*i̯éh1rV-
‘time’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2391
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/ar(i)-/, ara/i-
‘time’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested 17 times in inscriptions from the Amuq, Karkamiš, Hama, Cilicia, and Tabal, dating from the 10th to the early 7th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. | /arin/ | ara/i-na | KARKAMIŠ A5a, §8 (Karkamiš) |
| HAMA 4, §13 (Hama) | |||
| HAMA 4, §13 (Hama) | |||
| KIZILDAĞ 4, §2c (Tabal) | |||
| dat./loc. sg. | /ari/ | ara/i | ARSUZ 1, §6 (Amuq) |
| ARSUZ 2, §6 (Amuq) | |||
| ARSUZ 1, §10 (Amuq) | |||
| ARSUZ 2, §10 (Amuq) | |||
| acc. pl. | /arinzi/ | ara/i-zi | KARKAMIŠ A5b, §2 (Karkamiš) |
| KARKAMIŠ A4c, §2 (Karkamiš) | |||
| KARKAMIŠ A18h, §2 (Karkamiš) | |||
| TİLSEVET, §2 (Karkamiš) | |||
| KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §74 (Cilicia) | |||
| ara/i-i-zi | KARKAMIŠ A5a, §7 (Karkamiš) | ||
| ˹ara/-zi-i˺ | KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §74 (Cilicia) | ||
| dat./loc. pl. | /aranz/ | ara/i-za | HAMA 4, §10 (Hama) |
| HAMA 4, §12 (Hama) | |||
| poss. adj. acc. sg. c. | /arassin/ | ara/i-si-na | KARKAMIŠ A11a, §12 (Karkamiš) |
In the case of KARKAMIŠ A4c, the quality of the photo does not permit a proper verification of the attestation.
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation is secure, because the HLuw. spelling is mitigated by the cuneiform rendition of the exact cognate of CLuw. ar(i)- ‘time’ (see Morpurgo Davies 1987a:218f. incl. n. 31).
For an analysis of the sign 〈ara/i〉, the depiction of a bird (AQUILA, sign *133), see Payne 2015a: 41.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
The present meaning was assigned by Hawkins 1975a:134 (see also Hawkins 2000a:67, 181).It followed after an earlier misinterpretation by Bossert 1954-1956a:70 n. 45 as ‘offspring’ (“Nachkomme”) based on the KARATEPE 1 bilingual inscription, whose Phoenician version uses the temporal adverb lʿlm ‘forever’ (cf. Krahmalkov 2001a:265). His interpretation is supported etymologically by the link to CLuw. ar(i)- ‘time’ and contextually, e.g. in the historical part of ARSUZ 1, §6: a-wa/i kwa/i-ti-i ara/i LIGNUM-ha-za PUGNUS-ri+i-ha, approx. /a=wa kwatti ari salhan=za arihha/, meaning ‘At what time I raised greatness, (this city rivaled? me)’ (cf. Dinçol, Dinçol, Hawkins, Peker & Öztan 2015a:64f., 67).
At least once, the noun is used in repetition in HAMA 4, §13: wa/i-tú-ta (“*163”)mu-ha-na (VITIS)sa5+ra/i-ta-za-ha PONERE-ha ara/i-na ara/i-na, approx. /wa=du=tta muHan sarlattan=za=ha tuwahha arin arin/ meaning ‘I put to it (scil. the temple) an m. and an offering time and again (lit. time (and) time)’ in the context of the author relating his provisions for a temple. Perhaps the acc. sg. of the noun can also be used in adverbial fashion, cf. KIZILDAĞ 4, §2c: ma-sà(REGIO) ara/i-na mu(wa)-tá-a, possibly translating as ‘He conquered/controlled (the country) Masa before/forever(?)’ (see Yakubovich 2017e: s.v.). However, more evidence is required to assess this usage.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
A common gender noun, the word can be assumed to be subject to i-mutation, although the pattern does not become obvious in HLuw. due to the sign 〈ara/i〉 being underspecified regarding its second vowel. However, the CLuw. cognate shows the change unmistakably.
Outdated is the tentative suggestion by Hawkins 2000a:127 that the word spelt 〈ara/i-la(-a)〉 in HAMA 4, §15 and KARKAMIŠ A6, §19 is etymologically related; see instead HLuw. /arla-/ ‘pedestal, altar’.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
ār(i)-
‘time’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in various Luwian texts.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. | a-ri-eš | KUB 35.7 i 9 | (CTH 692, NS) |
| a-ri-iš | KUB 35.152 iii 11 | (CTH 770, NS) | |
| acc. sg. | a-ri-in | KUB 35.133 ii 29’ | (CTH 665, LNS) |
| a-a-ri-i[n] | KUB 35.15 ii! 4’ | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| a-a-⸢ri⸣-in | KBo 9.141 iv 14’ | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| a-a-ri-i | KBo 9.141 i 15 | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| a-a-ra-ti | KBo 9.143 iii! 14’ | (CTH 762, MS) | |
| ⸢a⸣-ra-a-ti | KUB 35.16 i 12’ | (CTH 760, NS) | |
| [a]-⸢a⸣-ra-a-ti | KUB 35.43 ii 39 | (CTH 761, NS) |
On the logogrophic spelling egir.udḪI.A-ti at KUB 35.45 ii 9, see under apparant(i)-. – Unclear are a-ri-⸢i⸣-[ at KUB 35.8 i 9, ⸢a?-ri?-in?⸣ at KUB 35.36, 7’, and a-ri-i[n at KUB 35.68, 6’. – Improbable is the assignment of a-ri-iš-ša (KUB 31.127 iii 38 in Hittite context) to this lemma, which is considered by Schwemer 2015a:392. If ḫantiš were an adjective governed by the following ariš, it would receive the additive particle =a as the first word of the syntagma. Therefore, the resulting coordination of ḫanteš arišš=a does not permit a plausible translation (“the front and time”?).
[E.R.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
In the only context that is well-understood, the apparantin arin (acc. sg.) is among the blessings solicited from the Storm-god at KUB 35.133 ii 27’-30. After some scholarly confusion (DLL:30, Carruba 1982b:2), Morpurgo Davies 1987a:218f. n. 31 was able to distinguish between ar(i)- ‘time’ (in “future time”) and ārrai(ya)- ‘long’ (in “long years”) by adducing the corresponding Hieroglyphic-Luwian lexemes, which had already been separated at the time. By now, the translation has entered the handbooks (CLL:24, Starke 1990a:116f. n. 339a and 159, Melchert 1994a:75, Hajnal 1995a:54f., Hawkins 2000a:181, HHw:s.v.).
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
The inflection is that of a mutated a/i-stem.
[E.R.]
1.3 Lycian B
ar(i)-
‘time (?)’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| dat./loc. sg. (?) | ari | TL 44c.47 (Xanthos) |
1.3.3Graphic Features
The interpretation of the segment sebẽnari is disputed (cf. Neumann 2007a:313). Schürr 1998a:156 and Shevoroshkin 2014a:235 interpret seb(e)=ẽnari, and the latter author translates the second word as ‘mighty’ (likewise Schürr 2016d:160). Melchert (DLL:112) interprets the string as seb=ẽn(e)=ari and sees a cognate of Hitt. ara- c. ‘companion’ (followed by Schürr 2016d:156). Sasseville 2021a:157 with n. 37 (and Sasseville 2021d) adopts the latter interpretation concerning the clitic division, but suggests instead a cognate with CLuw. ār(i)- ‘time’, i.e. Lyc. B ari ‘in time’, which would mark the contrast with the preceding clause. This interpretation is kept here, but more evidence would be welcome.
[D.S.]
1.3.4Meaning
On the meaning, which is also dependent on the division of the segment sebẽnari, see under Graphic Features.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘time’
The Luwian word for ‘time’, i.e CLuw. ār(i)- ‘time’ and HLuw. /ar(i)-/ (and in Lyc. A compound nuredi ‘new moon’) has been etymology connected with the PIE word for ‘year’, i.e. *i̯éh1-rV- (with the loss of the glide *i̯ before *e or *ǣ, i.e. *i̯ǣ́rV- (Melchert 1994a:75, Hajnal 1995a:54f., Oettinger 2004a:380f.).On the structure of the PIE root, see Oettinger 2004a:382. It is however unclear what original stem formation hides behind the Luwian noun ār(i)-. From the perspective of the mutated stem, it could have been an original thematic stem, an i-stem or even a consonantal stem. More comparative evidence is needed.
Oettinger 2004a:381 adduces to this root etymology the HLuw. verb /i(ya)ri-(ti)/ ‘to extend’ and posit a pre-form *i̯oh1-rV- + -i̯é/ó-, in which the glide would have been preserved before *o.
Concerning Lyd. ora- ‘month’, Oettinger 2017f:256f. suggests convincingly that it reflects a preform *ár-u̯o- (with metathesis between the *-r- and *-u̯-, i.e. *áu̯ro- > ora-). However, he connects the root with the one of Hitt. arma- ‘month’ on semantic grounds. A different approach prefers a connection with the root of CLuw. ār(i)- ‘time’ (see Neumann 2007a:245 with further literature, Doçkalová & Blažek 2011a:415, Yakubovich 2017c:301 n. 4) and see Lyc. A nuredi ‘new moon’), i.e. *i̯ǣ́rV- + -u̯o- > Lyd. ora- ‘month’. Needless to say that any approach on the root is very difficult to verify and must be considered tentative.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Taking into account the HLuw. verb /i(ya)ri‑(ti)/ ‘to extend’, the original meaning of the preform of CLuw. ār(i)- ‘time’, etc. has to be reconstructed as ‘time span, extension’. This meaning fits also with the meaning ‘year’ attested in Greek (Gk. ὧρος) and Germanic (Goth. jer, etc.) and the meanings in the other Core IE languages collected above. While oftentimes the basic meaning of PIE *(h1)i̯óh1‑r̥/*(h1)i̯éh1‑n̥- is reconstructed as ‘year’, a more careful definition is in order, cf. Nikolaev 2010d:20f. (305);Cf. also EM:299 (“nom de la ‘nouvelle saison’, de l’‘année qui recommence’”). It seems that the statement in EDLIL:290 (“Note that hōrnus is mainly used of crops and yield, and thus seems to mean ‘of the season’ more than ‘of this year’”) is rather meant to support the loan word hypothesis by Szemerényi, on which cf. the comment on Lat. hōrnus above.The meaning of Gk. ὥρα f. ‘season, year, hour, time’ is relatively broad and best derived from equally broad ‘time span’. Furthermore, Toch. B ñerwe ‘today’ points also rather into the direction of ‘time span’ in general than ‘year’. Further cognates may be connected with the concept ‘year’ (= ‘period of 365 days’) but may equally well be derived from a certain ‘season’ in view of their agricultural connotation: OPers. duš(i)-yāra- denotes a bad harvesting season; Lat. hōrnus is an agricultural term referring to harvesting the crops of the current year. Finally, ‘spring’ (e.g., OCS jěrŭ) as a season is only a meronym of ‘year’ and the meaning ‘lamb’ (e.g., Lith. ė́ras), if related at all, may also be explained by the fact that spring is the season lambs (of wild sheep) are born. Therefore, PIE *(h1)i̯óh1‑r̥/*(h1)i̯éh1‑n̥- is reconstructed confidently as ‘time span, extension’.Cf. already GEW III:191 s.v. Gk. ὥρα (“Urspr. Bed. wahrscheinlich ‘Reife‑, Blütezeit’ mit Beziehung auf das Jahr der Landwirtschaft”) assuming that the meaning ‘year’ is secondary (“pars pro toto-Prinzip bei der Zeitrechnung”, ibid.), similarly DELG:1304.
3.1.1Root etymology
Beekes’ (EDG:1682) proposal to identify the underlying root with PIE *Hi̯eh1- ‘to throw, let go’Cf. also PAnat. *h1ói̯h1‑/*h1ih1‑´(i) ‘to take’. Although ‘to extend’ and ‘to throw’ might indeed be connected (via ‘to spread, stretch’ vel sim.), this hypothesis might be too bold in the present context.referring to the alleged parallel ModHG Geschick ‘fate’ (: schicken ‘to send’) does not make sense, at least outside Greek. Rather, it is advisable, based on the material presented here and esp. on the HLuw. (denominal) verb /i(ya)ri‑(ti)/ ‘to extend’, to reconstruct a separate root PIE *(H)i̯eh1- ‘to extend’ vel sim.Whether or not (?)PIE *i̯ēlo‑, “i̯ǝlo‑ ‘unreif, roh, unbearbeitet” (IEW:504f.), viz. MW an‑ial ‘wasteland’ (EDPC:432f., Zair 2012a:67) and/or Russ. jálovyj ‘waste’ (Vasmer III:488), Latv. jêls ‘unripe’ (Karulis 1992a:355) belong here under the assumption of PIE *(H)i̯(e)h1‑lo- ‘stretched out (plain)’ vel sim., cannot be investigated here.
On the possible connection with PIE *h1ei̯- ‘to go’, cf., e.g., the ref.s in WH I:659, IEW:296f., and more recently Oettinger 2004a:382.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
CLuw. ār(i)- ‘time’, etc. and its cognates like YAv. yārǝ n. ‘season’, Gk. ὥρᾱ ‘time span’, Goth. jer ‘year’, etc. go back to stems with a long vowel that has to be reconstructed for all PIE forms. In view of the phonological requirements of the Anatolian lexemes (cf. above), this long vowel goes ultimately back to *‑Eh1- with *‑eh1- in pre-PAnat. and *‑oh1- (unlikely *‑ōh1‑) in pre-PGk. and also perhaps in pre-PItal. Germanic, perhaps Balto-Salvic (both < *‑eh1- or *‑ēh1‑), and even more so Indo-Iranian (< *‑oh1‑, *‑eh1- or *‑ēh1‑ [unlikely *‑ōh1‑]) are by and large inconclusive. While usually an underlying r/n-heteroclitic paradigm PIE *i̯óh1‑r/*i̯éh1‑n- ‘time span, extension’ vel sim. is reconstructed (cf. already Schindler 1975a:5, followed by, e.g., EDPG:273), Nikolaev 2010d:21f. (305) correctly points out that the ablaut grades of the secondarily derived formations are not sufficient to reconstruct the ablaut of the underlying derivational base. Furthermore, the original paradigm of the only primary formation attested, YAv. yārǝ n. ‘season’ (gen. sg. yā̊ or yā), is not unambiguously reconstructable in terms of ablaut and stem formation, cf. Nikolaev 2010d:22–32 (306f.). The original stem class of CLuw. ār(i)- ‘time’ cannot be determined for certain, either (cf. above). However, in view of most non-Anatolian cognates, an i- or consonant stem is rather unlikely and thematic provenance is plausible. Therefore, it is recommended to reconstruct the thematic derivative *(H)i̯eh1‑ro- ‘time span, extension’ for PIE, as it is continued in Goth. jer, etc. ‘year’ and perhaps in OPers. duši-yāra- ‘bad season, famine’, etc., Lith. (j)ė́ras ‘lamb’ as well as in CLuw. ār(i)-, etc. ‘time’.Of course, lengthened grade *(H)i̯ēh1‑ro- (vr̥ddhi formation) may also be possible. Toch. B ñerwe ‘today’ (< *°(H)i̯eh1ru̯o-) and Gk. ὥρᾱ ‘time span’ and ὧρος ‘year’ as well as RuCS jara, etc. ‘spring’ (< *(H)i̯oh1ro‑/eh2‑) are derived differently.
3.2.1Root etymology
The minimal form of the root underlying CLuw. ār(i)- ‘time’, etc. is PIE *i̯eh1‑, as is proven by the reflexes of PIE *i̯ in YAv. yārǝ n. ‘season’, etc. and the inner-Anatolian requirements for the loss of this *i̯, viz. in front of *eh1. Whether the root began with a laryngeal or not, depends on the origin of Gk. /h‑/ (vs. ζ-) in ὥρᾱ ‘time span’, ἅγιος ‘holy’ (vs. ζυγόν ‘yoke’), etc. If the sound laws PIE *i̯- > Gk. ζ- and *Hi̯- > Gk. /h‑/ are accepted (cf., e.g., Oettinger 2004a:380f.), the root under investigation has to be reconstructed with an anlauting laryngeal, viz. PIE *Hi̯eh1- ‘to extend’.Furthermore, if Oettinger 2004a:382 is right in analyzing the root as *h1ei̯- ‘to go, walk’ + *‑eh1‑, the anlauting laryngeal is *h1. This analysis is supported by the result in Byrd 2015:236 that in PIE the phonetically only possible laryngeal in front of *i̯ is *h1.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
(?)Skt. paryāríṇī f. ‘(cow that) has not calved for one year’ (Kāṭh+),This is the meaning provided by Nikolaev 2010d:20 (“корова, не телившаяся в течении года”). However, the widespread German meaning – “nach einem Jahr erst kalbend(e Kuh)” –, is oftentimes just copied from Wackernagel 1914a:270 and his epigons and most prominently repeated by and since IEW:296 (with question mark!) and Mayrhofer (KEWA II:227, EWAia II:98, cf. also Nikolaev 2010d:305, EWAhd V:270, etc.). The translation by Derksen as “cow which has its first calf after a year” (EDSIL:152, EDBIL:154) is evidentially wrong because it is impossible for members of the genus Bos to calf in the first year of their lives (see below). The actual meaning of Wackernagels’ paraphrase, which is most likely incorrect, becomes clear by consulting his source, viz. Caland 1903a:65: “eine Kuh, die, nachdem sie ein Jahr lang schwanger gewesen, erst dann kalbt”. However, members of the genus Bos gestate only 9–11 months (and calve in spring), which is why either Nikolaev’s interpretation is correct or ‘(cow that) calves after spring’ (cf. OCS jěrŭ, etc. ‘spring’).YAv. yārǝ, gen. sg. yā̊ or yā ‘season, (?)year’, OPers. duši-yāra- ‘bad season, famine’
EWAia II:98f., KEWA II:227f., Bartholomae 1904a:1287, Schmitt 2014a:173, Nikolaev 2010d:22–32 (306f.)
Lat. hōrnus ‘grown, born, produced in this (i.e. the current) year (of crops and yield)’ (Varro, Hor.+), adv. hōrnō ‘of this (the current) year’ (Plaut.+)The interpretation of Lat. hōrnus ‘of this year’ as an old univerbation of instr. sg. *g̑hoh1=Hi̯ōr‑noh1 ‘of this year’ is problematic because the near-deictic pronominal stem PIE *g̑ho‑/*g̑hi- ‘this one here’ never existed, according to LIPP II:275f.; furthermore, Dunkel’s alternative proposal in LIPP II:285, viz. the connection with the emphatic particle Ved. ghā, s.v. PIE *‑gho ‘(emphatic particle)’ (LIPP II:283–288) is semantically not convincing. Cf. on his etymology of the related Latin pronoun hic, haec, hoc, LIPP II:285 n. 15. The probably correct rejection of PIE *g̑ho‑/*g̑hi- ‘this one here’, thus, leaves the Latino-Faliscan (cf. also Fal. hec ‘here’, etc., Bakkum 2009a:151f., 187) h-pronouns unexplained from a PIE perspective. Alternatively, Lat. hōrnus may be regarded as a loan from unattested Gk. *ὡρινός or a transformation of Gk. ὥριμος ‘ripe, in season’, cf. Szemerényi 1959a:114 (= Szemerényi 1987a:1148), referred to in LIPP II:285 n. 14.Venet. instr. pl. iorobos ‘(a certain season)’
WH I:658f., EM:299, EDLIL:289f., OLD²:882, Lejeune 1974a:335
Goth. jer n. ‘year’, ON ár n. ‘good year, fertility’, OE gēar, etc. n./m. ‘year’, OS jār n., OHG jâr n. ‘id.’
EDPG:273, EWAhd V:268–275, GED:210f., de Vries 1977a:12
OHG hiuru ‘in this (i.e. the current) year’
EWAhd IV:1075f.
RuCS, ORuss. jara f. ‘spring’, RuCS, ORuss. jarę m. ‘lamb’
EDSIL:151f., 151, Vasmer III:492
On Lith. ė́ras, dial. jė́ras, Latv. jẽrs m. ‘lamb’, cf. (?)PIE *h1er‑, *h1er‑i- ‘lamb, goat’ s.v. HLuw. /ar‑(ti)/ ‘to move, come’
Toch. B adv. ñerwe ‘today’
DTB²:289