*Hóron-

A Proto-Anatolian word for ‘eagle’ can be reconstructed based on Hitt. ḫāra(n)- and Pal. ḫāra(n)- (HEG A-H:170f., HED Ḫ:138f., EDHIL:301f.). The initial laryngeal cannot be determined on Anatolian grounds, but the root vowel *-o- is certain, i.e. PAnat. *Hóron- c. ‘eagle’.

The bird name ḫa/urranī- has been interpreted as the Luwian word for ‘eagle’ (Kronasser 1966a:222, Archi 1975a:143 n. 62, Zinko 1987a:13, Starke 1990a:62, 76, Haas 2008a:35, HEG A-H:170f.). However, Melchert 1994a: 235 points out that the geminate -rr- cannot be reconciled with Čop’s Law, because the root vowel was -ó- colored by *h₃ and not -é-. Kloekhorst 2006b:132 suggests that the third laryngeal had not yet colored the vowel é at the time when Čop’s Law occurred, so that original *é would have geminated the following resonant. Thus, he takes ḫa/urranī- to be the actual cognate of Hitt. ḫāra(n)- c. Considering that Kloekhorst does not have any other example to support this law, it cannot be so readily accepted. Other examples are required before confirmation. Regarding the word (-)ḫa/urran(i)- attested in a Luwian fragmentary context, nothing can be decided for now (pace EDHIL:302f.). Moreover, the word hiding behind the logogram TI₈^MUŠEN-(i)-, which would be the actual Luwian word for ‘eagle’, is unknown. Thus, the synchronic data regarding the Luwian word for ‘eagle’ is not safe enough to be considered for Proto-Anatolian.

The Lycian personal name Xerẽi has been suggested by Carruba 1977a:291 to equate etymologically to Hittite ḫāra(n)- ‘eagle’ (likewise Starke 1987a:265 n. 80, Neumann 2007a:120). This is not accepted by Melchert 1994a:305 (DLL:108), because he expects *h₃ to disappear in Lycian. However, this issue is controversial. Regardless of the phonological and morphological details of the supposed origin, it remains highly tentative to base an etymology on a personal name without a proper attestation of the corresponding appellative. Therefore, the Lycian name Xerẽi should not be considered for the Proto-Anatolian reconstruction.

[D.S.]

The geographical spread of the n-stem *h₃éron- continued in PAnat. *Hóron- and PGerm. *aran-/*arn- and serving as derivational base of PGk. *órnī- ‘bird’ suggests that it was the original PIE word for ‘eagle’ (cf. IEW:325f., EIEC:173). In Balto-Slavic (and possibly in Celtic), derivations with l-suffixes of the same root are continued as word for ‘eagle’. It is a difficult question whether the underlying root of these words for ‘eagle’ should be identified with the verbal root PIE *h₃er- ‘to set oneself in motion’ (cf. LIV²:299–301 s.v.). In a couple of IE languages, PIE *h₃éron- ‘eagle’ was replaced by other formations: for IIr., cf. Ved. śyená- m. ‘raptor, falcon’ and YAv. saēna- m. ‘great raptor’ (EWAia II:662); for Gk., cf. αἰετός m. ‘eagle’ (Il.+; EDG:35); for Lat., cf. aquila f. ‘eagle’ (Pl.+; EDLIL:49). In IIr. and Arm., PIE *h₃éron- m. ‘eagle’ was replaced by an original adjectival epithet of it that stems from the IE poetic language: Ved. r̥jipyá- adj. epithet of ‘eagle’ (RV), also substantivized ‘eagle’ (RV 2.34.4), YAv. ərəzifiiō.parəna- ‘provided with feathers of an aegle’, ərəzifiia- m. name of a mountain, OPers. *ərdifya- ‘eagle’ (Elamian transmission), etc. Cf. also Arm. arcowi, gen. arcuoy ‘eagle’, later arciw < PIE *h₂r̥g̑i-pi̯ó-, perhaps originally ‘swift-winged’ (cf. EWAia I:250f., EDAIL:139–141, with older lit.).

As far as the inflection is concerned, the word for ‘eagle’ can be reconstructed as an amphikinetic masculine n-stem: nom. sg. *h₃érō(n), acc. sg. *h₃éron-m̥, gen. sg. *h₃r̥n-és, loc. sg. *h₃rén(i), etc.; nom. pl. *h₃éron-es, acc. pl. *h₃r̥n-ń̥s, gen. pl. *h₃r̥n-ō̆́m, etc.For the reconstruction of the PIE paradigm, cf., e.g., Rieken 1999a:30, 36, 41, 404, Lühr 2000a:76, Schaffner 2001a:521, 554, Schaffner 2005a:87f., EDHIL:302, Kroonen 2011a:61, EDPG:32. 

In the prehistory of Anatolian the strong stem *h₃éron- > *h₃óron- (> PAnat. *Hóron-) was generalized throughout the paradigm, whence Hitt. nom. sg. ḫāraš (< *h₃órō+s), acc. sg. ḫāranan, gen. sg. ḫāranaš (cf. Oettinger 1980a:62, Schaffner 2001a:521, Rieken 2004c:288, EDHIL:301–303). In the younger texts, we find a few times an acc. sg. ḫāran (also ḫaran, ḫarān), which shows a secondary thematic stem ḫāra- based on a reanalysis of the nom. sg. ḫāraš (cf. EDHIL:302).

In Greek, according to EDG:1106, “[b]oth ὄρν-εον and ὄρν-ῑ-ς derive from an n-stem *h₃er-n-, which in ὄρνεον was enlarged with a suffix -ε(ι)ο-, probably marking gender (Chantraine 1933a:62). The more common form ὄρνῑς is originally a feminine derivative in *-ih₂, to which the suffixes -θ-, Dor. -χ- were later added”. The stem ὄρνῑ- underlying Ion.-Att. ὄρνῑς, ὄρνῑϑ- and Dor. ὄρνῑχ- is best explained as a derivative *h₃ér-n-ih₂- ‘comparable to eagles, similar to eagles’ (: *h₃ér-on- m. ‘eagle’) formed with the vr̥kī-suffix *-ih₂- (cf. Rix 1992a:144 §157), because the vr̥kī-suffix can also express comparability with or similarity to the term or idea of the derivational base (cf. Klingenschmitt 2005a:344, Schaffner 2014a:373f. n. 74). As for the word formation, the vr̥kī-stem ὄρνῑ- < *h₃ér-n-ih₂- can be compared with *péd-ih₂- ‘belonging to the foot’ (: PIE *pó/éd- ‘foot’), the derivational base of the diminutive formation πέδῑλον n. ‘foot clothing’ (for the semantics, cf. Gk. κνημῑ-δ- f. ‘[leg] splint’ : κνήμη f. ‘lower leg’). The heteroclitic Ion.-Att. paradigm ὄρνῑς (also ὄρνις with acc. sg. ὄρνιν and nom. pl. ὄρνεις) : ὄρνῑϑ- could result from an original paradigm with nom. sg. ὄρνῑς < *h₃ér-n-ih₂-s, gen. sg. *ὄρνιος < *h₃ér-n-ih₂-os (with a new acc. sg. ὄρνιν and nom. sg. ὄρνις, nom. pl. ὄρνεις after the model of gen. sg. πόλιος : acc. sg. πόλιν, nom. sg. πόλις, nom. pl. πόλεις), where ὄρνῑς was interpreted as stemming from an original nom. sg. *ὄρνῑϑ-s < PGk. *órnīt^h-s (cf. Rix 1992a:144 §157). Because of the Mycenaean derivative o-ni-ti-ja-pi /ornit^hijāp^hi/ (PY Ta 707.1) this reanalysis must have taken place already in Proto-Greek. However, because of the Doric stem ὄρνῑχ- it is equally possible that in the prehistory of Ionic-Attic, Mycenaean and Doric different stem extensions -t^h- (Ion.-Att. -ϑ-) and -k^h- (Dor. -χ-) were added to the PGk. stem *órnī- (< *h₃ér-n-ih₂-) in order to make the inflection of the word easier (cf. Chantraine 1999a:823).

For Proto-Germanic a paradigm *aran-/*arn- m. ‘eagle’ with intact suffix ablaut must be reconstructed. The old n-stem paradigm is still preserved in Goth. ara*, ON ari, gen. sg. ara and OHG aro, gen. sg. arin (cf. Schaffner 2001a:521, 554, Schaffner 2005a:87f., EWAhd I:341f., EDPG:32). In North and West Germanic, a paradigm split occurred: The old n-stem acc. pl. *arnunz (< pre-PGerm. *h₃or-n-ń̥s) could be reanalyzed as acc. pl. of a nu-stem *arnu-, which survives in ON ǫrn m. (u-st.: gen. sg. arnar, acc. pl. ǫrno); cf. ON biǫrn m. (u-st.) ‘bear’, gen. sg. biarnar < *bernu-, reanalyzed from the old acc. pl. *bernunz of an original masculine n-stem *beran- (OHG bero, OE bera, OSwed. PN Biæri; cf. Schaffner 2001a:554, EDPG:32). The new nu-stem *arnu- is also the basis of OHG arn m. (i-st.: nom. pl. erni). The nom. pl. OHG erni < *arniu̯iz (: nu-st. *arnu-) was the starting point for the transition of the word to the paradigm of masculine i-stems, as the original endings of the nom. pl. PGerm. *-iu̯iz of u-stems and PGerm. *-ii̯iz of i-stems had merged in OHG nom. pl. -i (cf. Schaffner 2005a:87). The old n-stem gen. pl. *arnō͂ⁿ could be reanalyzed as gen. pl. of a na-stem *arna-, which is continued in OE earn, nom. pl. earnas (cf. Schaffner 2001a:554, Schaffner 2005a:87).

The root etymology is not certain (perhaps to PIE *h₃er- ‘to set oneself in motion’, cf. above sub 2. Semantic Reconstruction).

[S.S.], [T.S.]

Myc. o-ni-ti-ja-pi /ornit^hijāp^hi/ (PY Ta 707.1), instr. pl. f. of an adjective *ὀρνίϑιος ‘(decorated) with birds’Cf. Gk. ὀρνίϑειος (Ar. Av. 865).; Gk. ὄρνεον n. ‘bird’ (Il.+), ὄρνῑς/ὄρνις, -ῑϑος m./f. ‘(augural) bird’ (Il.+; Ion.-Att., in later Att. especially ‘hen, cock’), Dor. ὄρνῑχ- m./f. ‘id.’ (Pi., Alcm., B., Theoc., Cyrene)Cf., e.g., DMic II:27, GEW II:421f., EDG:1106.

Arm. ori (wo- or ea-stem) ‘κόραξ; raven’ (Bible+)Cf., e.g., Olsen 1999a:442, EDAIL:537f.

OIr. irar m. ‘eagle’, MW eryr m. ‘eagle’, Corn. er, MBret. ererCf. ALEW I:265: “Im Kelt. setzen die brit. Lexeme urkelt. *oriro- sm. voraus, das, wenn aus *orilo- assimiliert (vgl. mit Dissimilation mir. ilar), aksl. orьlъ entsprechen kann” (but cf. other statements about the etymology of the Celtic word for ‘eagle’ in GED:40, EWAhd I:343, and EDPC:117f.).

Goth. ara* m. (n-st.) ‘eagle’ (only nom. pl. arans L 17.37), ON ari, gen. ara m. (n-st.) ‘id.’, ǫrn m. (u-st.) ‘id.’ (gen. sg. arnar, acc. pl. ǫrno), OE earn m. (a-st.) ‘id.’, OHG aro, gen. arin m. (n-st.) ‘id.’, OHG arn m. (i-st.) ‘id.’ (nom. sg. arn gl. 3.22.57, nom. pl. erni Tat. 147.5)Cf., e.g., EWAhd I:341–344, Orel 2003a:25, Casaretto 2004a:217, EDPG:32.

OPr. *arelis ‘eagle’ (for attested arelie E), Lith. erẽlis m. ‘eagle’, East Lith. arẽlis, arelỹs, Latv. ḕrglis m. ‘eagle’Cf., e.g., LEW I:122, EDBIL:155, ALEW I:264f. – The Lithuanian variant arẽlis is limited to the area with a consequent change of e > a in word-initial position (cf. EDBIL:155, ALEW I:264, with further lit.). The East Baltic forms can be considered examples of “Rozwadowski’s change” (cf. EDBIL:155). Latv. ḕrglis m. ‘eagle’ is probably due to a popular etymological reformation after a correspondent form of Lith. érgti ‘to skin sth.’ (cf. ALEW I:265). All Baltic forms can be summarized under a preform PBalt. *orelios, a diminutive formation (cf. ALEW I:264). 

OCS orĭlŭ m. ‘eagle’, Russ. orël, gen. sg. orlá, SCr. òrao, Slov. órəł, gen. sg. órla, etc.< PSlav. *orĭlŭ m. (o-st.) ‘eagle’ < pre-PSlav. *h₃er-ilo-s; cf., e.g., EDSIL:376f.