From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 6513
Date: 2001-03-10
>The Hittite paradigm (Nom.sg. per/pir, Gen. parnas, etc.; also parnant- 'household', parna 'home [adv.]', parnawa:i- 'build') is evidently archaic: *pe:r, *pr-n-ó-, not unlike *k^e:r, *k^rd-(j-)ó- (> Hit. gir, kardijas 'heart'). The form *pe:r is often thought to reflect *per-r (thus in the EIEC) or *per-n with compensatory length, though is could equally well represent the bare root *per-.But why shouldn't the -n be part of the root?
>... but on the other hand, we have no certain non-Anatolian cognates. Khotanese pira 'house' looks promising but is isolated even within Indo-Iranian, and for lack of related forms we can't reconstruct its protoform with sufficient precision to tell if it's comparable with Anatiolian *per-/*pr-n-o- at all. The existence of Egyptian p.r- and Hurrian purli 'house' suggests that *per- may be a Near-Eastern Wanderwort, perhaps ultimately of Egyptian origin (the Hattic word for house, <wel>, is of course unrelated). It would have had to be borrowed into Anatolian rather early -- so early that it could pass for an inherited word ...The change l > r (in this case, pVl > pVr) in Egyptian is to be dated