Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:

> >There is also a root *ter- meaning "turn", correct? If so, do
> >you think that it and the *ter- "make" root have a common origin?
>
> Yes. Take a look in Pokorny and see if you do not agree.
> Remember, we are thinking of primitive manufacturing methods.

Right. So they are the same root in origin?

> >That is interesting. If you're correct, then the root nouns were
> >more original? Or, perhaps, a prestage of IE had lost (most)
> >basic distinctions between nouns and verbs? (Like English: 'run'
> >can be either a noun or a verb, depending on its syntactic usage.)
>
> Not "lost" but rather had yet to acquire them.

Okay. I agree that, at an "early" time, IE's ancestor was mostly or
entirely isolating in nature.

> >I see. The use of 'x' in my notation represents a voiceless
> >velar fricative /x/, which I believe was what caused (better,
> >what retained) the a-vocalism later on.
>
> I strongly agree with retention rather than phonological
> influence.

I agree. It seems more logical to propose that the Ablautend vowel
was originally /a/ which, when tonic, was raised and fronted to /e/;
when atonic, it was raised and backed (with rounding) to /o/. Only
in the presence of /x/ did it seem to be preserved as /a/.

> >Aha. So it's the same formant as is used in the deverbal
> >(collective?) adjectival formation in *-tó? I also think that
> >that form is related to the so-called 't-stems', e.g. Latin
> >sacerdo:s, sacerdo:tis < *sakro-do:-t-s < *sak(?)-r-o-dexW-t-.
> >Is that what you're saying, here, as well?
>
> Yes.

I thought so. However, how can that be reconciled with
the 'collective' (later passive) deverbal meaning in *-tó? If there
was an active participle in *-t, how could an adjectival form based
on it acquire passivity?

- Rob