Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> The Greek evidence is in itself contradictory, since mé:te:r does
> not agree with me:téra, me:trós, me:trí. So, since the latter forms
> agree perfectly with the oxytone paradigm of Vedic and Germanic,
> that structure would seem to deserve a status of preference,
> provided the barytone form of the nom. and voc. can be accounted
> for. The IE recessive accent of the vocative offers a fine
> explanation. This leaves the non-barytone forms of Greek and the
> forms of Vedic and Germanic as in all probability authentic
> reflexes of the PIE form of the lexeme. Due to the existence of
> Hirt's law the Balto-Slavic forms could reflect any preform and so
> are not diagnostic. Then, with the weight of the preference for IE
> oxytonesis arrived at, the BSl. forms would in fact seem to reflect
> the working of Hirt's law.

Okay, let's see here:

Evidence for oxytonesis: Greek nom. sg. *mé:te:r, hypoethical Vedic
and Germanic levelling based on influence from *paté:r.

Evidence for barytonesis: Vedic *ma:tá: and Germanic, hypothetical
Greek oxytone nom. sg. based on influence from voc. sg. *mê:te:r.

It seems to me that paté:r would have more influence. Words with
similar meanings tend to assume similar forms for easier
classification and memorization, I think.

> There is no serious evidence supporting IE barytonesis in 'mother'.
> So, if the vowel grade would make one assume that, any influence
> from 'father' on the accent would rather seem to have occurred
> before the dissolution of PIE than after it.

Actually, I think that I agree with you, here. It's certainly
possible that the form was established as *mexté:r before IE's
dissolution. That suggests to me that *paté:r's influence was felt
pre-breakup and was not changed in Vedic and Germanic.

This begs the question, however: what was *mexté:r's earlier
(original?) form? Perhaps *méxtrs, based on the full grade of the
root?

- Rob