantic change to ‘to cut in, scratch, embroider’ and finally to ‘to paint, decorate colorful’ is proposed ibid. n. 1 (s.v. *pei̯k̑-), but the authors do not even implicitly hint at the extralinguistic context in which such a change may occur. By referencing to EWAia II:168, they obviously follow Mayrhofer who states already in KEWA II:267: “offenbar im Verlauf eines Kulturwandels”, which implies that the context of the alleged semantic change is ‘tattooing’, cf. WH II:306. However, this assumption (ultimately going back to Fay 1907a:198) is ad hoc and lacks evidence.
As another, more plausible but also more complex proposal one can assume a semantic development ‘to cut (in); sharp’ > ‘to draw (lines)’ (hence > ‘to write’) > ‘to paint’ finally to ‘to decorate; motley’. However, the meanings at the end of this semantic chain, esp. ‘motley’ and ‘ornament’, seem to be rather old (cf. PIE *pói̯k̑-o- ‘colored; stain’, [?]Ved. (°)śilpá- = ORuss. pĭstrŭ ‘motley’, etc.), which is unexpected.
In view of these problems and until further evidence is found, the most economical solution is to split PIE *pei̯k̑- into two roots.This means that also in Vedic two semantically distinct roots have to be accepted – Ved. 1.peś- ‘to decorate’, 2.peś- ‘to cut’ –, which is not unusual, cf., e.g., Ved. 1.as- ‘to be’ (< PIE 1.*h₁es- ‘to be [there]’, LIV²:241f.) vs. 2.as- ‘to throw’ (< PIE 2.*h₁es- ‘to throw, shoot’, LIV²:242f.). Note that both examples, Ved. peś- and as-, also show overlapping morphology: Vedic attests a nasal present piṁś- ‘to cut; to decorate’ and a root formation as- ‘to be (pres.); to throw (aor.)’, each with both meanings. — Even if the respective roots are identical and one meaning is explainable from the other, two roots should be reconstructed for PIE (or at least for Core IE) because both meanings already existed in PIE, cf. Malzahn 2010a:724.On the one hand, the root PIE 2.*pei̯k̑- ‘to draw, paint, color, decorate’ (vel sim.) is based on PIE *pói̯k̑-o- ‘colored; stain’ (vel sim.), Gk. ποικίλος ‘many-colored’, etc. On the other hand, the root relevant for Luw. pizzarna- ‘(a tool)’ includes Pashto px̌ǝy ‘rhubarb’ (< *‘(vegetable) with a sour [= sharp < cutting] taste’), Gk. πικρός ‘sharp (to the sense)’ (< *‘cutting’), Ved. 2.peś- ‘to cut, carve’ and is thus reconstructed as PIE 1.*pei̯k̑- ‘to cut’.

Since it is proposed here that Luw. pizzarna- belongs to the root PIE 1.*pei̯k̑- ‘to cut’, which is different from PIE 2.*pei̯k̑- ‘to paint’, there is no need to discuss the frequently supposed identification of PIE *pei̯k̑- and PIE 1.*pei̯g- ‘to paint’ (LIV²:464), cf., e.g., EWAia II:169.There are two reasons to exclude TochAB pikā- ‘to paint, write’ from the present comparison. Firstly, if the phraseological match of Lat. pingere ‘to paint’, fingere ‘to form’ and TochAB pikā- ‘to paint, write’ (Malzahn 2010a:724), AB tsikā- ‘to form, shape’ (Malzahn 2010a:991f.) is correct (cf. Schulze 1921a), not only Lat. pingere ‘to paint’ but also the Tocharian verb AB pikā- ‘to paint, write’ belong to PIE 1.*pei̯g- ‘to paint’ (LIV²:464). Secondly, since the vast majority of the Tocharian evidence is handed down to us in the form of texts written in ink (vel sim.) rather than inscriptions carved in stone, the lexeme for ‘to write’, viz. TochAB pikā-, should be derived from a root meaning ‘to paint’ (as PIE 1.*pei̯g- or 2.*pei̯k̑-) rather than ‘to cut, scratch’ (as PIE 1.*pei̯k̑-).
The phonological shape of the root is clear: the root consists of the sequence *pei̯° and a velar which can be specified by the satem reflex in Indo-Iranian (Ved. -ś-, Pashto ‑x̌‑ [< *-sr-]) as well as by the continuation as Luw. ‑z-. Thus, the root is unambiguously reconstructable as PIE 1.*pei̯k̑- ‘to cut’.

[A.O.]