[tied] Re: *swesor

From: tgpedersen
Message: 17877
Date: 2003-01-21

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
> Torsten:
> >That explanation doesn't mesh well with your argument in[...]
> Ugh. Only because you're not paying attention.
> >[...]that the -xter ending you mention is "purely analogical" based
> >on *p-x-ter "father", and your analysis of "brother" which
provides an
> >extra, unneeded -x- for that word. What would the original -ter
> >ending of "father" be then? Nomen agentis?
> I'm going to explain this one more time. The word *pxter-, whose
> nominative is *pxte:r btw, is commonly analysed merely as *pax-
> (*pah2-) "to provide, nourish" and *-ter- [agent], hence "provider".
> That much is clear.
> The original mother word was probably *ama- which became *ma-xter-
> in order to rhyme with *pxter-. In other words, *-xter was added on
> the "mother" word by analogy with *pxter-. So now *pxter- was
> of by Indo-European speakers to be *p(a)- + *-xter-. The new family
> suffix *-xter- was thus born, whose origins are thereby analogical,
> and it later spread from the "mother" and "father" words to other
> related words like "brother". Since the "sister" word was already
> *swesor- with the female *-sor- suffix already attached, *-xter- was
> not added on.
> This has absolutely nothing to do with *-ter- used in *kWo-ter- and
> more related to the agent marker *-ter-.
> - gLeN
In other words
*px-ter, suffix -ter, original
*m-xter, suffix -xter, analogical with the previous
or is it not

I don't understand how on the basis of that you can claim the
existence of a suffix *-xter which "has absolutely nothing to do"
with the "either" suffix. Unless of course you will it to be so.