Hungarian Historical Phonology ír

ír 'write'

First attestation/Old Hungarian data

[coming]

Important dialectal forms

[coming]

Uralic/Ugric/Pre-Hungarian reconstruction

UEW: *jarɜ- ‘write, draw, paint; schreiben, zeichnen, malen‘

Status of the Ugric etymology

False

Loan etymology

1. Ugric (or indpendently Hu and Kh) ← *yar- 'write' (< *yaz-) (see UEW)

2. Hu ír < *ir- ← West Old Turkic *ïr-, cf. East Old Turkic ïr- ‘to make a notch, or breach, in (something)’ (WOT: 459-464)

Cognates suggested in earlier research

UEW:

Khanty: East (V) jeri- 'zeichnen', (Trj) jȧ̆rip- 'einen Strich ziehen, kratzen (Nagel, Holzsplitter usw.), riefeln, linieren (z.B. Papier, nur einen Strich; schreiben (Geheimwort)' < ? PKh *jeri- ~ *järi-

Commentary

The Ugric etymology presented in UEW and the earlier sources involves phonological irregularities and it should be rejected: already DEWOS (404) notes the phonological irregularities between Hungarian and Khanty vowels. UEW's reconstruction *jarɜ- is ad hoc: Hungarian í certainly cannot reflect Proto-Ugric *a, and the Khanty vocalism does not fit any back-vowel.

The Hungarian word has compeeting etymologies: two different explanations as a loan from Turkic have been suggested. UEW lists the traditional etymology (initially suggested by Gombocz and discussed in detail by Sz. Kispál 1953: 49-52) which derives the alleged Ugric word from Turkic *yar- 'write', reflected by Chuvash śïr id. This etymology has been doubted by TESz (II: 228). Also WOT (464) rejects the etymology due to phonological difficulties, as the word-initial consonant causes problems. Sinor (1977) suggested the idea that Hungarian ír derives from an early Turkic form *śïr akin to Chuvash: the word would have been borrowed into Pre-Hungarian after *ś > s had already happened, and *ś would have been substituted by Pre-Hungarian sibilant that later disappeared. This explanation is interesting but lacks parallels.

An alternative Turkic etymology is supported by WOT: West Old Turkic *ïr-, cognate to the attested East Old Turkic ïr- ‘to make a notch, or breach, in (something)’. This etymology is convincing both semantically and phonologically. WOT notes the Hungarian derivative irdal- ‘to slit in, to mark out, to make cuts into (mostly into the skin of the fish before roasting)’ which has retained the original meaning.

According to WOT, the Hungarian and Khanty words can be parallel loanwords from Turkic. However, the Turkic origin of the Khanty word is less clear. The word-initial j- is difficult to explain from ïr-, and there are no certain examples of very early Turkic loanwords in Khanty, so a loan from early Bulgar Turkic *yar- would be unlikely. Futáky (1975: 74) notes that also a Tungusic origin has been suggested for the Khanty word, he considers the etymology uncertain, noting that since the Khanty word should be very early Tungusic loan and the Pre-Khanty-Tungusic contacts have not been properly investigated, the etymology cannot be supported as such. The assumed Tungusic origin is reflected by for example Nanai ńiruči- 'write'. It seems dubious that Khanty *j- could result from Tungusic *ń-, and the Tungusic origin of the Khanty word remains problematic.

Conclusion

The Ugric etymology should be rejected: Hu ír is from West Old Turkic *ïr-, the origin of the Khanty word remains unclear.

References

DEWOS: 404: not PUg

Futáky 1975: 74: Khanty ← ? Tungusic

Sz. Kispál 1952: 49-52: Hu ← Kh ← Turkic

Ligeti 1986: 24

Róna-Tas 1992: Hu ← Turkic *ïr

Sinor 1977: 322-325: Hu ← Turkic

TESz

UEW: PUg ← ? Turkic Uralonet

WOT: 459-464: not PUg; Hu and Kh independent borrowings from Turkic *ïr-