Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

From: Rob
Message: 36109
Date: 2005-02-02

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

> > I also forgot to mention something. What do you (and others)
> >think of the possibility that the 3sg verbal inflection is in fact
> >an agent-noun formation of this type? That is, the *-t 3sg suffix
> >is the same as the *-t nomen agentis suffix?
> >
> > - Rob
>
> I think that historically, the -tó of the 3sg present and of the
> nomen agentis, are the same.
>
> I also think that a nomen agentis is the primary usage.

So, then, the origin of the 3sg verb ending is not a demonstrative,
as some people think, but rather a nomen agentis? For example,
*bhert originally meant "he is a carrier"?

Then again, the t-extension for the 3sg ending may have been
original, and the "t-participle" may have been a nominalized form
(e.g. *bhert word-finally would mean "he carries" but anywhere else
would mean "he *who* carries" > "carrier").

> But let us look at pH2-tó. In my view, this meant
> primarily 'feeder' (nomen agentis). And, if precedent had been
> followed, 'food' would be pH2-t-yé -> pH2-tí, 'that which is
> related to a feeder' (abstract noun).

Yes, I agree that the abstract noun formation in -ti is related.
However, it seems more likely to me that the form for "feeder" was
*pex-t-s, from which *px-t-ós "[something] from the feeder"
> "[something] fed".

This brings up an interesting question. The word for "night",
*nokWts, seems to be one of these t-participles. Perhaps the
original meaning was "darkener", from a supposed root
*nekW "darken". However, this does not explain the o-vocalism.

> Is 'food' a collective? In some contexts it is, in others not.
>
> But also, a 'feeder' can be 'food'. What 'feeds' is 'food'.
> Who 'feeds' is 'feeder'.
>
> As we know, there is a lot of overlap in the meanings of these
> two forms.

This is very true.

> Jens, are you possibly asking for a sophistication and
> consistency that was not there in the earliest language?

To be fair, was the human mind any less sophisticated 6,000 years ago?

- Rob