*u̯(e)ru̯-o-

‘seed, offspring’

Language: Proto-Luwic
Grammar: subst
ID: 1514

1. Individual Anatolian Languages

1.1 Cuneiform Luwian

*warwa(/i)-

‘seed, offspring’

1.1.1Derivatives

^DWarwaliya- (CLL:261f.)
warwalan(a)-
warwantali(ya)-

1.2 Lydian

wora-

‘child, son’

1.2.1Transmission

The attestations of this lexeme are limited to three forms occurring in one inscription found at the cemetery of Sardis.

[I.Y.]

1.2.2Forms

nom. sg.	woras	LW 10.4 (Sardis)
dat. sg.	woraλ	LW 10.3 (Sardis)
	wora[λ]	LW 10.2 (Sardis)

1.2.3Meaning

The denotation ‘son’ was figured out by the combinatory analysis of LW 10 (Brandenstein 1929a:295). The inscription refers to a certain Karos son of Kadoas who constructed a stele for his wora-, who is referred to as Kadoas woras of Karos. It is logical to assume that we are dealing here with an instance of papponymy, i.e. Karos named his son after his father Kadoas, which in turn implies that wora- means ‘son’. Although the comparative evidence from Greek mythology adduced by Brandenstein (ibid.) is not compelling, the combinatory argument is so strong that really does not require further confirmation, cf. Gusmani 1964a:227. There remains, however a possibility that the general meaning of wora- was ‘child’ rather than ‘son’, and only additional attestations can either refute or confirm it. Cf. further under Lyd. suλo-.

[I.Y.]

2. Reconstruction

2.1Reconstruction ‘seed, offspring’

The Lydian noun wora- c. ‘child, son’ was convincingly connected to Luwian *warwal- ‘seed’ and its derivatives by Oettinger 1995b:48f. (followed by HEG W-Z:377). The Lydian vowel o in wora- c. is in this case the result of an accented diphthong *wáwra-, which occurred through metathesis, i.e. Pre-Lydian *warwa-. The assignment of a stem in *-o- or *-eh₂- depends on the views of Lydian historical grammar; see the conclusions in Sasseville 2017a. If Lydian wora- c. is a stem in *-eh₂-, it might represent a secondary derivative from the original thematic o-stem. The various cognates found in Luwian, i.e. ^dWarwaliya- c., warwalan(a)- and warwalantali(ya)-, were all derived from a common base, i.e. *warwal- n. < *u̯(e)ru̯-ó-lo-. Starke 1990a:483 posits a Proto-Anatolian form with initial *g^u̯-, i.e. *g^u̯(e)ru̯-, which regularly develops to Luwic /w/. Pace Oettinger 1995b:49 n. 16 (and HEG W-Z:378), Lyd. kãna- ‘wife’ does not serve as counterevidence for the phonological development of Lydian, since in this case *g^u̯ was delabialized before *o (see PAnat. *g^u̯ón-). For the sound law of *g^u̯- > w in Lydian, see Melchert 1994a:336 and Lyd. *šaw-. The exact vocalism of the root for the reconstructed thematic stem is difficult to posit based on the lack of evidence. Therefore, a full e-grade cannot be excluded, i.e. PLuw. *u̯(e)ru̯-o- ´seed, offspring´.

[D.S.]

3. Proto-Indo-European

3.1Semantic Reconstruction

On the basis of Lyd. wora- c. ‘child, son’ and the Luwian derivatives of PLuw. *warwal- ‘seed’, it is possible to reconstruct the stem PLuw. *u̯(e)ru̯‑o- ‘seed’, which can be projected back to PAnat. *g^u̯(e)rH/hu̯-ó- and further to pre-PAnat. *g^u̯(e)rHu̯‑ó-, cf. above.
Starke 1990a:483f. compares the Anatolian word with Gk. βρύω ‘to sprout, teem with’ (etc.) and PGerm. *krūđa‑ ‘herb’. This scenario is phonologically (cf. below) and semantically likely, which is why PAnat. *g^u̯(e)rH/hu̯-o- ‘seed’ can be reconstructed as a thematization of a (agentive) root noun PIE *g^u̯érHu/*g^u̯r̥Hu̯-´ ‘what sprouts’.Starke 1990a:483 reconstructs a “Nomen rei actae *g^u̯óruh_1/3‑o- ‘Sproß, Gewächs, Kraut’”.The similar stem Toch. *kärwa- ‘reed’ (< *g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑eh₂‑) can be explained as ‘bunch of spits’, a collective (of a thematic derivative) of the root noun Core IE *g^u̯érHu/*g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑´ ‘spit, stalk, twig’ (IEW:479, EIEC:536f.), which itself has evolved from the above-mentioned agent noun meaning ‘what sprouts’.
Therefore, although Tocharian possibly attests a nearly exact phonological and morphological cognate (pre-PToch. *g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑eh₂‑), the deviant meaning of its derivational base, PIE *g^u̯érHu- ‘spit, stalk, twig’ vs. pre-PAnat. *g^u̯erHu- ‘what sprouts’, indicates that both have been derived at different points in time. As a consequence, the stem PAnat. *g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑ó- ‘seed’ as such is not traced back to PIE here.

3.1.1Root etymology

The root underlying PAnat. *g^u̯(e)rH/hu̯‑ó- ‘seed’ is continued in Gk. βρύω ‘to swell, teem with’, etc. and in PGerm. *krūđa- ‘herb’. Another group of cognates are the continuants and derivatives of the root noun PIE *g^u̯érHu/*g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑´ ‘spit, spear’ that can go back to ‘twig, stalk, branch’, cf., e.g., WH II:766.The connection of the ‘spear’-word with PIE *g^u̯erh₂- ‘heavy’ is semantically not plausible (contra EDLIL:668: “not inconceivable”).Since the attested meanings contain primarily the notion of vegetal growth and procreation, the root in question is reconstructed as PIE *g^u̯erHu̯- ‘to sprout’.

3.2Morphological Reconstruction

Based on semantic arguments (cf. above), the stem PAnat. *g^u̯(e)rH/hu̯‑ó- ‘seed’ is not traced back to PIE here. Therefore, it has to be taken as an inner-Anatolian thematization of the root noun PIE *g^u̯érHu/*g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑´ ‘what sprouts’.

3.2.1Root etymology

While it is certain that the root had an anlauting labiovelar (cf. PLuw. *u̯‑, Gk. β-, etc.) as well as a laryngeal before the final *‑u̯- (cf. PGerm. *‑ū- < *‑uH- ← *‑Hu‑), the exact quality of the laryngeal cannot be determined. Thus, the root is reconstructed as PIE *g^u̯erHu̯- ‘to sprout’.If the root noun Core IE *g^u̯érHu/*g^u̯r̥Hu̯-´ ‘spit, spear’ (IEW:479, EIEC:536f.) does not belong here, the position of the ablauting vowel cannot be determined (*g^u̯erHu̯- or *g^u̯reHu̯-). Starke 1990a:483 reconstructs a disyllabic root *g^u̯eruh_1,3-.

[A.O.]

4. Transmission

Gk. βρύω ‘to swell, teem with (plants, etc.)’ (Il.+), βρύον n. ‘(a kind of moss), sea lettuce’ (Hp.+), ἔμβρυον ‘new-born, suckling (Il.+); foetus (A.+)’
GEW I:274f., DELG:200, EDG:246, LfgrE II:104, 562f., LSJ:332, 540f.

PGerm. *krūđa‑ ‘herb’, cf. OHG krût ‘id.’, etc.
EDPG:306, EWAhd V:839–842

PIE *g^u̯érHu/*g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑´ n. ‘spear, spit’, cf. (?)Gk. βαρύες m. or f. ‘(Gk.) δένδρα, trees’ (Hsch. β 246 Latte) (GEW I:221, EDG:202, LSJ:307), Lat. verū, ‑ūs n. ‘spit (esp. for roasting meat)’ (Plaut.+), (?)Umbr. acc. pl. berva (IIa.26.33), abl. pl. berus (IIa.23.35) ‘(utensil used to disjoint or roast sacrificial meat), spit?, fork?’ (WH II:766f., EM:727, EDLIL:668, OLD²:2254, Untermann 2000a:145), OIr. bi(u)r n. (→ m.)Not → f., as per IEW:479, cf. de Bernardo Stempel 1999a:237 n. 109.‘spear, spit (also for roasting)’, MW ber m. ‘spear, lance, shaft, spit’ (EDPC:62, de Bernardo Stempel 1999a:237, eDIL s.v. 1 bir),Goth. qairu is a ghost word and should be read as pairu, cf., e.g., EWAhd V:841 with ref.the collective *g^u̯r̥Hu̯‑eh₂‑ > TochA loc. sg. kärwaṃ, TochB gen. pl. karwaṃts* ‘reed, bamboo’, TochA adj. kärwāṣi ‘reed‑’ (DTB²:153, Carling 2009a:135, 173, Hilmarsson 1996a:98, CEToM s.v. B karwaṃts) and the vr̥ddhi-formation *g^u̯reHu̯‑ó- > YAv. grauua- ‘staff, cane’ (Bartholomae 1904:529, Hoffmann 1970a:197–200)
IEW:479, EIEC:536f.