[tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Well "p" (with variants in vocalism) is a nursery word so it's
> > > presence hardly needs explaining.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > I am aware of no word "p", with or without variants in vocalism
> (just where
> > is the vowel there?) in PIE.
> > ***
>
> It's a nursery word. Across many languages we find word for father
> that look like pa, ?ap, ?ab, apa, appa, etc.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> The very concept of nursery words is infantile.
>
> An infant does _not_ assign meanings to words.
>
> An infant makes random sounds, and adults choose to reinforce some
> associations and discourage others in exactly the same way that _any_
> vocabulary item is taught.
>
> ***

Sure, and that's how words like pa and ma keep getting reintroduced
into languages. Not sure what your point was.

> <snip>
>
>
> It is curious, don't you think, that the vowel is almost always a:.
> Two of the exceptions, *yenh2ter and *ph2ter, have a vocalized

laryngeal.

>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Could you explain what you asserting here?

Look at the words for family members.
father *ph2ter
mother *meh2ter
daughter *dHugh2ter
sister-in-law *yenh2ter
brother *bHreh2ter
mother's brother *meh2tro:us

Every other word I've found has a completely different ending. Common
to all of these is the element *h2ter (zero grade in the last
example). Seems perverse not to assume that *h2 is part of the suffix.

> ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > There is no suffix *H2t in (p)PIE. There are suffixes -*a[:]
> > and -*t(o). -*a[:] is not involved here at all. When it is, it is dual
> > (better *ya) or feminine.
> >
> > If *H2 (better *a[:]) were part of *nepo:t, it would be **nepa:t. I
> think
> > even the hardest-biting 'laryngealist' would assert that.
>
> Not if it comes from *nepoh2t.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> There never was such an animal as *nepoH2t.

Pokorny and Beekes reconstruct *nepo:t. Seems like it could come from
either *nepeh3t or *nepoHt. Unless of course the long vowel is simply
a result of Szemerenyi lengthening.

> ***
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm afraid I can't find any listing in Pokorny for *swe (though if
> IIRC it's the reflexive pronoun) or *sor. You may be right about the
> division though. *swe- does figure into at least 3 words for
> relatives. Maybe *snusos does as well if there was an *-n- infix in
> nouns, though I don't know if there are any other examples to support
> this. Possibly (but much less likely) also *sye:(u)ro if it has a
> *-ye(h1)- infix.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Pokorny p. 882 for *swe-; p. 911 for *sor-.

I only have acess to online versions. What index number do they have?

> There is no such thing as a -*yeH1 suffix.
>
> There is -*ye and -*a (-*h2).

On second though this may simply be the -ye suffix (or rather an
infixed version). PIE didn't like having two resonants in a row so the
*w may have been lost with compensatory lengthening of the vowel.

> > Your analysis is a pure figment of your imagination; and has
> absolutely no
> > justification for anything which one actually finds attested in
> (p)PIE (or
> > even related languages).
>
> PPIE isn't attested anywhere. Neither is PIE for that matter. Any
> attempt at reconstructing PPIE is necessarily conjectural. My sound
> law is simply an attempt to explain the distribution of vowels and
> diphthongs in PIE.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Base your conjectures on the facts facts we do have then.

We'll the first fact is that *h2 is present in all those family words
with the *ter suffix. To me this suggests that it's part of the
suffix. The second fact is that high vowels don't appear before
resonants. So what happened to them (the the past you've admitted that
a vowel system of /a e o/ was typologically unlikely)? Diphthings
don't appear before resonants but do appear before non-resonants. Why
would that be?

The answer seems obvious to me. PPIE had a four vowel system /i u e
a/. Before non-resonants **i and **u became *ei and *eu when stressed
(which explains the *ei~*i and *eu~*u ablauts correlating with
stress). Before resonants **i and **u became *e and *o.

> Speculation is not a license for free-association of ideas.

That's nice. Fortunately I'm always led to my theories because of
evidence rather than fantasy.

> ***
>
> > The only point you _half_-make is that agentive -*te[:]r is, itself, a
> > compound of -*t(o), which indicates habitude and by inference,

futurity

> > + -*e[:]r-, 'set in motion, initiate'.
> >
> > ***
>
> Why link *t(o) with habitude or futurity? These concepts don't seem to
> have anything to do with agentives. One can certainly be an agent of a
> one time, past, or present action. You're probably right about *er.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> If you are a 'worker', presumably, you will work tomorrow.

Otherwise, you

> simply have worked today.
>
> PIE has a device for indicating a one time action: -*s.

So after a mother stopped nursing what was she called?