*nód-

The equation of Hittite nāta- ‘reed’ with Luwian *nāt(i)- attested securely in derivatives such as nātatt(i)- allows the safer reconstruction of a pre-form with o-grade of the root (EDHIL:597, Steer 2012-2013a:159-162). Its stem in Proto-Anatolian may have been consonantal or thematic, both of which would have undergone i-mutation in Luwian. In case of the former, Hittite would have secondarily thematized the root noun; cf. pāta-/patā- c. ‘foot’ < *pód-. Steer 2012-2013a:162f. argues for an original root noun, i.e. *nód-, which would be supported by the derivative ()naduwant- < *nod- + *-u̯ent- (followed by Maier 2013a:111-113). He adduces further arguments from an Indo-European perspective see also Part II.

[D.S.]

The meaning ‘reed’, which is clearly attested in Anatolian (Hitt. nāta-, CLuw. coll. nātatta ‘reed’) and Indo-Aryan (Ved. naḍ/dá- ‘reed, cane’), is primary while other meanings such as ‘arrow’ and ‘drinking tube’ (Arm. net ‘arrow’, Hitt. nāta- ‘reed; drinking tube; arrow’) are secondary and denote things manufactured from ‘reed, cane’.

In most IE languages, the words for ‘reed’ derived from a root *ned are thematic stems, with the root vowel being either o or e – cf. Hitt. nāta-, Luw. nāta/i- < *nód°, Ved. naḍ/dá- < *ned°, Parth. nd /naδ/ ‘flute’, NPers. nay ‘flute, cane’ : MPers. <n’d> /nāy/ ‘quill, flute’, NPers. nāy ‘windpipe’ < *nē̆/od°. Arm. net ‘arrow’, however, is an i-stem (< *ned°). As argued by Steer 2012/13[2015], the different root ablaut of all these forms (*nod- vs. *ned-) is most straightforwardly explained by the reconstruction of an original o/e-ablauting root noun *nód-/*ned- ‘reed’. In PIIr., this yielded *nā̆d-, which was thematized to *nā̆d-a- (whence Ved. nad/ḍá- and Iran. *nā̆da-), presumably under the influence of the athematic acc. sg. form in PIIr. *-am (< PIE *-m̥), which was reinterpreted as a thematic acc. sg. in *-a-m. In Anatolian, *nód-/*ned- was secondarily thematized as well. As in IIr., the transition to the thematic stems could have been caused by a reanalysis of the athematic acc. sg., with PIE *nód-m̥ giving, e.g., Hitt. na-(a-)ta-an /nádan/, which was reanalyzed as /náda-n/, the acc. sg. of an a-stem noun nāta-. A remnant of the original root noun might be preserved, however, in the Hitt.-Luw. adjective ()naduu̯ant- /nad-u̯ant-/ ‘provided with reed’ < *nEd-u̯Ent- (~ Myc. ne-do-wo-t° /Ned-u̯ont-/ [river/place name] ~ Skt. naḍ-vant- ‘provided with reed, reedy’ [Pāṇ. 4.2.87f.]), which was formed with the possessive suffix PIE *-u̯ent-. The first element of this u̯ent-stem (Hitt./Luw. ()nad-, Skt. naḍ-, Myc. /Ned-/) cannot have been derived from a thematic stem *no/ed-o-, but presupposes the existence of a root noun *no/ed- ‘reed’. Finally, the Hitt. nom. sg. forms GI-az, GI-za can be explained as continuants of the original nom. sg. of a root noun PIE *nód-/*ned-, namely *nṓd-s > Hitt. *nāz. For further discussion, cf. Steer 2012/13[2015]. As for the root etymology, there are at least two possibilities: the root noun *nód-/*ned- ‘reed’ could be either based on PIE *ned- ‘to sound, roar’ (cf. LIV²:448) or on *ned- ‘to be wet’ (cf. PGerm. *nata- ‘wet’ > OHG naz etc.); cf. the discussion in Steer 2012/13[2015]:144–147, 169.

[T.S.]

Myc. ne-do-wo-t° /Nedu̯ont-/ (cf. PY Cn 4.6, PY An 661.13) place/river name (literally *‘[place/river] provided with reed’) = river name Gk. Nέδων (Nέδoντ-)Cf., e.g., DMic I:468 and Steer 2012/13[2015]:139–142, 164–168 and passim, with further lit.

Ved. naḍá- (naḷá-) m. ‘reed, cane’ (RV+), nadá- m. ‘id.’ (RV 1.32.8, perhaps also 2.34.3), adj. Skt. naḍvant- ‘provided with reed, reedy’ (Pāṇ. 4.2.87f.); Parth. nd ‘flute’ = /naδ/, MPers. <n’d> = /nāy/, NPers. nāy ‘windpipe’, nay ‘flute, pipe’, etc.Cf., e.g., EWAia II:7f., Steer 2012/13[2015]:152–155 and passim, with further lit.

Arm. net ‘arrow’ (Bible+; i-st.: instr. sg. net-i-w, gen./dat. pl. net-i-cʻ, instr. pl. net-i-w-kʻ)Cf., e.g., Olsen 1999a:84, EDAIL:502f., Steer 2012/13[2015]:155–158 and passim, with further lit.