wār-
‘water’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 971
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
wār-
‘water’1.1.1Transmission
The word is spread across a wide range of Luwian rituals from MS to NS texts.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | wa-a-ar-š[a] | KUB 35.47, 2’ | (CTH 758, NS) |
| [w]a-a-ar-ša | KUB 35.54 iii 17 | (CTH 758, MS) | |
| [w]a-a-ar-ša | KUB 35.54 iii 19 | (CTH 758, MS) | |
| [wa-a-]ar-ša | KUB 35.54 iii 25 | (CTH 758, MS) | |
| ú-wa-ar-ša | KUB 35.107 iii 19 | (CTH 764, MS) | |
| [w]a-ar-ša | KBo 29.28, 5 | (CTH 765, NS) | |
| [wa-ar-š]a | KBo 29.29, 7’ | (CTH 765, MS?) | |
| [wa?]-⸢a?⸣-ar | KUB 35.104 + KUB 35.120, 8’ | (CTH 758, MS) | |
| nom./acc. pl. | wa-a-ra | KUB 35.88 iii 8’ | (CTH 766, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Melchert (CLL:257) also adduced wa-ra[(-) in KBo 24.56 ii 5 (CTH 763, NS), but there is no indication in the text that the word initial sequence belongs to this lemma or even is Luwian.
[E.R.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
For etymological reasons (see under Reconstruction), Watkins 1987b:402 considers the possibility that “the scriptio plena renders either a long vowel (by contraction) or the hiatus form waar.” Since the absence of contraction of like vowels would be unexpected, the former alternative is adopted here.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
Modifying the earlier semantic interpretation as ‘drop’ proposed by Meriggi 1957a (followed by DLL:108, 152, HW 2nd ed.:428 and specified in Meriggi 1962c:259 n. 1 as ‘tears’, also HW 2nd ed.:476), Watkins 1987b:401-403 (and Watkins 1987a) points out the parallelism of the Hittite ritual instruction mentioning water and salt and the Luwian spell that refers to wār=ša and salt (in KUB 35.54 iii 12-21), and equates semantically Luw. wār=ša and Hitt. wātar ‘water’. The new translation as ‘water’ is highly plausible also for the other context as understood and accepted in Oettinger 1979a: 429 n. 72, Melchert 1994a:245, Tischler 2008a:195 and HEG:W-Z 437.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
Earlier analyses (Meriggi 1957a, Oettinger 1979a:429 n. 72) started from an etymological equation with Hittite warsa- ‘rain’ and regarded word final -ša as part of the stem (stem wārša- with the ending -a of the nom./acc. pl.). In contrast, agreement with the singular neuter forms of the participle in a noun clause in KUB 35.54 iii 18 as well as the possible attestation of wa-a-ra have led scholars to analyze wārša as nom./acc. n. sg. wār plus the secondary affix =ša (e.g. CLL:257 building on Watkins 1987b:402 and Watkins 1987a, NIL:715-717; unclear HEG:W-Z 437). Accordingly, we are dealing with a neuter r-stem war-.
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.1.6.1Uncertain Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
The Luwian word for ‘water’, i.e. wār- n., differs phonologically from the Hittite word wātar/witenaš ‘water’. The presence vs. absence of an original alveolar stop cannot be explained within inner-Anatolian sound laws. Watkins 1987b:402 reconstructs a neuter r-stem to a root of the shape *u̯eh1-, i.e. *u̯eh1-r̥ (followed by Melchert 1994a:245), although a heteroclite would be more appealing; see Simon forthcoming.
[E.R.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Luwian and Vedic directly point to an original meaning ‘water’, and the remaining evidence is easily derivable thereof, cf. ‘water (falling from the sky)’ → ‘rain’ (YAv., ON; cf. OED online s.v. water 1 , DWB s.v. Wasser II.A1bε), ‘water (pouring out of the body)’ → ‘urine’ (Lat., Alb.; cf. OED online s.v. water 17, DWB s.v. Wässerlein 3), ‘water (collected in a topographic depression), (a body of) water’ → ‘pond’ (Alb., OE, OPr.; cf. OED online s.v. water 11, DWB s.v. Wasser II.A1bα). Thus, the meaning of PIE *u̯éh1‑r̥ can confidently be reconstructed as ‘water’.
3.1.1Root etymology
NIL:716 n. 1 does not provide a root etymology, because there seems to be no PIE root *u̯eh1- identifiable.Cf. ibid. for some proposals.Taking into account the potential Latin and Lithuanian formations without suffixal *‑r‑, the underlying root can be approximated as PIE *u̯eh1- ‘to be wet (vel sim.)’.
However, under the assumption of the “Kortlandt Effect” (*d > *h1, cf. below sub Morphological reconstruction), PIE *u̯eh1‑r̥ ‘water’ might be connected to the widespread root PIE *u̯ed- ‘to well up’ (LIV²:658f.) and the paradigm of PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n- ‘water’. Since this phonological change is not generally accepted, it is mentioned here just as a possibility.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Tracing back the evidence of the IE languages to the proto-language, one might reconstruct a neuter r‑stem PIE *u̯óh1‑r̥/*u̯éh1‑r̥/*uh1‑r‑´ ‘water’, cf., e.g., Watkins 1987b:401–403. However, since pure neuter r‑stems are hardly reconstructable for PIE, one would rather expect an r/n‑heteroclitic paradigm with additional n‑stem variants like **uh1‑n- (cf. PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n‑/*ud‑én- ‘id.’). Furthermore, it should be mentioned that PIE *u̯éh1‑r̥ ‘water’ is attested mainly in the nom./acc. sg. in Vedic and Luwian. Lubotsky 2013a:161f. concludes from this fact as well as from the lack of nom./acc. sg. forms of the noun PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n- ‘water’ that the Vedic paradigm for ‘water’ was nom./acc. sg. vā́r, obl. udn‑. He traces this paradigm ultimately back to PIE *u̯éh1‑r̥/*ud‑n‑´ ‘water’. Applying the “Kortlandt Effect” (PIE *d > *h1 in certain environments, cf. Kortlandt 1983a, Lubotsky 2013a:162f.), PIE *u̯óh1‑r̥/*u̯éh1‑r̥ would in this scenario continue the strong stem of PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/*u̯éd‑n- ‘water’. However, this phonological process is debated and thus no decision is made here.
3.2.1Root etymology
Beside PIE *u̯éh1‑r̥ ‘water’ only a few putative derivatives of a possible root PIE *u̯eh1- are attested, cf. Lat. ūmēre ‘to be moist’, Lith. ū́mas ‘not dried (of plants) (Žem.)’, etc. Thus, one may, with due caution, reconstruct a root PIE *u̯eh1- ‘to be wet (vel sim.)’.
The further affiliation of the root in question depends on the acceptance of the “Kortlandt Effect”. If the change PIE *d > *h1 (under yet unclear conditions) is adopted, the ultimately underlying root is PIE *u̯ed- ‘to well up’ (LIV²:658f.).
3.3Syntactic Reconstruction and Phraseology
Watkins 2009a treats the PIE phrase lead/conduct water. However, different from Vedic, the verbal root continued in Hitt. u̯ātar nai ‘leads water’, Luw. u̯ār nanmman ‘led water’ is not used for the expression lead/conduct bride, cf. Watkins 2009a:230 n. 13.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. nom./acc. sg. n. vā́r /vá.ar/ ‘water’ (RV+)According to Lubotsky 2013a:160, the dat. pl. Ved. vārbhyás (VS.22.25) “is clearly artificial”.
EWAia II:544f., Grassmann 1996a:1260, NIL:715, 717 n. 7, Lubotsky 2013a
YAv. vāra- m. ‘rain’
Bartholomae 1904:1410, Kellens 1974a:370f., NIL:715, 717 n. 8
Lat. ūrīna f. ‘urine’ (Varro+)Derived from PItal. *ūr (or *ūr‑o‑) ‘water’, hence PItal. *ūr‑īno- either genitival ‘of water, being fluid’ (cf. also Lat. ūrīnārī ‘to dive’) or diminutive ‘little water’ (cf. DWB s.v. Wässerchen 2, DWB s.v. Wässerlein 3).
WH II:840, EM:755, EDLIL:644, NIL:715, 717 n. 15, OLD²:2323
(?)Lat. ūmēre ‘to be moist, wet’, ūmor, ‑ōris ‘moisture; fluid, liquid’ (Enn.+)
WH II:815, EM:745f., EDLIL:639f., NIL:715, 717 n. 12, OLD²:2302, 2303
(?)Lat. ūlīgō, ‑inis f. ‘waterlogged ground, marsh’ (Cato+)
WH II:811, EM:744, EDLIL:639f., NIL:715, 717 n. 12, OLD²:2297
(?)OIr. fír* ‘(gl.) milk’ or ‘(gl.) white’ (hapax, téora ferba fíra ‘three milk cows’)
EDPC:424, eDIL s.v. 2 fír, 3 fír, Lucht 2007a:433 with n. 8, NIL:715, 717 n. 9
ON úr n. ‘drizzling rain’Kroonen (EDPG:562) states that PGerm. *u(w)ur ‘drizzle’ cannot go back to *uh1ro- (but rather to *uh1r̥) by comparing PGerm. *wana- ‘lacking’, which may, however, as Kroonen himself states s.v. (EDPG:572), go back either to *uh2‑no- or to *u̯eh2‑no‑. Thus, PGerm. *u(w)ur ‘drizzle’ can indeed be reconstructed as pre‑PGerm. *uh1ro- (NIL:715) or *uh1r̥ (as per EDPG:562).
EDPG:562, de Vries 1977a:635, NIL:715, 716 n. 3
OE a‑stem wær ‘sea’, ON an‑stem vári ‘liquid, water’ (hapax)A variant with short vowel, ON vari, with the same meaning is attested far more frequently and continued as Icel. vari, cf. de Vries 1977a:646. According to Dybo 2002a:320f., the long vowel in ON vári was regularly shortened to ON vari in pretonic position, which is, however, unexpected. Magnússon 1995a:1107 doubts the existence of the long vowel variant ON vári ‘liquid, water’ (“vafaorð í skáldimáli”). NIL does not mention this difficult situation.
Holthausen 1934a:380, Bosworth & Toller 1898a:1156, de Vries 1977a:646, Magnússon 1995a:1107, Orel 2003a:450, NIL:715, 717 n. 10
OPr. wurs m. ‘(Germ.) Tych, pond’ (hapax, E61)According to Mažiulis (PKEŽ² s.v. wurs), the anlauting w- is prothetic, thus East Baltic *ūras.
PKEŽ² s.v. wurs
(?)Lith. ū́mas ‘(adj.) quick, not dried (of plants) (Žem.); (sbst.) malodour’, Latv. ùmai, umai ‘suddenly’ (loan from Lith.)
ALEW II:1148, ALEW 2.0 s.v. ū́mas, LEW II:1162, NIL:715, 717 nn. 11, 13
(?)Alb. shúrrë/a ‘urine’According to AED:446 and IEW:80, it can go back to *eks + *ūr‑në.
Demiraj 1997a:380, AED:446
(?)Alb. (h)urdhë ‘pond, swamp, pool’
Demiraj 1997a:205, AED:152f., NIL:715, 717 n. 14
(?)TochA wär, TochB war n. ‘water’Recently, Kim 2018b has disconnected the Tocharian words from PIE *u̯éh1‑r̥ ‘water’ (ibid. p. 142f.) and connects them with PIE *u̯ed- ‘id.’. However, if a preform */u.h1ro/ (like Kim’s */u.dro/, ibid. 143) can be reconstructed, the laryngeal disappeared via the de Saussure Effect, and pre‑PToch. *uro- → *uri (as per Kim 2018b:144) developed to PToch. *wær (> TochA wär, TochB war). Nevertheless, Kim’s proposal is convincing, which is why the Tocharian forms are excluded below.
DTB²:627f., NIL:715, 716 n. 2, Kim 2018b