From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 10936
Date: 2001-11-03
>>So the irregularity was just created recently out of nothing?No. Analogy *eliminates* irregularities.
>
>The irregularity of *pxte:r and *maxte:r was not created out of
>nothing. It was created by analogy.
>These words are not isolates.An old story, which I don't believe.
>They are part of a larger system of kinship terminology. I'm
>stating that *pxte:r, being derived from *pax- "feed, nourish"...
>As *pxte:r replaced whatever word came before itYou forgot to explain the accent, which is all I wanted know.
>for "father", it was apparently misanalysed as being a combination
>of a nursery term for father, perhaps **(a)pa-, plus some strange
>ending *-xte:r. Hence, by simple analogy...
>
> MidIE Late IE
> *ame **(a)ma- + *xte:r => *maxte:r
> *beraxWe **bhrax- + *xte:r => *bhraxte:r
> *deuk:e **dhug- + *xte:r => *dhugxte:r
>>Let me see if I have this straight: *k^wó:n dropped a final vowel,That doesn't explain anything. Which vowels dropped and which didn't?
>>*h3ówei didn't. But why? If you don't give the why, nothing is
>>explained!
>
>I clearly gave the explanation: The careful replacement of final
>vowels efficiently regularizes the otherwise irregular accent
>system of IndoEuropean.
>Don't forget the accent differencesI think *h1sénti is more correct. Yes, we all know that the accent
>between singular and plural in nonthematic verbs as well...
>Without the PA rule, the odd placement of accent is entirely
>inexplicable:
>
> *ésti/*?sónti < MIE *es/*esáne