Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
>
> > This begs the question, however: what was *mexté:r's earlier
> > (original?) form? Perhaps *méxtrs, based on the full grade of
> > the root?
>
> There is nothing circular about it (which I understand is
> what "begging the question" generally implies). The starting point
> would have been *me:H2-tér-s, which, via *méH2-tor-s, would have
> become *méH2to:r or even *máH2to:r, before the influence from
> *pH2té:r changed it to *meH2té:r or *maH2té:r.

Sorry, I only meant that the question above is to be presented.
Wrong choice of words on my part.

As Piotr said, the vocalism of *mexte:r is irregular given what we
know of IE phonology. I wonder if there was really no prestage for
*mexte:r, that it was a "formalization" of an existing "nursery
term" *mama or *amma.

> > What caused the "difference of accent"? That's the question I'm
> > asking here.
>
> I couldn't say for 'father' and 'mother' which appear relatively
> unmotivated to me. But the two types displayed by the agent nouns
> in *-té:r/*-tr-ós and *´-to:r/*´-tr.-s are unexpectedly clear. The
> paradigmatic and functional opposition has been established by Eva
> Tichy:
>
> The hysterodynamic type is situational: a *d&3-té:r, *d&3-tr-ós is
> one who gives now.
>
> The acrostatic type is iterative: a *dóH3-to:r, *dóH3-tr.-s is one
> who always gives.

It seems to me like the former is an adjectival form (coinciding
with its "temporary" nature) and the latter is a nominal form
(coinciding with its "permanent" nature).

> The "always" note was in my opinion expressed by lengthened grade
> of the root vowel:

What caused such lengthening?

> *de:H3-tér-s > *déH3-to:r-s > *dóH3-to:r;
> *de:H3-ter-ós > *déH3-tor-os > *dóH3-tr.-s .

So you believe that the nominative lengthening occurred before the
advent of zero grade?

- Rob