*k̑er(H)- or *k̑re(H)-

Rieken 2003a:49f. connects the Luwian root /zar-/ ‘to grow, prosper’ with the Proto-Indo-European root k̑er(h_x)- (or k̑reh_x-) ‘to grow’ (cf. Mottausch 2011a:67), which is very convincing especially because of the Luwian sound change *k̑ > z. This is followed by Sasseville 2021a:370f. who adduces further evidence from the reduplicated formation zizzaru ‘it must prosper’. However, it should be left open whether this form is to be read as /zizzaru/ or /zizzru/ (< *k̑i-k̑ór/k̑r̥-´ or *k̑i-k̑róH-/k̑r̥H-´ (?)). Unfortunately, this piece of evidence does not absolutely shed light on the root-final laryngeal, on which see below under PIE. If the first phonological interpretation is correct, i.e. /zizzaru/, the root-final laryngeal could have disappeared due to Saussure’s Law. Otherwise, we would expect a geminate -rr-. Furthermore, the iterative formation /zarza-/ elucidated by Rieken (ibid.) can be reconstructed as *k̑r̥-sk̑é/ó-. The root variant /zir-/ (zí-ra/i-) perhaps found in Hieroglyphic Luwian can be traced back to a lengthened e-grade of a probable nominal formation (thus Rieken 2003a:49f.; cf. Mottausch 2011a:67) or may stand instead for /zr-/. Further evidence is needed.

[D.S.]

The PIE root *k̑reh₁- means ‘to grow’, as per LIV²⁺ s.v. It has to be distinguished from PIE *k̑erh₃- ‘to satiate, feed’, cf. LIV²⁺ s.v. *k̑erh₃- n. 1 and s.v. *k̑reh₁- n. 1 (2019-04-17).

In LIV²:329 with n. 3, Lat. crēscere, perf. crēvī is still hesitantly assigned to the root PIE *k̑erh₃- ‘to satiate, feed’, from which forms like Gk. κορέννῡμι ‘to satiate’ and Lith. šérti, šeriù ‘to feed’ are derived.Arm. serem ‘to bring forth’, however, has to be separated from both *k̑erh₃- and *k̑reh₁-, cf. Hill 2006a:200–205, LIV²⁺ s.v. *k̑erh₃- n. 1b. PIE *k̑erh₃- is, furthermore, likely to be the root of an s-stem noun *k̑érh₃-os/es- n. ‘food, grain’ vel sim., which can be presupposed as the basis of both PItal. *kerēs ‘Cerēs, goddess of grain and fruits’ (Lat. Cerēs, -eris, Osc. dat sg. kerrí) and pre-PGerm. *k̑erh₃-s-i̯o(n)- > PGerm. *χersi̯a(n)- m. ‘millet’ (OHG hirso, hirsi, OS hirsi, etc.); cf. Stüber 2002a:117, Hill 2006a:197f. If Kroonen, EDPG:222, is right, the neuter s-stem underlying the Italic and Germanic formations could be preserved by Hitt. karaš- n. ‘wheat, emmer-wheat’, with nom./acc. sg. kar-aš = /kars/ < PIE *k̑érh₃-s (if not < *g̑^hersd^h, cf. EDHIL:444 with further lit.). – For further formations based on PIE *k̑erh₃- ‘to satiate, feed’, cf., e.g., Hill 2006a and EDLIL:109f. s.v. Cerēs with further lit.However, according to Kümmel, LIV²⁺ s.v. *k̑reh₁- n. 1 and s.v. *k̑erh₃- n. 1, who follows Hill 2006a:205, it is better to separate the Latin formations in crē° from *k̑erh₃- for formal and semantic reasons. Unlike Hill 2006a, however, who proposes a root *k^(u̯)reh₁- ‘to grow’, Kümmel loc. cit. reconstructs the root underlying Lat. crēscere (perf. crēvī, ppp. crētus) as *k̑reh₁- ‘to grow’, i.e. with an initial palatal k̑. This allows a connection with Anatolian formations like HLuw. /zarza-/ ‘to grow’ (in za+ra/i-za-mi-sa = /zarzammis/ part. ‘growing’), which together with Lat. crēscere can be traced back to PIE *k̑r(e)h₁-sk̑e/o- ‘to grow’.As for Luwian, Rieken 2003a:49 argues that a preform *k̑reh₁-sk̑e/o- “dürfte […] im Hieroglyphen-Luwischen über *zrāza- zu zā̆rza- geführt haben”. Kümmel, LIV²⁺ s.v. *k̑reh₁-, on the other hand, explains HLuw. /zarza-/ along with Lat. crēscere from a protoform *k̑r̥h₁-sk̑e/o-. In Latin, this regularly gave *krā-ske/o-, which could have been reshaped to attested crē-sce- in analogy to the perfect crēvī, which is considered to be based on a PIE root aorist *k̑réh₁-/*k̑r̥h₁-´; cf. LIV²⁺ s.v. *k̑reh₁- with n. 3 and further lit.Rieken 2003a:50, furthermore, reconstructs a thematic noun stem *k̑ērh₁-o- n. ‘growth’, with lengthened-grade of the root *k̑reh₁- ‘to grow’ and Schwebeablaut.For the explanation of the Schwebeablaut, cf. Rieken 2003a:47 with n. 39.In her view (Rieken 2003a:45, 50), this noun stem is reflected by Lat. prō-cērus adj. ‘tall’, sin-cērus adj. ‘sound, whole’,< *“von einheitlichem Wuchs”, as per Rieken 2003a:45; differently Hill 2006a:194f., EDLIL:565 s.v.and HLuw. zí-ra/i-la-mi- = /zir(a/i)lamma/i-/ ‘fruitful, thriving’. However, the phonological interpretation of the HLuw. word is ambiguous, with /zr°/ being equally possible as /zir°/. Moreover, Lat. prō-cērus could also have been dissimilated from *prō-crērus (Hill 2006a:193f., 196 with older lit.; EDLIL:491). Finally, CLuw. zizzara-⁽ⁱ⁾ in zizzaru 3sg. pres. impv. ‘it must prosper!’ is likewise ambiguous regarding its phonological interpretation (/zizzaru/ or /zizzru/), enabling a connection with either PIE *k̑erh₃- ‘to satiate, feed’ or *k̑reh₁- ‘to grow’; cf. sub PAnat. Reconstruction and Sasseville 2021a:370f. Since the Luwian verb, however, means ‘to grow, prosper’, the root *k̑reh₁- ‘to grow’ appears more suitable.

[T.S.]

Lat. crēscere, -ō pres. ‘to grow’ (perf. crēvī)Cf., e.g., Hill 2006a:190–193, 199–205, EDLIL:144, LIV²⁺ s.v. *k̑reh₁-.

SerbCS okrijati ‘to recover’ (presupposed by part. perf. act. okrijavŭ), SCr. dial. okàrjati ‘to recover, convalesce’, OCz. křáti (with pres. krěji) ‘id.’, Russ. dial. kreját’ ‘to convalesce’, Ukr. krijáty ‘to become strong and healthy’, etc.Cf., e.g., Hill 2006a:187–190 with further lit., EDLIL:144, LIV²⁺ s.v. *k̑reh₁-.