*u̯ód-r̥/u̯éd-n-
‘water’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 1883
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
*/wattan-/
‘water’1.1.1Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
*wattar/n-
‘water’1.2.1Derivatives
1.2.1.1Uncertain Derivatives
1.3 Lycian A
*wedr-/udr-
‘water’1.3.1Compounds
- udreki- (GN) (Schürr 2014a:766, cf. Neumann 1974a:113, DLL:75)
1.3.2Derivatives
1.4 Lycian B
*udr-
‘water’1.4.1Derivatives
1.5 Carian
uodr (?)
‘water ?’1.5.1Transmission
Allegedly attested in a presumably official inscription from Stratonikeia of unknown date (but early 3rd c. at the latest, since it is followed by a Greek inscription from this period, cf. Şahin 1980a:205, 211).
[Zs.S.]
1.5.2Forms
| unknown | ụọḍṛ | C.St 2, 1 |
| uodr | C.St 2, 3 |
The attestations follow Schürr 2010c:194, Schürr 2020a:244, checked against the photograph in Şahin 1980a:Pl. V.1. On the segmentation problems see under Meaning.
[Zs.S.]
1.5.3Meaning ‘water ?’
Adiego 2007a:143, 453 segmented the relevant lines of C.St 2 written in scriptio continua as uśoλś uodrou u[ (line 1) and k̑diyeś uodryia[ (line 3). The separation of uśoλś and uodrouu[ is certainly correct in view of the well attested personal name uśoλ (here in genitive, see s.v.), and the parallel structure supports his segmentation of line 3, too, even if k̑diye is not attested yet independently (cf. Adiego 2007a:376).
Schürr 2010c:194 went one step further separating uodr from uodrouu[ and uodryia[ and explained it from PIE “*wedr-” ‘water’. The segmentation is methodologically justified, and since we are dealing with a presumably official document (cf. Şahin 1980a) and some possessed thing, ‘water’ is of course a possibility. The formal side is not entirely clear, but it cannot be excluded: Carian ‹o› suggests earlier *ā (Adiego 2007a:258) and the PIE form was */wódr/ (see, e.g., EDHIL:987f. with refs.). The question is thus whether PIE / Proto-Anatolian *ó / *o led to *ā in Proto-Carian, which is possible, but there is currently no clear evidence. Needless to say, the main problem with Schürr’s proposal is that there is no compelling or independent evidence that this word really means ‘water’, what he also admits (Schürr 2020a:245).
[Zs.S.]
1.5.4Derivatives
Possible derivative:
1.6 Hittite
wātar/witen-
‘water’1.6.1Literature / Comments
Rieken 1999a:292f., EDHIL:987f., HEG W-Z:425-439.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘water’
The word for ‘water’ is a heterocliticon, whose ablauting paradigm is preserved in Hittite nom./acc. sg. wātar, dat./loc. sg. witēn-, instr. wedant(a), nom./acc. coll. wedār (Rieken 1999a:292, cf. EDHIL:987f.). Although the word as such does not survive in Luwic, we see traces of Čop’s Law in the derivatives’ outcome watt- (from *u̯étt-an- < *u̯éd-n̥), which was probably generalized throughout the paradigm, as can be seen by e.g. wattaru- ‘spring, well’. The Lycian noun wedre/i- of debated semantics surely belongs here, but does not show any reflex of Čop’s Law, which may simply mean that Pre-Lycian generalized the variant without its effects, i.e. *u̯ód-. For a related formation yielding a word for ‘land, country’, see PAnat. *udnéi̯h2.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Based on the PAnat. meaning ‘water’ and the majority of continuants sub Transmission above, the meaning of PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n- is clearly reconstructable as ‘water’.The allegedly Phrygian gloss βέδυ (/u̯edu/?) ‘water; air’ (LSJ:312) cannot be Phrygian because one would expect a voiceless alveolar stop rather than a voiced one, cf. Obrador-Cursach 2020a:416.Beside PIE *h2óp‑/*h2ép- c. (Core IE f.) ‘(running, living) water, river’, which can be seen as a living (divine) entity, the neuter noun PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n- rather denotes ‘water’ as a mere substance, cf. similarly PIE *péh2‑u̯r̥/*ph2‑u̯én- n. ‘fire’ for fire as an inanimate “substance”.According to EWAhd VI:1245, ALEW 2.0 s.v. ū́dra (2021-05-27) and others, the meaning ‘otter’ of the substantivized adjective *udró- ‘pertaining to water; living in the water’ is only einzelsprachlich because of the deviant meaning of Gk. ὕδρος/‑ᾱ ‘water-snake’. However, since the otter is not the prototypical animal living in the water (but the fish) and, thus, the naming as ‘the one pertaining to/living in the water’ is not trivial, it is not advisable to reckon with five independent, yet identical developments in Indo-Iranian, Italic, Germanic, and Balto-Slavic. Therefore, the Greek meaning ‘water-snake’ should be regarded as an independent and post-Core IE development (‘living in the water’ → ‘water-snake’).
3.1.1Root etymology
The root underlying PIE *u̯ódr̥/*u̯édn̥- ‘water’ is not well attested. Beside the continuants of the r/n‑heteroclite, only minor traces of the root can be found in two to three primary nominal formations meaning ‘(flowing) water’ (i- and s‑stem),On the possible o-stem Hitt. or Luw. u̯ida- ‘(a topographical feature), steppe?’, cf. s.v.the vr̥ddhi-looking adjective PGerm. *u̯ēta- ‘wet’ and the nasal present, which is attested in Vedic only. The Vedic verbal meaning ‘to moisten’ is best interpreted as factitive ‘to make wet’, which implies adjectival (or stative) semantics for the root, viz. ‘(to be) wet’, not ‘to well up’ (as per LIV²:658f.). The nominal formations are of no further help, but they can easily be derived from the proposed root *u̯ed- ‘(to be) wet’.The possibly already PIE s‑stem *ud‑os/es‑ ‘(flowing) water’ (cf. Ved. úts‑a- ‘source, spring’, Gk. ὕδος ‘water’, [?]Arm. get ‘river’, [?]OIr. uisce ‘water’, cf. NIL:707) as well as the i-stem YAv. vaiδi- ‘water flow’ could be explained as abstracts meaning ‘wetness’; the stem underlying PGerm. *u̯ēta- ‘wet’ could be a thematic noun of the root, viz. (?)*u̯éd‑o- ‘what is wet’ > ‘water’ (cf. CLuw. wida- ‘(a topographical feature, steppe?)’?) → pre-PGerm. *u̯ēd‑ó- ‘pertaining to water, wet’. It is thus not necessary to assume that the root was originally nominal and denoted ‘water’ (as per Oettinger 1979a:166f. with n. 70, followed by EWAia I:279). Watkins 2011a:98 gives both meanings (“Water; wet”) and does not mention a verbal meaning.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The neuter stem PAnat. *u̯ód-r̥/*u̯éd‑n̥-, supplemented by PIE *ud‑én, the preform of the Ved. loc. sg. udán, represents the most archaic paradigm of the PIE word for ‘water’, viz. PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n̥-, loc. sg. *ud‑én. Within the individual languages, several analogical remodelings and derivations are observable, cf., e.g., Hitt. witār ‘water’ (= coll. *u̯(e)d‑ór‑h2) and NIL:706–708 for a collection of stems.According to some (cf., e.g., EM:746f., GED:396, EWAia I:279), the nasal in Lith. vanduõ ‘water’, etc. as well as in Latin unda ‘wave’ is transferred from the nasal present (cf. Ved. unátti ‘moistens’). However, the root internal nasal is rather a product of metathesis *‑dn- → *‑nd‑, cf. Weiss 2020a:183, EDBIL:488. For an exhaustive discussion of this matter, cf. Petit 2004a:81–100. — Furthermore, it might be possible that PIE *u̯éh1‑r̥ ‘water’ is related paradigmatically (via the phonological rule called “Kortlandt Effect”). This issue, however, remains a matter of debate (cf. s.v. for a short discussion).
3.2.1Root etymology
The root underlying PIE *u̯ód-r̥/*u̯éd‑n̥- ‘water’ can be reconstructed as PIE *u̯ed- ‘(to be) wet’ (on the semantics, cf. above). Since no root formation is securely attested (cf. CLuw. wida- ‘(a topographical feature, steppe?)’) and the neuter r/n‑stem outnumbers the other formations by far, the reconstruction of the root is mainly based on this lexeme and the only primary verbal formation, viz. the Vedic nasal-infix present unátti ‘moistens’ < ‘makes wet’. Nevertheless, the phonological shape of the root is unambiguously reconstructable as PIE *u̯ed‑.The root PIIr. *au̯d‑, underlying Ved. ódman- ‘flowing, flooding’, YAv. aoδa- ‘spring’, etc. is secondary, cf. EWAia I:279.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
On PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n- ‘water’, cf. the list below.
NIL:706–715, IEW:78–80, EIEC:636
On PIE *u̯eh1-r̥ ‘water’, cf. CLuw. wār- ‘water’
Core IE *udr‑o- m., *udr‑eh2- f. ‘otter’, cf. (?)Ved. udrá- ‘(an aquatic animal), “water-cat” (comm.), (?)otter’ (VS+) (EWAia I:218), YAv. udra- ‘otter’ (Bartholomae 1904:387), (?)Gk. ὕδρος m., ὕδρᾱ f. ‘water-snake’ (Il.+) (GEW II:957, DELG:1152f., EDG:1526, LSJ:1844, 1845),Gk. ἔνυδρις ‘otter’ is oftentimes listed among these words (cf., e.g., Mallory & Adams 2006a:138), but it is rather an independent compound ‘what is in (ἐν‑) the water (‑υδρ‑)’. On Gk. ὕδρος/‑ᾱ ‘water-snake’, cf. the comment below sub Semantic reconstruction.(?)Lat. lutra ‘otter’ (Varro+) (WH I:840, EM:372, EDLIL:355, OLD²:1158),The anlauting l- is analogically transferred from lutum ‘mud’, cf. EM:372. For further alleged more or less plausible sources of this phoneme (lavāre, luere ‘to wash’, lupus ‘wolf’, lūdere ‘to play’), cf. EDLIL:355, EWAhd VI:1244.ON otr, OE oter, OHG ottar m. ‘otter’, etc. (EDPG:562, de Vries 1977a:421, EWAhd VI:1243–1245), Lith. ū́dras m., ū́dra f. ‘otter’, Latv. ûdrs m. ‘otter’, OPr. udro f. (E 667) ‘otter’ (ALEW 2.0 s.v. ū́dra [2021-05-27], PKEŽ² s.v. udro [2021-05-27], EDBIL:477), CS, ORuss. vydra, Russ. výdra ‘otter’ (EDSIL:534, Vasmer I:239)The long acuted vowel in Baltic and Slavic is due to Winter’s Law, cf., e.g., EDBIL:477.
NIL:707, IEW:79, EIEC:411, Mallory & Adams 2006a:138
Ved. nasal-pres. unátti ‘moistens’ (RV+), Ved. udán‑, gen. sg. udnás ‘water’ (RV+), Ved. útsa- m. ‘source, spring’ (RV+)
EWAia I: 213, 215f., 279, KEWA I:103, 104, Grassmann 1996a:252
YAv. vaiδi- f. ‘stream, water flow’
Bartholomae 1904:1144f.
Gk. ὕδωρ, gen. ὕδατος n. ‘water’ (Il.+), (?)Myc. nom. sg. u-do /udōr/ ‘water’, etc., Gk. nom. sg. ὕδος (Call.Fr.475), dat. sg. ὕδει (Hes.Op.61) n. ‘water’
GEW II:957–959, DELG:1152f., EDG:1526f., LSJ:1845f., DMic II:384, Bartoněk 2003a:243
Arm. get ‘river’ (Bible+)On Arm. getin ‘ground, soil’, cf. PAnat. *udnéi̯h2- ‘land’.
EDAIL:205, Olsen 1999a:45f.
Umbr. utur ‘water’, abl. sg. une, Lat. unda ‘wave’ (Enn., Plaut.+)
WH II:816–818, EM:746f., EDLIL:641, OLD²:2304f., Untermann 2000a:815f., Weiss 2020a:183
Lat. uter, ‑tris m. (n.) ‘leather bag (for holding liquids, etc.)’ (Varro+)
WH II:845f., EM:757, EDLIL:647, OLD²:2333
PGerm. *u̯atar‑/*u̯atan- n. ‘water’, cf. Goth. wato, gen. sg. watins, ON vatn, OE wæter, OHG wazzar ‘id.’, etc.
PGerm. *u̯ēta- ‘wet’, cf. ON vátr, OE wǣt, OFr. wēt ‘id.’, etc.
EDPG:575f., 583, Faltings 2010a:607f., Orel 2003a:436, 451, Heidermanns 1993a:676f., GED:395f., de Vries 1977a:648
(?)Alb. ujë ‘water; river (Buzuku)’
Demiraj 1997a:401f., AED:483f., Huld 1984a:121
(?)TochA wri, TochB wriye* ‘dew’According to DTB²:672, these words are directly derived from TochA wār, TochB war ‘water’, on which cf. CLuw. wār- ‘water’, and morphologically identical to Alb. ujë ‘water’, viz. < *ud‑r‑i̯o-.
DTB²:672, Kim 2018b:143
wad