--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:
> Thus, we can conclude that it's at least a little bit hasty to
reconstruct
> PIE *meh2te:r with the end stress on the basis of Vedic ma:tá: and
OHG
> muoter as is often done.
It's been sitting there for a while now, but I just find time to say
what I think is important: I think it is even more hasty to choose
an option that goes against the evidence. The reconstruction of *-
té:r at least accounts for those parts of the evidence that cannot
easily be explained as secondary. The initial accent of Lith. mó:te:
and Slav. *ma´´ti can be explained by Hirt's Law, and the initial
accent of the Greek nominative mé:te:r, which disagrees with weak-
case forms like gen. me:trós anyway, can be analogical on the
vocative mê:ter, but it is hard to see what would have caused a
secondary change from radical to suffixal accent to appear in both
Vedic and Germanic.
Jens