The Root Question: Why *b?er-?

The verb root *b?er- has several paradoxical properties. On the one hand, its one
of the most securely attested Indo-European roots, documented in Tocharian,
Armenian, Greek, Phrygian, Albanian, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italic
and Celtic. On the other hand, its conspicuous by its apparent absence from
Anatolian, which means that despite its ubiquity in the rest of the family its
Proto-Indo-European status is insecure (but see below on possible Anatolian
reflexes). The present stem *b?r-e/o- is a widespread simple thematic present,
so familiar as a handbook example that the whole class is often referred to as the
*b?reti-type.[1] Still, several languages (Latin, Greek, Vedic) show traces of an
alternative athematic stem without the *-e/o- suffix probably a so-called Narten
present with an underlying long vowel: *b??r-ti, *b?r-n?ti). Despite being so
common, and despite having such a basic meaning as carry, bear, the verb lacks
some conjugational forms in some Indo-European languages, so that *b?r- has to
team up with other roots to form a complete paradigm. In Latin, for example, the
present (fero), the imperfect (ferebam) and the infinitive (ferre) are derived from
*b?er-, but the perfect tense (tetuli or tuli) and the perfect passive participle
(latus < *tlatos) are provided by the root *telh2- lift, raise, support the weight
of. In Greek, we again have reflexes of *b?er- in the present and the imperfect,
while most other forms come from *h1ne?- take, acquire (and the suppletive future
oso does not even have an established etymology). In Slavic, imperfective *b?rati,
1sg. *bero take is paired with perfective *eti, *(j)?mo, from PIE *h1em- (Lat.
emo).

Always collecting stuff...

Photo: Jacek Zieba, CC BY-SA 3.0
Source: EKO KALENDARZ
The meaning of *b?er- is quite variable. In many branches its reflexes can be
glossed as carry, bear (of course English bear is a good example), with
connotations of movement rather than static support, and of personal physical
effort rather than vehicular transport (in the latter case *we??- cart, convey is
used). But the root has developed a large number of secondary senses: take, take
up, take away, collect, lift, bring, yield, produce, bear offspring, endure, etc.,
and in some branches the core meaning has undergone a considerable semantic shift.
Thus, Slavic *bero means take, while *neso from the root *h1ne?- (originally
take, acquire) has come to mean carry (as if the two roots had swapped
meanings). Lithuanian also has nti (1sg. ne) for carry, but the meaning of
Lith. ber~ti, Latv. b?rti is scatter so distant from carry that doubts have
been raised as to whether the Baltic words really derive from *b?er- (though a
development like carry/take around > circulate, distribute, disperse is quite
natural, cf. Latin circumfero).

The oldest reconstructible present, *b??r-/*b?r- probably meant carry in a

telic sense (as an action with an endpoint: bring or remove by carrying). The
verb gave rise to a root agent noun, *b??r one who takes away ? thief (Latin
fur, Greek p??r). The widespread simple thematic *b?r-e/o-, which probably
originated as the mediopassive voice of the original present (with self-
benefactive or passive senses), basically inherited its semantics but emphasised
the durative shade of the verb and its imperfective character (hence the need to
employ some other root to express the perfective and stative aspects).

Vedic alone documents a clear contrast between telic *b?r(-e/o)- (bhrati, also
Rigvedic bhrti) and atelic (iterative, habitual) *b?i-b?()r- (bbharti, Rigvedic
bibhrti, 3pl. bbhrati), but given the fact that CV-reduplicated presents are
generally a recessive class of stems in Indo-European, reducing rather than
enlarging its membership in the historically known languages, we are probably
dealing with an archaism rather than a local innovation.[2] In other words, the
distinction between *b??r-/*b?r- and a reduplicated present (indicating,
respectively, events with an endpoint and without one) may be at least as old as
the Core Indo-European subfamily. It might even be Proto-Indo-European in the
strict sense, assuming that the absence of the root *b?er- from Anatolian is
accidental and due to its having been ousted by (near-)synonyms such as Hittite
arnuzi brings, sends, delivers or pe-dai carries.

... and piling it up.

Actually, isolated derivatives of *b?er- may exist also in Anatolian. The Hittite
word for small rodent, mouse, kapart-, has been etymologised as *ko(m)-b?r?-t-
gatherer, collector (of stolen grain).[3] Theres also a possible Lydian
cognate, kabrdokid steals, a verb derived from an abstract noun supposedly
meaning hoarding away, stealing.

The notion of collecting, gathering or bringing together often accompanies the use
of *b?er-. Greek p?ros (from *b?r-o-) means earnings, tribute, and one of the
meanings of p?ora (*b?or-h2) is crop. The abstract noun *b?r?-t- (Ved. bh?t-
carrying, bringing, support, maintenance) acquires a concrete meaning in Armenian
bard pile, sheaf (of corn). Assuming hypothetically that the reduplicated
iterative present could form a noun like Hitt. memal groats (the product of
grinding), we might expect *b?-b?r? (of perhaps collective *b?-b?or) the effect
of continual collecting, a growing pile. Like, say, a beavers construction a
dam or a lodge. The builder or inhabitant of a *b?b?(o)r- would have been a *b?b?
ros (or possibly *b?ib?rs, or both; the accent in nominals of this type is hard to
predict), and an appropriate epithet referring to the same animals prominent
behaviour the assiduous collection and transport of building materials to repair,
strengthen and enlarge its constructions would have been *b?ib?rs (or *b?eb?rs)
one thats always gathering stuff (timber, twigs, mud, etc.). I think the
reduplication makes more sense with the root *b?er- than with any other similar
verb that might refer to something that beavers habitually do. The ability to cut
down trees, for example, could be expressed by forming a simple agent noun;
iterativity would not need to be emphasised. The male beavers legendary defensive
stratagem biting off its testicles and throwing them before hunters would of
course be a one-time trick; and being brown is not even eventive, let alone
iterative.

So much for beavers, and for the topic of Indo-European nouns showing CV-type
reduplication. The next post will be about reduplication in verbs.

[REDUPLICATION: back to the table of contents]

[1] The simple thematic presents arose in the Core Indo-European group and are
absent from the Anatolian languages, as far as we know. Only a small number are
known from Tocharian; *b?r-e/o- is one of them.

[2] The alternative iterative stem, *b?or-je/o-, is attested only in Greek as p?

oro carry around, wear, possess (a feature).

[3] See Lat. confero bring together, collect, and compounds like Vedic i?u-bh?-
t- arrow-carrying (describing an archer).
Posted by Piotr Gasiorowski at 12:28 14 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
18 January 2016
Towards a More Realistic Beaver
When we consider the known patterns of CV reduplication in Indo-European, we find
that different reduplicated adjectives or nouns with very similar meanings can be
derived in parallel from the same verb root. One pair already mentioned is Vedic
ssni- (a ckri-type word) : si??-, both from the verb root *senh2- gain, strive
after, accomplish. Both adjectives mean, approximately, constantly
gaining/winning for oneself or others. No CV-reduplicated present derived from
this root is attested. It forms an Indo-Iranian reduplicated perfect (which,
however, expresses a completed action and has no iterative or habitual
connotations), and a Vedic intensive present with full reduplication (which does
mean gain/acquire repeatedly but is structurally different from the adjectives in
question).[1] It is possible, however, that once a productive derivational schema
became established, it was not essential that an actual CV-reduplicated present
should exist. E(e)-R()-i- or E(i)-R()-u- adjectives, as well as E(e)-R()-o- (*k?
k?lo-type) nouns could be formed directly on the basis of a verb root. In one of
the Rigvedic hymns to Indra (Book 6, 23:4b) the god is described as follows:
babhrr vjram pap? sma? dadr ga?
carrying the vajra, drinking soma, giving cows
(doing all these things habitually, i.e. whenever he comes to attend a soma-
pressing). We have no fewer than three ckri-type quasi-partciples here.[2] Note
that they take accusative objects, like the corresponding verbs. And yet, although
all the three verbs form CV-reduplicated presents in Vedic, the adjectives cant be
derived directly from those presents. The Vedic present of *b?er- carry
(3sg./3pl.) is bi-bhr-ti [3]/b-bhr-ati with an i-reduplication[4]; from *poh3(i)-
drink we have p-b-a-ti/p-b-a-nti. At least in the latter case both the i-
reduplication and the voiced *b (by assimilation, from the sequence *-ph3-, with a
voiced laryngeal) are very old, at least as old as the common ancestor of Vedic,
Latin and the Celtic languages.[5] The adjective pap- seems to have been formed
directly to the Indo-Aryan root pa-/pi-, using the ckri-type template. The type
itself is probably an Indo-Iranian innovation (especially productive in Vedic),
inspired by the use of *-i- rather than *-o- as the final vowel in compound stems.
The precursor of the ckri-type is essentially identical with the *k?k?lo-type
(except perhaps for an accentual contrast between nouns and adjectives, if the
final accent of bhabhr- is original and the initial one in ckri- is a Vedic
innovation). Therefore the formation represented by bhabhr- is a reworking of an
older type which can be reconstructed as *b?e-b?r-- (ever-)carrying or, when
substantivised, *b?-b?r-o- habitual carrier. A parallel u-stem with practically
the same meaning may also have existed, either *b?i-b?r-- (like Ved. si??-) or
possibly *b?e-b?r-- (like Ved. (pari-)tatn- surrounding).[6] Thus, both the
*Ce- ~ *Ci- variation in the echo and the coexistence of stems in *-o- and *-u- can
be explained with recourse to known Indo-European word-forming processes.

Two well-known Indo-European semiaquatic mammals

Conrad Gessner, De piscium et aquatilium animantium natura
Wellcome Images

But wait a moment: *b?-b?r-o- and *b?i-b?r-- look exactly like the reconstructed
variants of the beaver word. If beavers owe their Indo-European name not to their
coat colour but to some characteristic habitual activity, the verb describing that
activity should be similar to *b?er- carry. There are, for example, a couple of
known roots of the shape *b?erH-, one meaning cut, strike, pierce, fight (with an
unspecified laryngeal) and the other move rapidly, rush, chase (in which *H = *h2
or *h3). The laryngeal would have been lost in a reduplication containing the root
in zero-grade, so we would not be able to see any difference between the outcomes
of *-b?r- and *-b?rH-.
Stretching the imagination a little, one would be able to connect the meaning of
any of these roots with the beavers habits. For example, the first *b?erH- is
glossed mit sharfem Werkzeug bearbeiten[7] in the LIV; and what are the beavers
incisors if not ein sharfes Werkzeug? Still, I would like to defend the simplest
solution, involving the most widespread and most securely reconstructed of these
roots, namely *b?er- carry. I will justify my preference in the next post. Here,
let me only point out that no matter which root we choose, it makes sense to assume
that there were more than one related but independently formed variants of the
beavers name already at a very early stage at least *b?b?ros and *b?ib?rs. It
seems that both of them were inherited by languages ancestral to some of the
branches of Indo-European. Their visible relatedness, and perhaps the existence in
some branches of recognisably related reduplicated verb forms could have produced
still more variants through a kind of lexical cross-pollination, hence the attested
variation of the echo vowel, the stem class, and the accentuation.

[REDUPLICATION: back to the table of contents]

[1] Reduplication in verbs will be discussed in blog posts to come.

[2] They are accented on the stem vowel, unlike ckri- itself, but the accentual
variation looks random and is not correlated with any functional difference.

[3] With the root syllable accented in the Rigveda. Later the accent was shifted to
the echo syllable: bhbharti.

[4] When not reduplicated, the Vedic present (bhrati) usually has a telic meaning,
i.e. bring (a complete one-time activity) rather than carry, bear, wield.

[5] The original forms were *p-ph3-e-ti/*p-ph3-o-nti, with the second *p realised
as [b].

[6] Cf. Germanic *tetru-, *tetru-ka- (or *titru-ka-?) skin disease, scabies (OE
teter, Mod.E tetter, OHG zitaroh), Sanskrit dadru-, dadru (f.) leprosy,
apparently from *der- tear, flay, peel.

[7] That is, work on (something) with a sharp tool a bit conjecturally, to be
sure, since most of the attested meanings suggest the use of a weapon rather than a
carpenters tool, or are figurative: scold, rebuke, etc.
Posted by Piotr Gasiorowski at 00:33 6 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest

12 January 2016
Enter the Beaver

Beaver rampant
Arms of Biberach an der Ri

Arthur Charles Fox-Davies

A Complete Guide to Heraldry (1909)
Wikimedia Commons
Most etymological dictionaries, introductions to Indo-European studies, as well as
online sources (including Wikipedia and Wiktionary) inform the reader that the
Proto-Indo-European word for beaver, *b?b?rus, is a reduplicate derivative of
the root *b?er- or *b?reu-, meaning brown. The same root is often claimed to
account for the Germanic bear word, *er-an- (a nasal stem), as if from *b?er-on-
the brown one. There are several problems with these etymologies.

To begin with, neither *b?er- nor *b?reu- is attested as a stem. At best, there are
several words in different Indo-European languages which contain reflexes of *b?
and *r (and sometimes of *u) and mean something like brown; it is, however, hard
to connect them formally within a plausible etymon. We can agree that Modern
English brown, Modern German braun and Modern French brun (borrowed from Frankish)
are basic colour terms and can be used to describe the colour od a beavers coat.
It doesnt follow, however, that the same can be claimed of their Proto-Germanic
ancestor, *runa-. In early Germanic languages the word meant dark, swarthy,
dusky (as well as shiny, bright, often with reference to forged metal or the
sea), and while it could be used to modify virtually any hue for which there was a
name, it was hardly a specific colour term itself. Its extra-Germanic connections
are anything but secure: although Greek p?ru?ne (f.), p?runos (m.) toad might or
might not be cognate, there is no related Greek colour adjective. The colour
conspiracy of the modern languages of Europe, which have developed identical or
very similar basic colour systems, is a case of recent cultural convergence. As
late as the seventeenth century, German braun could still refer to hues in the
violet/purple range (e.g. the colour of the amethyst).

Modern version of the same

(we know so much more about beavers today).
Wikipedia
Lithuanian be?ras does refer to shades of brown, but is used as a specialised
horse-coat term (like English bay), not a generally applicable colour word, and
cant be directly connected with *runa- anyway. Vedic babhr- means deep brown,
reddish-brown and is practically identical with the reconstructed beaver word,
but it is probably derived from the animals name, not vice versa. The ancient
Indo-Aryans had migrated too far from the geographical range of the beaver to have
retained the original meaning, but they did keep the derived descriptive adjective.
[1] Secondarily substantivised, babhr- may refer to several rather different
animals of India, from the brown mongoose to the Jacobin cuckoo.

The bear connection is dubious too. A weak (n-stem) noun would presuppose an
adjective like *b?er(o)-, not recoverable as a Proto-Indo-European colour term
(even the isolated East Baltic adjective mentioned above isnt a perfect match),
and there is an attractive alternative: the *er- part can be derived either
directly from the root noun *??wer-/*??wer- wild animal, beast (Ringe 2006: 106)
or more plausibly from the corresponding thematic adjective wild, savage (cf.
Lat. ferus). To be sure, the hypothesis that word-initial *g?? and *??w yield
Germanic * remains somewhat controversial (there are a small number of examples),
but the etymology of bear as the ferocious one is semantically unassailable. The
substantivisation of an adjective by turning it into an n-stem is a common
morphological process.

Instead of trying to guess in advance what the *-b?r- part of the beavers name
stands for, lets have a look at the full reconstruction first. Its usually cited
as a stem in *-u-, perhaps primarily because of the Sanskrit deep brown word, but
the total Indo-European evidence is indecisive:

In Slavic *bobr?, *bebr?, *b?br? (note the variation of the echo vowel)[2] the
final *-? may reflect *-o-s or *-u-s. Some old derivatives and toponyms plus
accentual considerations suggest that the word was originally a u-stem in Slavic or
perhaps vacillated between the two types, for theres some evidence supporting an
o-stem as well.
Baltic shows both u-stem and o-stem forms the former in Old Prussian bebrus and
in the Lithuanian variant bebrs, the latter in Lith. b?bras, bbras, and Latvian
b?brs.
Iranian has an o-stem reflex: Proto-Iranian *babra- > Younger Avestan bara-, with
the variant bari-; cf. also Pahlavi babrag < *babraka-, with the very productive
colloquialising suffix *-ka-.
Latin has fiber (second declension), as if from *b?ib?ro- (with an i-echo), beside
sparsely attested feber.[3]
In Celtic, the inherited beaver word has been buried under layers of lexical
innovations (especially *abankos river animal) and borrowings. It can be detected
in some Gaulish, Old Brittonic and Old Irish toponyms, ethnonyms and personal
names, but its exact Proto-Celtic form is difficult to recover: *bebro-, *bebru-,
*bibro- and *bibru- possibly coexisted in early Celtic.[4]
Finally, the word is excellently preserved in Northwest Germanic. [5] We have e.g.
Early Old English bebr, bebir, beber, later befer, befor, beofor; Old High German
bibar, bibur; and Old Icelandic bjrr < *bjourr < *be(u)raz. All these forms can
in principle reflect Proto-Germanic *eraz < *b?eb?ro-, though a u-stem cant be
completely ruled out. [Afterthought]

The beaver word has a relatively wide attestation, but since the animal itself
has occurred mainly at northerly attitudes in historical times, its poorly
attested in Indo-Iranian and Italic, and not at all in Armenian or in Greek (where
we find kstor instead, borrowed also into modern Albanian). Alas, although beavers
lived in parts of ancient Anatolia, we dont know what the speakers of Hittite or
Luwian called them: they werent thoughful enough to write something about beavers
for posterity. The Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages have preserved the word
best, and its in Balto-Slavic that we find the greatest diversity of variants.[6]
What shall we make of this variety?

I will try to answer this question in the next blog.