▪ [gnrl] : If
DRS is right, the Sem root ḪRṬ displays 4 major values, all of which are represented in Ar (1 only in MġrAr). There is, however, enormous diversity within
DRS’s #ḪRṬ-1, which would cover all of values [v1]-[v4], kept distinct here for systematic reasons. If
DRS’ juxtaposition is valid, [v2]-[v4] are somehow fig. use of and/or semantic extensions from [v1]. Given (still with
DRS) the wide attestation in Sem, one may assume a common origin of [v1]-[v4] and its cognates in Sem *ḪRṬ ‘to pull\scrape off, strip’. – Values [v5] and [v6] are not mentioned in
DRS, while [v7] and [v10] are treated under √ḪRṬṬ.
†[v8] corresponds to
DRS #ḪRṬ-4, and
†[v9] to
DRS #ḪRṬ-3.
▪ [v1] : Ar ¹
ḫaraṭa ‘to pull off, strip (leaves from a tree)’ may have preserved the Sem etymon *ḪRṬ ‘to pull\scrape off, strip’ rather faithfully. As can be seen from what
DRS regards as cognates of the Ar items (see
DRS #ḪRṬ-1 in section COGN, below), there is considerable semantic diversity within this group across Sem, so that it is difficult to decide which of the values should be more original than others; but the Ar [v1] is certainly a strong candidate. The value ²‘to turn, shape with a lathe (wood, metal)’ is widespread in Ar as well and seems to have in its turn formed the basis for further semantic developments (see [v2], perh. also [v3], unless directly from [v1]). Despite its obvious old age, however, this development seems to have remained an Ar ideosyncrasy, a special use of the original *‘scraping, stripping’.
▪ [v2] : The value ‘to exaggerate, boast, brag, lie’ (³
ḫaraṭa) is prob. the result of fig. use of the secondary aspect of [v1], ‘turning, shaping with a lathe’ (²
ḫaraṭa). According to WehrCowan1976, this semantic development is specific to EgAr; in
DRS the value is marked as SyrAr EAr.
▪ [v3] : ⁴
ḫaraṭa ‘to cut into small pieces, mince, chop, dice (meat, carrots, etc.)’ could be a specialisation based on either ¹
ḫaraṭa ‘to pull off, strip (leaves from a tree)’ or ²
ḫaraṭa ‘to turn, shape with a lathe (wood, metal)’. However, given the fact that the semantic relation between these and ‘to cut, mince, chop’ is not self-evident, it is perh. safer, for the moment, to keep the value apart.
▪ [v4] : A relation of vb. VII
ĭnḫaraṭa ‘to join, enter, affiliate with, penetrate, plunge headlong into, embark rashly upon’ and [v1] ‘to scrape off, strip; to turn, shape with a lathe’ or [v2] ‘to exaggerate, boast, brag, lie’ or also [v3] ‘to cut, mince, chop’ is less than obvious. If [v4] has somehow developed from [v1], the line of derivation may be imagined as *‘to get quickly rid of the bark, etc. (for so to be free to go over to s.th. else and) > plunge into, embark rashly upon’. But this is still rather speculative.
DRS does not list this value. Interestingly enough, however, Klein1987 establishes a similarly distinct value for postBiblHbr
hiṯḥārēṭ ‘to repent, regret’ (from a homonymous root ²ḤRṬ) and puts Ar
ĭnḫaraṭa ‘to do ignorantly’ (sic!) alongside with it.
▪ [v5] : no obvious semantic relation between SyrAr
ḫarrāṭaẗ ‘skirt’ and any of the other values; perh. *‘easy to strip off’ (in which case it would be derived from [v1]). The value is not mentioned in
DRS. If not from √ḪRṬ, it may be a borrowing (< Akk ?). For more details and discussion, see entry ↗
ḫarrāṭaẗ.
▪ [v6] : Prob. via It
carta (< Lat
c(h)arta) from Grk
χártē ‘sheet of paper’, itself perh. a borrowing (with metathesis, from Eg
sḫr.t ‘bundle of papyrus rolls, scroll’?). The earlier form, Grk
χártēs ‘leaf of paper, made from the separated layers of papyrus’ (LidellScott1901), may be the origin of, or have the same etymon as, Ar ↗
qirṭās. In MSA,
ḫāriṭaẗ has become confused with, and ousted by,
ḫarīṭaẗ (in ClassAr meaning ‘leathern container, receptable’, see
†[v9]; the confusion may have become possible because maps used to be stored in leathern receptables). – For more details, and also a possible etymology of the Grk
χártēs, see entry ↗
ḫāriṭaẗ.
▪ [v7] : For
ḫarṭīṭ ‘rhinoceros’, see
s.v. (arranged s.r. ↗ḪRṬṬ).
▪
†[v8] : The etymology of
†ḫaraṭ ‘coagulation of the milk in the udder’ and related items
1
is obscure.
DRS lists it as a distinct value (#ḪRṬ-4), but without cognates in other Sem languages.
▪
†[v9] : In Hava1899,
†ḫarīṭaẗ is rendered as ‘leathern bag for silkworms’ eggs’, while Lane ii 1865 has still the more general ‘receptable, pouch, purse (of leather, rag, etc.)’.
2
The word is a nominalized quasi-PP I describing, originally, *‘scraped off’ leather, hence also bags or other receptables made thereof. – The confusion of the old, genuine
ḫarīṭaẗ ‘leathern receptable’ with the younger borrowing
ḫāriṭaẗ (prob. from It
c(h)arta, see above, [v6]) as ‘map, chart’, was perh. possible because maps used to be kept in leathern containers. According to DHDA,
ḫarīṭaẗ is first attested in 681 CE (in the sense of ‘leathern container, receptable’), while
ḫāriṭaẗ appeared only much later (not attested in sources of the first three Islamic centuries).
▪
†[v10] : Formed on the rare pattern XIII (
ĭFʕawwaLa), the vb.
†ĭḫrawwaṭa comes with a variety of values of which some hardly can be linked to any of the other values represented in the root. One is ‘to become long (beard); to protract (
bi‑ a journey)’. Etymology obscure.
▪
†[v11] : Another strange value of
†ĭḫrawwaṭa is ‘to hurry on’. Etymology obscure.
▪
†[v12] : For
†ḫirṭīṭ (pl.
ḫarāṭīṭᵘ) ‘butterfly brightly coloured’, see
s.v. (arranged s.r. ↗ḪRṬṬ).