*spr̥h1-i̯é/ó-
‘to strew’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 4021
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian (Glossenkeilwörter)
parri-(ti)
1.1.1Transmission
The verb occurs twice in an oracle report.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. act. | KUB 22.61 i 19’ | (CTH 578, NS) | |
| 3pl. pres. act. | KUB 22.61 i 6’ | (CTH 578, NS) |
The assignment of pa-ri-ia-wa-an-za at KUB 22.61 i 14’ (modifying úḪI.A) to the present lemma is less than assured. In principle, the word could be the Luwian nom./acc. sg. n. in -an=za of one of the pseudo-participles in -a-want- (secondarily derived from the gen. sg. in -waš of the Hittite verbal noun; for the process see Oettinger 1988a) of an alternative adaptation par(r)iyā(i)-(mi). However, both the singleton spelling of -r- and the very complex mixture of a Luwian root, a Hittite stem suffix, and a Luwian ending cast serious doubt on this analysis. – Unclear are
pa-a[r?(-) (ibid. i 5’) and CLuw. ⸢pár⸣-ri-ia-i[t?(-) (KUB 35.111 ii 2, CTH 768, NS).
[E.R.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning was first suggested by Friedrich 1947b:6 and has been generally accepted on account of the context, in which an oracle report deals with the application of herbs (úḪI.A) to the eyes of the Hittite king; cf. Burde 1974a:4 for the context and the references in CHD P:150 as well as HW:332, DLL:78, HED PA:124, HEG A-K:417, 457f., HHw:122, EDHIL:406, Sasseville 2021a:136, DCL:177.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
The endings classify the verb as one in -i-(ti), hence a deradical formation (cf. DLL:168, EDHIL:406, Sasseville 2021a:10, 136, DCL:177).
[E.R.]
1.1.6Origin
The endings and the use of the gloss wedges indicate the borrowing of a Luwian term; thus pointed out already by Sommer 1932a:108, and followed in HW:332, DLL:78 (tentatively), CLL:168, CHD P:150, HED A, E, I:444, HHw:122, Melchert 2005a:452, van den Hout 2006a:245, HEG P:457f., EDHIL:406, Sasseville 2021a:10, 136, DCL:177.
[E.R.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to strew’
The equation between išparriye/a-(mi) and CLuw. parri-(ti) forces the reconstruction of a Proto-Anatolian deradical verb *spr̥h1-i̯é/ó- ‘to strew’. The stem formation in -e-(mi) instead of -iye/a-(mi) posited by Oettinger 1979a:270, 417 is considered outdated; see EDHIL:406f. and Sasseville 2021a:10, 136. Contra EDHIL:406f., the Luwian evidence speaks in favor of the reconstruction of a root-final *h1 at least for the deradical stem in *-i̯é/ó-. The parallel attestation of a root verb of the ḫi-conjugation išpār-/išpar(r)-(ḫi) ‘id.’ is not problematic, as it simply reflects a parallel formation, for which see Sasseville 2021a:542-544. The Indo-European etymology can be found in HEG I-K:416-418 and HED E, I: 444-447.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Even if evidence for the root *sperh1- is limited to Anatolian and Hellenic, its meaning can be reconstructed quite securely as ‘to spread (out)’ (see Melchert 2014c). In many other branches, this sense of ‘to spread (out)’ was taken over by the root *sterh3- (cf. Latin sternō, Vedic str̥ṇā́ti, Albanian shtrin, etc.), which originally meant ‘to strew’ (cf. Greek στόρνυμι, Old English strēawian).
In Greek, *sperh1- (σπείρω) was used for the action of sowing, whereas in many other European languages the same notion was expressed by continuants of *seh1-.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The root is reconstructed here with a root-final laryngeal *sperh1- on the strength of the Anatolian evidence (pace LIV²:580 s.v. 3.*sper-, Melchert 2014c). The Greek forms may seem to run counter to a proposed seṭ character of the root, but this impression is deceptive. The laryngeal would have been regularly lost in the *-i̯e/o-present *sperh1-i̯e/o- > *sper-i̯e/o- > σπείρω ‘to sow, scatter, spread (out)’ according to Pinault’s law (cf. Byrd 2015a:208–240). From there, the root allomorph *sper- may have spread throughout the averbo and potentially also to σπέρμα n. ‘seed’. That said, σπέρμα n. ‘seed’ is not necessarily at odds with a seṭ root *sperh1-, even without assuming analogical influence from *sper- of the *-i̯e/o-present *sperh1-i̯e/o- > *sper-i̯e/o-. A root-final laryngeal is sometimes lost in neuter *-men-stems, the reason for which is not entirely clear. Compare *terh2-mn̥ > τέρμα n. ‘end, boundary’ (Il.+) from *terh2- ‘to cross’, and *pelh2-mn̥ > πέλμα n. ‘sole of the foot or shoe’ (Hippon., Hp., LXX, Hell. and late) from *pelh2- ‘broad, flat’. A sequence *°-eRH-mn- would provide a potential environment for laryngeal loss according to a rule codified by Olav Hackstein (Hackstein 2002b), now known as Schmidt-Hackstein’s law (cf. Byrd 2015a:88–95: “Lex Schmidt-Hackstein”), according to which a post-consonantal laryngeal is deleted at a syllable boundary preceding two consonants. However, the only case form of neuter *-men-stems that potentially exhibited a sequence *°-eRH-mn- was the instrumental singular (cf. Peters 1997a:100f., Nussbaum 1998b:154 note 187, Nussbaum 2010a:271, Nikolaev 2012-2013a:207f. with note 92, Peters 2013a:236), and it is not very likely that the laryngeal-less root allomorph spread analogically from a single case form to the rest of the paradigm. The reason for the evident loss of the laryngeal in τέρμα and πέλμα (and its potential loss in σπέρμα) remains to be clarified.
The only form for which a root-final laryngeal is problematic is σπαρνός ‘rare’. Expressions such as English scattered or German dünngesät make an etymological connection likely (cf. also the adverb σποράδην ‘scatteredly, here and there’), in which case σπαρνός would be an old verbal adjective *spr̥-nó- (*spr̥h1-nó- would have yielded *sprēnós). Even if this adjective seems semantically too far removed to be influenced by the verb σπείρω directly, such an analogical remodeling cannot be ruled out.
[S.H.]
4. Transmission
Hittite išpār-/išpar(r)-(ḫi) ‘to spread (out), strew’, išparriye/a-(mi) ‘to spread (out), strew’, Cuneiform Luwian parri-(ti) ‘to smear’.See EDHIL:406–410, Melchert 2014c; HEG I-K:416-418 and HED E, I:444-447

