--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> This begs the question, however: what was *mexté:r's earlier
> (original?) form? Perhaps *méxtrs, based on the full grade of the
> root?
There is nothing circular about it (which I understand is
what "begging the question" generally implies). The starting point
would have been *me:H2-tér-s, which, via *méH2-tor-s, would have
become *méH2to:r or even *máH2to:r, before the influence from
*pH2té:r changed it to *meH2té:r or *maH2té:r.
> What caused the "difference of accent"? That's the question I'm
> asking here.
I couldn't say for 'father' and 'mother' which appear relatively
unmotivated to me. But the two types displayed by the agent nouns in
*-té:r/*-tr-ós and *´-to:r/*´-tr.-s are unexpectedly clear. The
paradigmatic and functional opposition has been established by Eva
Tichy:
The hysterodynamic type is situational: a *d&3-té:r, *d&3-tr-ós is
one who gives now.
The acrostatic type is iterative: a *dóH3-to:r, *dóH3-tr.-s is one
who always gives.
The "always" note was in my opinion expressed by lengthened grade of
the root vowel:
*de:H3-tér-s > *déH3-to:r-s > *dóH3-to:r;
*de:H3-ter-ós > *déH3-tor-os > *dóH3-tr.-s .
In this analysis, the suffix *-ter- was earlier accented in both
types, and it was lengthened grade that produced the acrostatic
paradigm here as elsewhere.
Jens