# Proto-Germanic *xurijo "hire" and Semitic root k-r-y "hire"



## CyrusSH

According to both etymonline and wiktionary, the proto-Germanic word is of  uncertain origin, I think it should be from a pre-Germanic word like *_kuraya_, could it be related to the Semitic root _k-r-y_?


----------



## Treaty

The word is apparently only native to West Germanic, so, a proto-Germanic root may be far-fetched, let alone a pre-Germanic. For *_hūrja(n)_, the latest proposal (by Liberman) is a rotatism from PG *_xūsjanan _(to house), though he also argues that the original meaning was a mix of rental and accommodation, not just the latter. Anyway, considering the new trend of yours, i.e. a pre-G _k_ for Proto-G _x, _you should be careful that this is based on a presumption that there was a pre-Germanic word. You can only say that if you are sure it was not borrowed with _h_ or _x_, or after _k>x_ change.


----------



## CyrusSH

Existence of a pre-Germanic language is really a difficult topic, I don't know what could be the differences between this language and proto-Indo-European language, in fact there are some logical sound changes from PIE to proto-Germanic and I can't understand why there should be an intermediate language, I think by pre-Germanic word we actually mean a PIE word which has descendants just in the Germanic languages or a word with reverse Germanic sound shifts.


----------



## berndf

There were certainly many development stages before and after PGm. The only peculiarity of PGm is that it is the youngest common ancestor of all known Germanic languages. The importance of this development stage lies really in the methodology language reconstruction and not in any particular historical significance of that development stage. If, e.g., the Goths hadn't developed their own writing system but had written in Greek or Latin and we didn't know Gothic and we had only West and North-Germanic attested languages then we would have reconstructed a younger development stage and we wouldn't know PGm at all. The are certainly many more stages we simply can't reconstruct simply because no other (i.e. non-Germanic) language descendent from this stage survived. For purely internal reasons, without any knowledge of intermediate stages, we already know that there must have been at least two separate development from PIE to PGm: One in which the shifts of Grimm's law happend and one for Verner's law.In which order they happened is still debated.

But that was not Treaty's point. Before reconstructing *any* earlier development stage, be it PIE or later, we first need a solid base of assuming it is an Erbword (and inherited word and not a loan) at all. Germanic is full of loans and it is not a trivial assumption that any given word has a pre-Germanic ancestor and if it has one we still don't know at which stage it entered the language.


----------



## CyrusSH

It is usually believed that Proto-Germanic dates back to 500 BC, is it true to say that all words which entered this language before this date and already exist in the Germanic languages, should have experienced sound changes?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It is usually believed that Proto-Germanic dates back to 500 BC, it is true to say that all words which entered this language before this date and already exist in the Germanic languages, should have experienced sound changes?


Some sound changes. Which ones is difficult to day without knowing the history of sound changes and the time of the loan. That is why etymological conjectures that involve pre-Germanic loaning are usually presented with "maybe" and "possibly".


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> The word is apparently only native to West Germanic, so, a proto-Germanic root may be far-fetched, let alone a pre-Germanic. For *_hūrja(n)_, the latest proposal (by Liberman) is a rotatism from PG *_xūsjanan _(to house)



Proto-Germanic _xūsjanan_ is also itself of unknown origin: house | Origin and meaning of house by Online Etymology Dictionary Akkadian _kuštāru_ means "tent, desert house", I don't know it could be related to Persian _kušk_, origin of the word _kiosk_.


----------



## Treaty

That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread: the question of connection between "hire" and k-r-y (by the way, is it a Semitic root at all?), unless you imply that you have accepted there is no relation between k-r-y and "hire".


----------



## utopia

Modern Hebrew "hire" is S-K-R

LISKOR. Might have some connection, but I've never seen any research about this specific issue.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> by the way, is it a Semitic root at all?



Why not?!


----------



## Treaty

I was just asking, I didn't know. Thanks.


----------



## berndf

Hebrew כָּרָה meaning _to buy_? Where is that from?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Hebrew כָּרָה meaning _to buy_?



Yes, A Manual Hebrew and English Lexicon, Including the Biblical Chaldee


----------



## CyrusSH

Why the Germanic word couldn't be from proto-IE *_kʷreya_, cognate with Persian _xaridan_ "to buy"?


----------



## Treaty

I guess because of the long vowel after _h_. Except Tocharian, all descendants of the PIE root seem to feature an initial consonant cluster (Iranian _xr_, P-Celtic _pr_, and the rest _kr_).


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> I guess because of the long vowel after _h_. Except Tocharian, all descendants of the PIE root seem to feature an initial consonant cluster (Iranian _xr_, P-Celtic _pr_, and the rest _kr_).



Was there a big difference between _xʷ_ and _xu_ in proto-Germanic?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Yes, A Manual Hebrew and English Lexicon, Including the Biblical Chaldee


Thanks. The base form is not attested buy it seems indeed to be כָּרָה. Learned something new.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Was there a big difference between _xʷ_ and _xu_ in proto-Germanic?


Yes. And when_ hʷ _is reduced in daughter languages then to _w/v_ and not to _h_. Also *_hʷrijo_ wouldn't be possible because there won't be a stem vowel.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Yes.



These sounds exist in Persian too, it is difficult to distinguish them, especially if there is no vowel after _xʷ_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> especially if there is no vowel after _xʷ_.


As I said, that is another reason why it is impossible.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> I guess because of the long vowel after _h_. *Except Tocharian*, all descendants of the PIE root seem to feature an initial consonant cluster (Iranian _xr_, P-Celtic _pr_, and the rest _kr_).



Does the Tocharian word prove something? It is possible that there was another PIE root for Tocharian and Germanic words?


----------



## Treaty

There have been works on how the PIE root turned into the Tocharian words with vowels after _k_, but I can't access them (they seem to be in German as well, by authors named Schmidt, and Lindeman). So, it seems it doesn't suggest anything other than the same root.


----------

