laqriša-
‘woodwork (vel sim.)’
- Language
- Lydian
- Grammar
- subst, collective
- ID
- 1492
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lydian
laqriša-
‘woodwork (?)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme occurs ten times in five burial inscriptions, both of them from Sardis. The inscriptions LW 1 and LW 2 are commonly dated to the first and second half of the 4th century BCE, whereas the other texts can be dated only more approximately to the 5th or 4th century BCE.
[I.Y.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. coll. | laqriša | LW 1.3 (Sardis) | |
| LW 2.3 (Sardis) | |||
| LW 9.4-5 (Sardis) | |||
| LW 7.2 (Sardis) | |||
| laqriš | LW 8.2 (Sardis) | ||
| dat. coll. | laqrišaν | LW 1.6 (Sardis) | |
| LW 2.7 (Sardis) | |||
| LW 7.4 (Sardis) | |||
| LW 8.9 (Sardis) | |||
| laqriša[ν] | LW 9.8 (Sardis) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
The form laqriš in LW 8.2 likely deserves emendation to laqriš<a>, cf. the assured emendation atras<t>alid in LW 8.6.
[I.Y.]
1.1.4Meaning
The context makes it clear that laqriša refers to a part of the burial complex that is distinct from the tomb proper (Lyd. wãna-) or the burial stele (Lyd. mru-). The noun under discussion occurs in the Greek and Aramaic bilingual LW 1, where its Aramaic correspondence was variously read as rdḥt’ or drḥt’. The first reading led to the comparison with the isolated Arab. word rudḥa ‘curtain (in a tent), wall’, cf. Kahle & Sommer 1930a:30f., while the second one was interpreted as an Iranian foreign word based on the comparison with Middle Persian draxt ‘tree’ (Hanson 1969a:8 n. 13).
For the earlier suggestions regarding the meaning of laqriša, see Gusmani 1964a:159f. Its more recent discussions are found in Nikolaev 2010c:197 n. 27 and Kelder 2011a. The first of these papers operates with one of the old proposals ‘covered passage, dromos’, but adduces a new etymological comparison with Hittite laḫḫura- ‘offering table, offering stand’. The second paper reviews the interpretations that have been offered thus far and concludes that none of them is satisfactory, in part because they are unlikely to be expressed by a collective plural noun. Kelder’s own tentative suggestion, largely reached by the method of exclusion, is ‘words’ or ‘inscriptions’.
On balance, it seems that both of these two interventions have merits of their own, but combining them and taking the best of each produces the optimal results. The comparison with laḫḫura-, a potential burial implement, is phonetically unproblematic and semantically attractive, but only if one relinquishes the unwarranted interpretation of laqriša as an architectural installation and looks for a translation that is likely to be expressed by a collective noun. Among the available interpretations, the only one that remotely fits these conditions is the first one made. According to the suggestion of Littmann 1916a:26, 31, laqriša could apply to the stone couches that represent a common feature of Sardis grave chambers. Since the shape of these couches famously imitates woodwork, it is likely that wooden furniture was also widely used in Lydian burial rites. Accordingly, the interpretation of laqriša as ‘woodwork’ was offered in Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:220. It is compatible with the formal interpretation of laqriša as a collective noun and implies that its Peripheral Aramaic equivalent drḥt’ was borrowed from Old Iranian draxta- ‘tree’, but acquired the metaphoric meaning ‘wood’.
[I.Y.]
1.1.5Stem
Synchronically, this is a collective a-stem, whose accent remains undetermined. If the comparison with Hitt. laḫḫura- holds water, then the noun under discussion contains the suffix -iša-, whose function remains to be determined.
[I.Y.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘woodwork (vel sim.)’
As argued in the lemma itself, the Lydian noun laqriša- ‘woodwork’ can be etymologically equated with Hitt. (GIŠ)laḫḫūra- c. ‘offering table (?)’ and (GIŠ)laḫḫurnuzzi- c./n. ‘foliage (of trees), leafy branches’ (CHD L-N:15; cf. HED L:13-16, HEG L-M:16), if we assume that the semantics of the root pertain to wood. The etymological connection with lāḫw- ‘to pour’ is semantically inadequate (pace EDHIL:513). Moreover, the sequence -ur- is more likely to be a morpheme going back to the suffix *-u̯er/n-, which means that the root would be laḫḫ-. While Hittite would have further derived (or thematized) the formation *laḫḫ-ur/n- → *laḫḫur-a-, Lyd. relied on the suffix -iša-, comparable to Luw. -išša- coll. (in e.g. luwarišša-, maḫḫurišša-, mašḫarišša-; cf. CLL:144). Thus, the verbal noun *lEH-u̯r/n- ‘woodwork (vel sim.)’ can be reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian based on the Hittite and Lydian cognates. However, further specification of the grade of the root vowel as well as the precise quality of the laryngeal can only be obtained from an Indo-European perspective.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Since the semantics of Lyd. laqriša- are not sufficiently clarified, it is hardly possible to reconstruct the meaning underlying the PAnat. prefrom *laH-ur/n- ‘(?)woodwork’, which itself is only tentative, cf. above. Therefore, a secure connection with further lexical items is not possible.
3.1.1Root etymology
Puhvel (HED 5:13f.) suggests to connect Hitt. (GIŠ)laḫḫūra- c. ‘offering table (?)’ with Russ. láva ‘bench’, Lith. lóva ‘bed’, which – contra Kloekhorst (EDHIL:513) – is semantically attractive.Kloekhorst’s counter-argument that “there is no indication that the laḫḫura- was used to lie upon” is invalid insofar as the specific meaning of a word denoting a piece of furniture may differ from the etymological meaning, cf. ModHG Barhocker ‘bar stool’ (: hocken ‘squat’), ModE/Fr. chaise-longue ‘(lit.) long chair, (kind of sofa, that one can stretch out upon)’, and may split in different contexts, cf. OED online s.v. bench passim for bench (press) ‘(exercise in weightlifting)’, (work)bench ‘(kind of table)’, etc.If the meaning ‘(?)woodwork’ is accepted for Lyd. laqriša-, this lexeme may be related, too. If the Balto-Slavic noun is reconstructed as pre-BSl. *leh2-u̯eh2- and thus represents the only possible non-Anatolian comparandum, the semantic sphere of ‘wood’ or ‘wood working’ may be reconstructed for PIE 4.*leh2‑. However, the Benennungsmotiv of a kind of ‘woodwork’ as well as the meaning of the newly reconstructed root PIE 4.*leh2- remain unknown.None of the three *leh2- roots reconstructed in LIV²:400f. shows suitable semantics: 1.*leh2- ‘to bark’, ?2.*leh2- ‘to pour’, 3.*leh2- ‘to hide’. According to LIV²+ s.v. Neu: *leh3u̯- ‘gießen, waschen’, the root PIE ?2.*leh2- ‘to pour’ should be abandoned.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
According to the PAnat. Reconstruction above, the stem underlying both Lyd. laqriša- ‘(?)woodwork’ and Hitt. (GIŠ)laḫḫūra- c. ‘offering table (?)’ is PAnat. *laH-ur/n- ‘(?)woodwork’. Since no direct cognates are attested outside Anatolian and the formation may easily be inner-Anatolian, the reconstruction of a PIE stem is not imperative.
3.2.1Root etymology
Due to the fact that the phoneme /u/ in the Anatolian lexemes is regarded as belonging to the suffix *-u̯er/n- (cf. above), the connection with PIE *leu̯H- ‘to cut off, untie’As per, e.g., HED 5:13f., IEW:681f.as well as with PGerm. *lau̯(‑)ƀ‑a- ‘leaf’ is unlikely. The root underlying PAnat. *laH-ur/n- ‘(?)woodwork’ may rather be reconstructed as PIE *leh2/3-. Furthermore, if the Balto-Slavic lexemes mentioned above go back to BSl. *lāu̯ā- < pre-BSl. *leh2-u̯eh2-,According to SEJL:364 however, these may also belong to PIE *leu̯H- ‘to cut off, untie’ (LIV²:417).the corresponding root can be reconstructed as PIE *leh2-, with the second laryngeal in the coda.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Gk. LW? λακάρα (Thphr.), λακάρη (Hsch.) ‘(Gk.) δένδρον τι, a tree’ (Thphr., Hsch. λ 181 Latte) GEW II:74, DELG:614, EDG:826, LSJ:1025The source of Gk. λακάρη could be Anat. *laH-ar- (cf. the reconstructed root PAnat. *laH-).
Gk. LW? λαγρόν, λαγρός ‘(Gk.) κραββάτιον, little couch, mattress’ (Hsch. λ 64 Latte)
GEW II:—, DELG:611, EDG:—, LSJ:1022The source of Gk. λαγρό- could be something like Anat. *laK/Hr-o- (cf. Lyd. laqr-iša-). However, the voiced velar /g/ in Greek is problematic, which is why a relationship between the Greek and the Anatolian words is regarded as unlikely.
BSl. *lāu̯ā- ‘bench’, cf. Lith. lóva ‘bed’, Latv. lâva ‘bench’(LEW I:387, SEJL:364, Kurschat 1968–1973 II:1342, ALEW 2.0 s.v. lóva (2021-02-01), Russ. láva, Pol. ława ‘bench’ (Vasmer II:2), etc.
Trautmann 1923a:153