From: tgpedersen
Message: 17688
Date: 2003-01-16

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> Indo-European Language & Society
> 2:1 The Vocabulary of kinship
> "
> ... The position of the sister is defined by reference to a social
> unit, the <swe>, in the bosom of the 'Grossfamilie', where the
> masculine members have their place. Later on, at the apprpriate
> we shall study more closely the sense of <swe>.
> Unlike the word for "sister" we heave no means of analysing the
> for "brother", apart from isolating the final <-ter> itself, as in
> the case of "mother" and "father". But we can offer no explanation
> for the root *bHra:-. It is useless to connect it with the root
> of Lat. <fero:> because we know of no use of the forms of this
> which would lead to the sense of "brother". We are not in a
> to interpret *bHra:ter any more than we any more than we can *p&ter
> and *ma:ter
> "
> You should have read Austronesian, Émile!

He also has a chapter (3.4) on Greek <philos> (< *bHil-) which he
contrasts with the <swe-> "own" group. As to /i/, there's also an
unwelcome -i- German <reichen> (vs. Lat. <rex> etc; Möller mentions
an i-infix somewhere.