# The Slavic word for pear



## EuropeanOrigin

Is anybody aware if there is an indo European root for the Slavic word gruša/kruša/hruška, and if so is there a cognate in other languages?


----------



## itreius

There appears to be at least a cognate in Lithuanian.


----------



## ahvalj

There are Baltic cognates: Lithuanian _kriáušė_ and Prussian _crausy_ (Sg.), _crausios_ (Pl.). Due to the vascillation k/g, the word is usually considered a borrowing from an unknown language. Cp. Vasmer's dictionary: http://fasmer-dictionary.info/Этимологический_словарь_Фасмера/228/Груша


----------



## ahvalj

Update. Both Slavic and Prussian vowels go back to the Balto-Slavic *ou>*au, whereas the Lithuanian form goes back to *eu>*iau. This suggests an ancient origin of this word. The same is true for the acute intonation in both branches: (later) borrowings tended to get a non-acute intonation. The vacillation like k/g, p/b or t/d occurs from time to time in inherited words (stъlpъ/stъlbъ, kъlpь/gulbis, drozdъ/strazdas), it is not necessarily evidence of a borrowing, though such a discrepancy makes it more plausible.


----------



## ahvalj

And, finally, the common Balto-Slavic form was *k/g-r-ē/ō-w-ś-y-ā (without laryngeals). The IE word must have had the palatovelar k' instead of the BSl assibilated ś and laryngeals in both syllables.


----------



## ahvalj

The Slavic etymological dictionary by Trubachov (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJME1TZjNTQWFnMEU/edit?usp=sharing pp. 156–157) further connects these words with the verb _grušiti/krušiti_ (Slavic) and _krušti/kraušyti_ (Lithuanian) "to pound, crush, crumble", which would be parallel to the Latin _pirum_ < *_pisom_ from _pinso_ with the same meaning, the Balto-Slavic word being possibly an ancient calque of the southern descriptive term for the pear.

De Vaan's Latin etymological dictionary (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJS1ZxV2dpdnhzUEk/edit?usp=sharing p. 467), however, does not discuss this etymology and regards _pirum_ as a loanword from an unknown Mediterranean language, though again from the prototype *_piso_- judging from the Greek ἄπιον (partly because Latin has _i_ instead of the phonetically regular _e_ before _r_). 

I personally think the etymology in Trubachov looks more promising. However, if the Greek a- comes from a laryngeal, the required IE protoype *_h2piso_- would contradict the *_pis_- root of the verb (that begins from p-, cp. the Greek πτίσσω in de Vaan, p. 466) from Trubachov's etymology. The latter can be saved if an original Mediterranean borrowing in the southern languages was interpreted by the ancient speakers as derived from _*pis-_ and as such served the source for the Balto-Slavic calque. Anyway, the relationships within Balto-Slavic seem to be clear, and the southern comparisons are so far speculations.


----------



## ahvalj

And, finally, an amendment to post #5: if Trubachov's etymology is correct, the IE roots are ghrews-/krews- (+ a laryngeal either before or after w) and not ghrewk'-/krewk'- (+ a laryngeal) as I had assumed. The Lithuanian _š _is then from the _ruki_ rule, the Slavic _š_ comes from the same _š_ > _x_ > _š_ again in the first palatalization, and Latvian and Prussian _s_ from _š_ > _s_ following the fate of both ancient _š_ (from _k'_ and from the _ruki_ rule) in these languages.


----------



## ahvalj

Sorry, too much of me, but so many genial ideas '-)

It seems to me that the accentological evidence contradicts Trubachev's etymology that connects the Balto-Slavic word for _pear_ with the abovementioned root: both Lithuanian and Slavic words for _pear_ have an acute intonation (_kriáušė _in Lithuanian and an accentual paradigm (a) in Old East Slavic, i. e. _grùša_), whereas the verb in both Slavic and Lithuanian has a non-acute root with the stress characteristically shifted one syllable to the right (_krušìti_/_kraušýti_). From what I know about the Balto-Slavic accentology, this suggests that both roots ("pear" and "crush") are unrelated: an acute root can receive a secondary non-acute intonation, but only when followed by certain suffixes, which is not the case in this kind of verbs (cp. acute stressed roots in _stàviti, izbàviti, pràviti_). So, my conclusion is that while the words for _pear_ in Slavic and Baltic are related, any further connections are absent.


----------



## jakowo

"...an acute root can receive a secondary non-acute intonation, but only  when followed by certain suffixes, which is not the case in this kind of  verbs (cp. acute stressed roots in _stàviti, izbàviti, pràviti_)..."

Does this mean that verbs stressed –íti had a circumflex intonation? If so, could you give some examples?
Thank you.


----------



## ahvalj

jakowo said:


> "...an acute root can receive a secondary non-acute intonation, but only  when followed by certain suffixes, which is not the case in this kind of  verbs (cp. acute stressed roots in _stàviti, izbàviti, pràviti_)..."
> 
> Does this mean that verbs stressed –íti had a circumflex intonation? If so, could you give some examples?
> Thank you.


First, about the term "circumflex": the Slavic accent termed this way is not related to the Baltic and Greek circumflex and was named so in the classical literature by mistake. As it appears now, the Balto-Slavic had two oppositions: acute/non-acute accent (the latter appearing as circumflex on long vowels and diphthongs) and dominant/recessive tone (partially preserved in Latvian and Samogitian). This is nicely reflected in the Lithuanian accentual paradigms in monosyllabic stems: 1 (acute dominant root), 2 (non-acute dominant root), 3 (acute recessive root) and 4 (non-acute recessive root). The Balto-Slavic dominant circumflex (Lithuanian accentual paradigm 2) corresponds in Slavic to either the neo-acute or to an unstressed syllable with the stress shifted one syllable to the right (Slavic accentual paradigm b). The Slavic circumflex corresponds to both the acute and the circumflex in the Lithuanian accentual paradigms 3 and 4, occurs only on the initial syllable and continues both Balto-Slavic recessive tones.

The -_iti_ verbs had a dominant acute suffix in the Infinitive. In verbs with acute dominant roots, the stress remained on the root (my examples above in the post #8). In verbs with non-acute dominant roots the stress shifted to the right late in the Common Slavic (probably not in all dialects). The original Balto-Slavic rule for stress placement was that the stress fell on the leftmost dominant syllable: hence, in verbs with recessive roots the stress was placed on the suffix already in the Balto-Slavic. All this is discussed in great detail in the works by Dybo, e. g. in this summary book: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJVUhZYi1pbFR3ODA/edit?usp=sharing (Дыбо ВА · 2000 · Морфологизированные парадигматические акцентные системы. Типология и генезис. Том I)

So, the examples are (Dybo, pp. 563–) (intonation marks may be distorted in Windows computers):
dominant acute root: _sta̋viti_ — cp. Praes. Sg.3 _sta̋vitь_ (the stress stable on the root)

dominant non-acute root: _světi̋ti_, _nosi̋ti_ — cp. Pres. Sg.3 _svě̃titь_, _nòsitь_ (the stress shifted to the acute suffix in the infinitive but preserved as neo-acute on the root in the Praes. Sg. 3 before a non-acute present suffix)

recessive non-acute root: _lovi̋ti_ — cp. Sg. 3 _lovĩtь_ (the stress shifted to the dominant suffix in the infinitive and to the dominant ending in Praes. Sg. 3 in the Balto-Slavic and much later in late Common Slavic retracted one syllable back from the final yer giving a neo-acute thematic vowel).

(I don't include _avi̋ti_ from Dybo's examples since I don't know if its recessive root was historically acute or non-acute, for the late Common Slavic this was irrelevant)

An update to the post #8. I had some doubts whether the Slavic _gruša_ had an acute or neo-acute root (the latter as in _nòša_), but Dybo (p. 51) gives an acute accentuation, _grűša_, so indeed the Slavic and Baltic forms are identical and not related to the verb.

Update 2. In my yesterday's examples I used the gravis sign for the acute (à) since I didn't have the required double acute sign (a̋) available; now I have found how to insert it.


----------



## jakowo

Thank you for your detailed and comprehensive explanations.
(I adopted the term 'circumflex' from Christian Stang's
«Slavonic Accentuation», p. 20 et passim). I didn't know
Dybo before.


----------



## ahvalj

With all these details, I actually haven't answered your question. So, here are examples from the Old East Slavic, taken from Зализняк АА · 1985 · От праславянской акцентуации к русской, pp. 137 and 139–140 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJRnotRmZfWk9QOXM/edit?usp=sharing).

In the Old East Slavic, the stress on -i̋ti characterized verbs of two accentual paradigms, b and c. The verbs from the AP b had Balto-Slavic dominant non-acute roots, which were unstressed (e. g. in the Infinitive and Present Sg. 1) or neo-acute (e. g. in the Present except for Sg. 1) in late Common Slavic: _blazniti, bluditi, boroniti, broditi, brъsiti, běsiti, voditi, voziti, voločiti, vorotiti, vъpiti, -glъtiti, goniti, daviti, kazniti, krasiti, kupiti, kusiti, kъrmiti, lomiti, lupiti, ļubiti, moliti, molotiti, -motriti, močiti, měsiti, nositi, paliti, ploditi, prositi, räditi, světiti, skočiti, služiti, sočiti, strojiti, stupiti, suditi, -toliti, tomiti, točiti, traviti, tužiti, xvaliti, xvatiti, xoditi, xoroniti, cěpiti_ (with some verbs vacillating between this and the following type). In the modern Russian this type exists as _бродить — брожу — бродишь_. 

The verbs from the AP c had Balto-Slavic recessive (both acute and non-acute) roots, which were unstressed (e. g. in the Infinitive and Present except Sg. 1) or circumflex (Present Sg. 1) in the late Common Slavic: _buditi, běditi, valiti, variti, verediti, vьršiti, gasiti, govoriti, goditi, goroditi, gruziti, gubiti, dojiti, drobiti, dušiti, děliti, -žasiti, kaditi, kaziti, katiti, kloniti, kļučiti, koriti, kropiti, krušiti, krьstiti, krěsiti, lišiti, loviti, ložiti, lučiti, lěpiti, lěčiti, moriti, mutiti, -měžiti, měniti, noroviti, -oriti, -periti, pojiti, poloniti, postiti, prostiti, pustiti, raditi, raziti, roditi, rostiti, -ruditi, -ružiti, rěšiti, saditi, seliti, skopiti, spěšiti, studiti, tajiti, taščiti, tvoriti, topiti, truditi, tušiti, učiti, cěditi, cěliti, činiti, javiti_ (again with vacillations towards the AP b). In the modern Russian this type continues as _дробить — дроблю — дробишь_.

And, finally, for the record, verbs with the AP a (Balto-Slavic dominant acute), which had permanently stressed acute roots in the late Common Slavic as well as all the way from the IE: _-baviti, vaditi, vysiti, věriti, věsiti, gladiti, grabiti, -dariti, žaliti, kvasiti, laziti, mъlviti, mětiti, -niziti, nuditi, pariti, plaviti, pļuščiti, praviti, pъrtiti, raniti, -rětiti, sklabiti, staviti, -sětiti, těšiti, xytiti, cěstiti, širiti, jězditi (_Зализняк, p. 133). Modern Russian: _верить — верю — верит._

(Some roots that appear homonyms had in fact different tones, e. g. -dar- in _u-da̋riti_ "hit" and _po-dari̋ti_ "donate").


----------



## jakowo

Thanks. Very detailed again.
Is there any evidence when the acute and circumflex intonations disappeared in Old Russian? Considering the fact that SerboCroatian
maintaines its tones (yet better before the neo-štokavian retraction) and in Russian there is but the (different) accent place left?
(I'll be back in one week). Wo.


----------



## ahvalj

There are reports of local East Slavic dialects that still preserve some of the tonal distinctions (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJVWxjQWVhZkZ4OWc/edit?usp=sharing p. 440–). Since nobody ever searched for this kind of phenomena, it is quite possible that the disappearance of tones was rather gradual and could have happened in the literary language at any time before the Lomonosov's grammar of the middle 18th century. Contrary to the popular opinion, the vowel reduction is not relevant as an indicator of a toneless language, since both in Lithuanian dialects and in Latvian the tones perfectly coexist with the strong reduction.

The literary neo-štokavian Serbo-Croatian tones are not related to the ancient ones, only the length distinctions are old. The Slovene tones are.


----------

