Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> Thank you, Rob. 'Patrick' will do nicely.

Okay, Patrick.

> That would be my hypothesis. In addition, where it is associated
> with the meaning 'one of two', I suggest the same dervation but
> with emphasis on the underlying idea of 'turning'

There is also a root *ter- meaning "turn", correct? If so, do you
think that it and the *ter- "make" root have a common origin?

Something else interesting: most compounds in IE have conservative
accent. Perhaps that explains the conservative vocalism in the *-tor
nomina agentis.

> A 'brother''s sexual characteristics will almost never change
> (Cybele's devotees excepted) but any carrying would change with the
> needs of the moment and only fuzzily identify 'brother'.

This is true.

> Yes. Cf. Ind. dógdhi,'milks'. But Ind. duháti hints that one
> function of the thematic vowel may have been to verbalize root
> nouns.

That is interesting. If you're correct, then the root nouns were
more original? Or, perhaps, a prestage of IE had lost (most) basic
distinctions between nouns and verbs? (Like English: 'run' can be
either a noun or a verb, depending on its syntactic usage.)

> Yes,but 'mother' was probably using them (nursing).

True.

> > Are there roots *xe- and *me- for 'family' and 'breast',
> > respectively, in IE?
>
> No. Probably not even in PIE. One must go back farther to pre-PIE
> before the mandatory CVC-root form established itself. For a
> reduplicated *mama, what can we assume but that **ma had some
> meaning sometime? For *xe (I would prefer *H2e, indicating the a-
> vocalism), the existence of *am[m]a, *ap[p]a, *at[t]a, *akka:, all
> suggest a role for initial *a-.

I see. The use of 'x' in my notation represents a voiceless velar
fricative /x/, which I believe was what caused (better, what
retained) the a-vocalism later on.

> > Is that derived stem [*pex-t-] a frequentative? If not, then
> > what?
>
> I will settle for Brugmann: a generally active participle which
> can be used as an adjective or noun.

Aha. So it's the same formant as is used in the deverbal
(collective?) adjectival formation in *-tó? I also think that that
form is related to the so-called 't-stems', e.g. Latin sacerdo:s,
sacerdo:tis < *sakro-do:-t-s < *sak(?)-r-o-dexW-t-. Is that what
you're saying, here, as well?

- Rob