Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

>
> I agree with you here. The distinction between accented *-térs

and

> unaccented *-tors is not at issue. However, I posit that the zero-
> grade/full-grade distinction was created first, due to the

presence

> of a strong stress-accent. That would have given *-térs vs. *-
> tr.s. We don't seem to see that, however. []

Well, that is basically the reason why I do not regard that an
acceptable solution.

> All of that does not really address my question, however. The
> question was, where did the variants *-térs and *-tors come from

in

> the first place? That is, what caused the variants?

The difference of accent did. Assuming that the change of e to o
postdated the creation of zero-grade brings you nowhere as far as I
can see, while the opposite chronology really does the trick. I see
no motivation for your belief that the nominative lengthening was
later than the full development of zero-grade. Things can be made to
work if you tune the chronology in a constructive manner.

> Given what we
> know if IE, the suffix *-ter should have *always* drawn the accent
> to it, but that is not always the case.

I think it is the case. It is only unaccented where the root
vocalism is underlyingly long, i.e. in cases where the accent would
shift to the initial even in weak-case forms.

Jens