On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:01:37 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, the absence of any traces of Ablaut
>> suggests a stative paradigm. The only one that fits is a
>> hysterodynamic long vowel stative. In my system:
>>
>> *ma:xtárz => *máh2te:r/-o:r
>> *ma:xtárm => *máh2trm.
>> *ma:xtarás => *máh2tr.s
>
>As the acrostatic paradigm is generally understood, it does not
>contain the full-grade suffix allomorph which is generalized in BSl.
>(-en-, -er-, -es-).
I don't understand your point. Of course BSl. has
generalized -er-. As Latv. mâte shows, it is also possible
to generalize the accent of dukte~. That has nothing to do
with whether the word for "mother" was originally
acrostatic.
There are four possibilities: the root had a long or a short
vowel, and it was either stressed or unstressed.
1) *máxtar-
2) *má:xtar-
3) *maxtár-
4) *ma:xtár-
(1) would have produced *máh2to:r, *máh2torm., *m&2téros
(2) would have produced *móh2to:r, *móh2trm., *máh2tros
(3) would have produced *m&2té:r, *m&2térm., *m&2trés
(4) would have produced *máh2to:r, *máh2trm., *máh2tr.s
Clearly, (4) comes closest to the attested IE forms. In
fact, the optimal solution is to depart from pre-PIE
*ma:xtír-:
*ma:xtír-z => *máh2te:r
*ma:xtír-m => *máh2trm.
*ma:xtir-ás => *máh2tr.s
The paradigm was then the same as that of "brother":
*bhra:xtír-z => *bhráh2te:r
*bhra:xtír-m => *bhráh2trm.
*bhra:xtir-ás => *bhráh2tr.s
This gives bratr(U) in Slavic, because it did not have a
counterpart next to it like ma:ti: and dukti:.
>I guess you will learn soon enough why the vocative is so prominent
>with the word 'mother'. Please accept a belated word of
>congratulations on your new status from me too.
Thanks.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...