Topics in the reconstruction and development of Indo-European accent

TOPICS IN THE RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INDO-EUROPEAN ACCENT Ronald I. Kim A DISSERTATION in

Linguistics

Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2002

UMI Number: 3054962

UMI Microform 3054962 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

To my family and friends

ii

Foreword It's rare for someone to enter a Ph.D. program with a clear idea of what he or she wants to write his doctoral thesis on, and I'm no exception. Yet when the time came in the fall of 1999 for me to choose a dissertation topic, I found myself strongly attracted to a problem that had first caught my attention four years before. During my senior undergraduate year at Princeton, as I was stumbling my way towards (barely) finishing a less-than-successful major in astrophysics, I took a graduate seminar on the historical grammar of Slavic. I had been interested in Eastern Europe and the Slavic world ever since studying some Russian in the summer of 1991 before and during a trip to the Soviet Union, but even I wasn't prepared for how eagerly I would take to Slavic historical linguistics. What especially caught my attention in Russian grammar was the complex system of stress alternations. This interest has only increased the more I learn about languages such as Serbo-Croatian, which for both linguistic and extralinguistic reasons has become my favorite. That same fall, I successfully avoided my thesis research and improved my German by reading Manfred Mayrhofer's article on the prehistory of the Iranian languages in the volume Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Here too, I took to the material with a passion, one that has been maintained under the surface over the years and finally culminated earlier this spring with an article on the prehistory of the stress and case system of Ossetic. Once again, however, it was Mayrhofer's brief discussion of the evidence for stress in Iranian that intrigued me, in particular his comment that the difficult task of reconstructing Proto-Iranian stress on the basis of a few scattered and/or not entirely understood phenomena in Avestan and Middle Iranian, plus data from Pashto and some other Modern East Iranian languages I had never heard of, was "perhaps comparable to that in Balto-Slavic accentology." These ideas remained in the back of my mind during my first two years of graduate school, and resurfaced when my advisors, Don Ringe and Rolf Noyer, teamed up in the fall of 1998 to teach a seminar on Indo-European accent within the context of the latest advances in metrical theory. Don, a classically trained Indo-Europeanist, and Rolf, a former student of Morris Halle, were both interested in the application of the footless "brackets-and-edges" model of stress computation to the prosodic systems of Sanskrit, Greek, the Balto-Slavic languages, and Proto-Indo-European, the reconstructible ancestor in

of the Indo-European languages. Needless to say, this seminar did a lot to stimulate my dormant interest in questions of accent and stress in Indo-European in general, and in Greek and Balto-Slavic in particular. The following fall, I wrote up a dissertation proposal. After one year on leave, two part-time jobs, two car accidents, two summers of traveling, and thousands of pages of reading, this is the result. Portions of the research in this thesis have been presented to a number of audiences. A preliminary version of chapter 3 was presented at the 24th annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium at the University of Pennsylvania, 26-7 February 2000. After extensive revision, it appeared in volume 7.2 (2001) of the University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (PWPL). Chapter 3 has been adapted and only slightly revised from that article, which I hope to submit to an Indo-European journal in the near future. Extremely early, poorly informed, and error-ridden versions of the Balto-Slavic chapters were read at the 19th East Coast Indo-European Conference at the University of Georgia, 3-6 June 2000 and at an invited talk sponsored by the Program in Linguistics of Princeton University on 11 April 2001. I had the opportunity to give a less embarrassing presentation at the Department of Linguistics of Swarthmore University on 21 February 2002. An embryonic version of chapter 4, particularly section 4.3, was read at the 26th Penn Linguistics Colloquium at the University of Pennsylvania, 1-3 March 2002. Finally, I had the great pleasure of presenting section 6.6, on the relationship of accentuation to present and aorist morphology in Slavic, to the 21st East Coast Indo-European Conference right here at Penn, 13-16 June 2002. To all of these institutions and conferences, I offer my sincere thanks for allowing me the opportunity to present my work as it evolved over the last two and a half years. Except for chapter 3, almost all of this thesis was written in just over three months, between early March and late June 2002. I was told in late February that I had been awarded a one-year Mellon postdoctoral fellowship at Cornell University, which was welcome and entirely expected news, but meant that I had to finish a nonexistent dissertation in time to graduate in August. I've had to cut a lot of corners and avoid too much detail (especially in chapter 1), and the thorough research I've tried to make a hallmark of my few publications so far has had to be sacrificed. Still, I hope the final product hasn't suffered too much as a result — but that's not for me to judge.

IV

The last six years have been interesting and tiresome, exciting and boring, memorable and forgettable, but the last two and a half years have been one unending wild ride. I'd like to thank some of the people who've made this thesis and degree possible and helped me to end my graduate career on a positive note. My principal advisor, Don Ringe, has been a mentor for my studies in IndoEuropean, and in historical and general linguistics, since we made contact in July 1994. I sometimes wonder how differently my life might have turned out if I had thrown out the piece of paper on which his e-mail address was written, instead of deciding to give it a shot and introduce myself. Don was largely responsible for securing a fellowship for me in 1996, and since then he has done more than I can say to encourage my growth as a scholar. Every page of this thesis indirectly reflects his standards of precision in research and argumentation and attests to the influence of his example. The person who gave me that piece of paper with Don's e-mail address was none other than Rolf Noyer, my other advisor. I was already anticipating coming to Penn when I learned that he would also be joining the Department of Linguistics there in the fall of 1996. Rolf taught my first linguistics class, an introduction to phonetics and phonology, in the spring of 1994. I'm sure he remembers some of our heated discussions after class in which I gave him an earful of my ignorance of modern linguistic science. Rolfs brilliant ability to think on an abstract level, combined with his fervent interest in "real data" and historical questions, have been a source of inspiration for me, and I hope he finds the following pages not totally lacking in theoretical interest. The third member of my dissertation committee, Gene Buckley, has always welcomed my not always intelligent questions on phonology. His class notes and advice were invaluable in the writing of chapter 1, which I hope does justice to his outstanding teaching. In addition, I'd like to express a special debt of thanks to two other professors, Gillian Sankoff and Bill Labov. Although neither has much to say about the content of this thesis, both of them have contributed enormously to my love for linguistics. A lot of my thinking about linguistic variation and change from social, historical, and acquisitional perspectives has been motivated by their seminars, whether on pidgin and creole languges, language contact, dialectology, or sound change in progress. I hope some of their influence will be apparent in the pages below.

v

I have been incredibly fortunate, particularly in the last two years, to be able to count on my family and closest friends for support. Despite the definite risk of leaving someone out, they deserve mention in print: • • •

•

• •

•

•

•

my mother, father, and sister H(eidi), who are, I think, prouder of me now than they've ever been. I love you no matter what. the rest of the Kim family, including all the ones I've never met. my best friend Kevin, who's helped me in so many ways, and shared so many good (and bad) experiences, for over 10 years and is now on his way to achieving his dreams. Mark, my closest friend in Philadelphia, who has done more than his share of commiserating with me over the ups and downs of graduate school and academia, and knows (and has) what it takes to make it. my high school friend Gerard, who's probably relieved and bemused to see me join him as an academic. my fellow grad students or "classmates" (I don't think I'll ever get used to the word "colleague") in the Department of Linguistics. To Tom, Justin, Kieran, Masato, Uri, Cassie, Na-Rae, Alan, Elsi, Sergio, Suzanne, and whoever else, thanks for putting up with me, giving me plenty to laugh about, and teaching me more than a thing or two. all the professors and older "colleagues" who've helped me on the way, from my old mentor and role model Franklin Odo to the Indo-Europeanists Craig Melchert, Miles Beckwith, David Testen, Jay Jasanoff, Alan Nussbaum, Jens Rasmussen, Josh Katz, Michael Weiss, Joe Eska, and Olav Hackstein. the folks who did the little things and don't usually get the credit: Jim Lavine and Stan Cheek, who checked out books from Princeton's Firestone Library for me; Doug and Marcus at the Bucks Co. coffeehouse on Sansom St., who shared many a work-filled afternoon with me; my roommate Veronika, who answered with patience all my annoying questions about Czech vowel length; and my students in Introduction to Formal Linguistics, Introduction to Sociolinguistics, and the the Princeton spring 2001 writing class on language, who taught me almost as much as (I hope) I taught them. my friends, Penn undergraduates and graduate students and local West Philly folks, who played such a huge role in helping me to turn my life around in the spring of 2000 with PSAS and everything that came after. To Mike, Tina, Matt, Reshma, Brian,

vi

• • •

Annie, and others, plus Alexi and Wendy, Christine and Joe, Ryan, Brandon, Maya, and all the folks at the sorely missed Comet, thanks in more ways than you know. my Aussie Internet friends Kate and Ezza. Danijela, whose support and encouragement were so critical during the dark days, when there was nothing I could do for her in return. Hvala za sve! finally, my dearest Anna, who makes me so happy.

To all of you, I express my deepest thanks, and hope that even if you don't understand more than a small fraction of this thesis, you do understand what it means. ¡Hasta la victoria siempre! Pobedicemo! Ronald I. Kim Philadelphia, 2 July 2002

vii

ABSTRACT TOPICS IN THE RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INDO-EUROPEAN ACCENT Ronald I. Kim Supervisor: Donald A. Ringe, Jr.

Recent advances in metrical theory have opened the possibility of applying the resulting insights to the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) accentual system and its development in the individual Indo-European (IE) languages. After introducing the principles of the "brackets-and-edges" framework of Idsardi (1992) and Halle and Idsardi (1995), the accentual categories of the PIE noun and verb are examined and analyzed in terms of underlying accent of roots, suffixes, and endings. As Halle (1997) has proposed, the parameter settings for determining surface stress in PIE are the same as those of IE languages such as Russian: stress falls on the first accented syllable head of the (phonological) word; if the word contains no accented morphemes, it receives default initial stress. The properties of the archaic ablaut- and stress-alternating paradigms, as well as of thematic nouns and verbs, may thus be represented as the realization of different combinations of accentual specifications: aerostatic roots, for instance, are accented and surface with constant root-stress, whereas in amphikinetic paradigms the root and suffix are unaccented, with default initial stress if the ending is unaccented and ending-stress if the ending is accented. The main outlines of this system, which is largely reconstructed on the basis of Sanskrit, have been preserved in ancient Greek: despite numerous innovations, both the parameter settings and the accentuation of particular morphemes survive in the noun and the non-finite forms of the verb. In the Balto-Slavic languages, the complex alternations of stress, intonation, and length may be derived without serious difficulty from PIE. In place of a rightward stress shift from a non-acute syllable, Proto-Balto-Slavic has undergone stress retraction to acute syllables; this hypothesis accounts for a number of previously unexplained peculiarities. The accentuation of the Balto-Slavic nominal case endings continues the inherited PIE distinction between "strong" (unaccented) and "weak" (accented) endings in the non-thematic stem classes, which has spread to the thematic

Vlll

stems independently in the two branches. Finally, the stress alternations in the simple thematic present receive a plausible historical explanation and shed new light on the accentuation of this category in (post-)PIE; the relationship among present and aorist formations and accentual paradigms in Slavic is revealed to be the direct continuation of a classical IE pattern.

IX

Table of Contents Foreword

in

Abstract

viii

Chapter 1. Introduction and Theoretical Background 1.1. 1.2. 1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.3.

The reconstruction of PIE stress A theoretical framework for lexical stress Earlier treatments The evolution of "brackets-and-edges" Principles and applications of metrical bracket theory Metrical bracket theory and Indo-European Stress and accent in the IE languages

1 4 4 5 6 11 14

Chapter 2. The Proto-Indo-European Accentual System 2.1. 2.2. 2.2.1. 2.2.1.1. 2.2.1.2. 2.2.1.3. 2.2.1.4. 2.2.1.5. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.1.1. 2.3.1.2. 2.3.1.3. 2.3.2. 2.3.2.1. 2.3.2.2. 2.3.2.2a. 2.3.2.2b. 2.3.2.2c.

Introduction: coexisting systems in Proto-Indo-European grammar The noun Archaic ablauting stems Root nouns with alternating stress Aerostatic root and suffixed nouns Amphikinetic stems Proterokinetic stems Hysterokinetic stems Thematic stems Collectives The verb Athematic stems Root presents and aorists with alternating stress Narten presents Hysterokinetic alternations: the optative and nasal-infixed presents Thematic stems Thematized presents and aorists Suffixed thematic presents: *-yé/ó-, *-s£é/ó-, *-éy e / 0 Zero-grade presents in *-yé/ *-V:R, is discussed below in §2.2.1.3. 4 Nom./acc. du. *-hie (> Gr. -e in pód-e) has been apocopated in o-stem *-o-hie > *-oh[ (> Ved. -cf, Gr. -o.\ Lat. du-ō, Lith. -«, -MO-, OCS -a, TA wu < *dwō); cf. Jasanoff 1988:73-4fn.l0, Melchert 1994a:51-2 for the sound change.

22

considerable extent: cf. Gaulish matir, duxtir < *-tēr, Old Breton brotr, Middle Breton breuzr, pi. bre(u)d-e(u)r, Middle Welsh brawt, pi. brod-er, -yr < *brātīr, *brāteres, Olr. athair < *atlr, ace. athair < *ateren, gen. athar < *atros (McCone 1994). In Latin, the weak variant has been generalized to all cases other than the nom. sg.: hence nom. sg. pater < *-ēr vs. ace. pat-r-em < *-r-iņ (for *-ŗ-m), gen. pat-r-is < *-r-es, nom. pi. pat-r-ēs Horn, ous 'ear', gen. oúatos, nom./acc. pl. oúata, but Att. contracted 5:t-a, whence gen. sg. o:t-ós (see further §3.4.2). To be sure, not all such root nouns may be traced back to PIE: a number lack convincing etymologies, while others have been remodeled from root-accented aerostatic root nouns (see 2 below), including *pód- ~ *péd > Gr. ace. pód-a, gen. pod-ós, Ved. pá:d-am, gen. pad-ás and *woyk'- ~ *wéyk > Ved. vit, ace. vis-am, gen. viš-ás. 6

Contra Szemerenyi (1962:13, 1970:109), the lengthened-grade nom. sg. of obstruent-final stems, e.g. Skt. pāt, Gr. TΓCÓS (Hesych.), Lat. pes ors-stem Ved. su-mánās, Gr. eu-menε:s 'well-minded, kind', cannot be by sound change, but must instead be analogical to that of sonorant-stems, which has arisen by Szemerenyi's Law (cf. above, §2.2.1).

24

Nevertheless, in some cases it is possible to establish solid word (or paradigm) equations involving Anatolian cognates, which increases the likelihood that such root nouns belonged to the alternating type in PEE. •

•

•

•

PIE *dyéw-s, ace. **dyewm > *dyēm (by Stang's Law, whence analogical nom. *dyēws; Szemerenyi 1956:184ff.), gen. *diw-és 'sky, god': Skt. dyāus, dyām, div-ás, -é, -ā, loc. dyávi, Gr. Zeús, Zε:n-a (with regular consonant-stem ace. ending -a), Di(w)-ós, -í, cf. Hitt. šivna- 'god', Siunali-, Lyd. ciwvali- 'divine' < *dyéw-, Luv. tiwat- 'Sun-god' < *diw-otPIE *h2ént- ~ *h2ņt- 'face': Hitt. hanz(a) 'front', adv. hanz(a) 'in front' < loc. *h2énti,7 dat.-loc. hantl 'apart' < 'in front, opposing' < dat. *h2ņt-éy; thematized *h2ént-os > PT *ante >~TB ante, TA ānt 'visage, brow'; cf. loc. *h2ént-i > Skt. anti 'opposite, near', Gr. anti 'opposite, against, (in return) for', Lat. ante 'before'; dat. pi. (du.?) *h.2ņt-bhí 'to/on both sides' > Gr. amphi 'on both sides, around, about', Lat. amb(i)-, Olr. imb-, im(m)-, PGmc. *umbi (OE ymbe, OHG umbi) 'around', whence masc. nom./acc. du. *h2ņt-bhóhi 'both' > Gr. ámpho:, Lat. ambō, —> PT masc. nom./obl. du. *antp-3y > TB āntpi, TA āmpi; see in general Jasanoff 1976 PIE *h2éhi/3S- - *h2hi/3S-' 'ash': Hitt. hāš 'ashes, soap', ace. hāššan; derived *h2éhi/3S-eh2- ~ *h2hj/3S-' in hāšš-aš 'hearth', ace. hāšš-an, gen. hašš-āš, dat.-loc. haSS-ī, abl. hašš-āz, whence thematized *h2ehi/3S-eh2- > Lat. āra (Melchert 1994a:78, 1994c:235-6; extended from root *h2ehi/3- > Pal. hā- 'be warm'?) PIE nomVacc. *lcēr 'heart' (< **£erd by Szemerenyi's Law: Hitt. SA-/r/kēr/, Horn. Gr. k£:r, Skr. hārd-i, hard-, Arm. sirt with *-d from oblique cases) ~ obi. *krd'heart': Hitt. obi. /kard-/ (gen. kard-iyaS, dat. karti, all. karta, abl. kartaz, instr. kardit);8 on CLuv. zār-za, HLuv. za+ra/i-za /zārza/ = /zārd/ + neut. sg. particle /-sa/ see ibid., 233, 272: /zārd/ Lat. ōs, Skt. ās-, Av. āh-), *hļli3S-és (contrast Melchert [1994a: 115-6], who posits an s-stem *h]éh3-s- ~ *h]h3-és-). Finally, the old-looking Hitt. noun for 'house', E-ir /per/, gen. parnaša, dat. parni, all. parna, instr. parnaz (secondarily root-stressed, cf. Melchert 1994a: 125-6; thematized in Lyd. bira-, Luv. neut. nom./acc. sg. parnan-za), which finds no cognates elsewhere in IE,

7

On the stress of the loc. sg., cf. §2.2.1.3. Probably with generalized root-stress; similarly for the oblique forms of 'house' below (Melchert 1994a: 115-6). Mobile stress has apparently also been lost in Palaic: cf. dat. kārti, ēšhana'blood', gen. [h]āranaš 'eagle' (ibid., 226). 8

25

probably continues a PIE nom./acc. *pēr (< **pern by Stang's Law? D. Testen, p.c, fall 1996) ~ obi. *prn-'.9 The alternation of root- and ending-stress in root nouns follows straightforwardly according to the brackets-and-edges model if one assumes that the root and strong case endings are underlyingly unaccented, whereas the weak case endings are accented, i.e. are prespecified as projecting a left bracket onto line 0 of the metrical grid. Thus the strong case forms are unaccented and receive default initial stress according to the parameters posited in § 1.2.4 for PIE, and the weak case forms stress their one underlyingly accented morpheme, namely the ending. The derivation of stress is illustrated below for ace. *h2ént-iņ and gen. *h2#t-és: *

*

(*

(*

* *\ *h2ent m > *h2ént-iņ

* r*\ *ti2ent es > *h2ņt-és10

We may therefore formulate the preliminary hypothesis that the PIE nom. and ace. case endings were unaccented, while the oblique endings were accented; since the underlying accentual specification of morphemes should not vary according to the forms in which they occur or depend on the accentuation of neighboring morphemes, this distinction should hold not only for root nouns, but for all consonant stems which take these endings. 2.2.1.2. Aerostatic root and suffixed nouns Although the alternation of root- and stem-stress between the direct and oblique cases is well attested in Sanskrit and Greek, there are indications that PIE originally possessed another type of root noun. It has long been known that a number of root nouns exhibit both o- and e-grade ablaut in the daughter languages. To take the most famous example of this type, the root noun for 'foot' appears with o-grade in Greek (ace. pód-a, gen. pod-ós; the long vowel in nom. pous is of unclear origin, but must be analogical), Armenian (otn < *pod-iņ), and Germanic (OE fōt, pl.fēt < *fōt-s (?), *fōt-iz < PGmc. root noun *fōt-, with analogical long vowel extended from the nom. sg. throughout the paradigm), but with e-grade vocalism in Italic (Lat. ace. ped-em, gen. ped-is; nom. pes once again with analogical long vowel). 9

See Schindler 1972a for a survey of root nouns in Indo-Iranian and Greek. On the surface realization of the unstressed root with zero-grade ablaut, see the discussion in §2.2.1.3. ,0

26

In other cases, the ablaut alternation has survived only in a form which has become dissociated from the rest of the productive paradigm, perhaps already in (late) PIE, and survives only in fixed expressions. For instance, 'night' is traditionally reconstructed as *nokwt-, given its reflexes in Gr. núx, gen. nukt-ós, Lat. nox, gen. noct-is, Skt. náktam 'by night' (fossilized ace. in adverbial usage), TB nekclye, TA n[o]ktim 'in the evening', TA nokte 'last night' (R. Kim 2000b: 155), but the discovery of Hitt. gen. nekuz /negwts/ in the expression nekuz mehur 'evening time' indicates that this noun was originally aerostatic *nók w t- ~ *nékwt- (Schindler 1967). Likewise, the root noun *dom- 'house, home' exhibits o-grade throughout IE, e.g. Lat. domus, OCS domu («-stems; cf. Sk. dámúnas 'dear to the home'?), Skt. dámas, Gr. dómos (also Lith. nāmas with nasal assimilation?), Arm. tun, but the oblique e-grade of the original aerostatic paradigm *dóm- ~ *démsurvives in the expression *dém-s pótis 'lord of the house' > Ved. dám-pati-, GAv. gen. dāņg patōiš, —> Gr. des-pótε:s 'lord, master'. Whereas most aerostatic root nouns alternate between o-grade in the nom. and ace. and e-grade in the oblique, a small number contrast full-grade and lengthened-grade reflexes, e.g. *méms- ~ *méms- 'meat': cf. Skt. mās, thematized māmsám < *mēms- vs. TB pi. tant. rriīsa < PT *mysnsa < *mems- (for loss of the nasal in TB, cf. piš 'five' < PT *pyanša < PIE *pénkwe, Ringe 1996:70-lfn.3).11 These were clearly less numerous than the *o ~ *e nouns, but the existence of parallel cases among r/n-stems (see immediately below) strongly suggests that one must reconstruct two subtypes of aerostatic inflection in the noun, i.e. the "o-subtype" and the "ē-subtype". Alongside root nouns, one also finds a number of r/n-stems with divergent ablaut reflexes in the daughter languages. In these archaic "heteroclitic" nouns, the nominal stem consists of a root and a suffix, which contains *-r- in the nom. and ace. but *-n- in the oblique cases. The type is robustly attested in Hittite, which attests underived r/n-stems as well as productive suffixes in *-r- ~ *-n- (e.g. inf. -war, gen. -waS< *-wŗ, *-wen-s), but have left only scattered relics in other IE branches (e.g. Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic). A number of r/n-stems exhibit o-grade reflexes, e.g. PIE *wod-r 'water', directly continued by Hitt. wātar and indirectly by OE water, OHG wazzar (cf. Goth, wat-ō, gen. wat-in-s, ON vatn), OCS voda. In addition, one also finds r/n-stems with *ē and *e-grade root vocalism, parallel to root nouns: cf. Gr. hε:par, gen. hεipatos, Av. yākara vs. Skt. yák-ŗt (with secondary -t), gen. yak-n-ás 'liver'. 1

'Goth, mimz could continue either *mems- or *mēms-, in the latter case by shortening of a long vowel before a tautosyllabic sonorant ("Osthoffs Law").

27

In a landmark article, Schindler (1975a:4-6; cf. also 1972b:32-6) proposed that these two subclasses of root nouns and r/h-stems were originally aerostatic in PIE, i.e. the stress fell on the root in all cases. The first type contrasted *o in the nom. and ace. with *e in the oblique cases; similarly, the second type had *f in the nom. and ace. and *e elsewhere. The nom., ace. and gen. sg. of 'foot', 'meat', 'water', and 'liver' were thus nom. sg. ace. gen.

*pód-s *pód-iņ *péd-s

*mēms-s *mēms-m *méms-s

nom./acc. sg. gen.

*wód-ŗ

*Hyēkw-ŗ

*Hyékw-ņ-s

*wéd-ņ-s

It should be noted that this postulated distribution of ablaut grades is directly attested only in a single paradigm, Hitt. nom./acc. wātar 'water', gen. witen-aš, and even the latter probably continues *wedén-os