[tied] Re: *swesor

From: Richard Wordingham Message: 17879
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.

I.e. 'yes'.

> 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-.

In what sense do *px'ter- and *'maxter- rhyme? (' = stress)