Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

----- Original Message -----

From: Rob

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:50 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

--- 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").

It is my fault that I wrote above "-tó".

It obscures the fact that we must distinguish between *bhér-t and *bhr.-tó.

This *to was also a demonstrative. All three usages are complementary.

My best guess is that the demonstrative (originally nominal) use of *to was the earliest historically. But, that nomen agentis was the earliest use of *-to/ó as a suffix.

>   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".

It is also important to try to understand HOW it was related.

However, look at *mór-to-s, 'mortal', and *mr.-tó-s, 'dead'. By this measure, *pH2-tós would mean something like 'what is fed'.

*mór-to-s looks very much like a back-formation from *mr.-tó-s, 'dead', does it not?

For your first example, consider *-t (form found after vowels, liquids, nasals of *-to) in Greek thé:s (G. the:tós) where the meaning is clearly passive ('hired laborer').

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.

No evidence for *nekW-, 'darken'. Of course, it could simply be an adjective. If I had to guess, it would be related to *nek^-, 'killing' Cf. *nek^u-, 'corpse'. Depalatalization of *k^w to *kW???

>   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

Well, I grant your point on sophistication but I wish we had an Academie to prohibit ignorant people from writing ''it's" for 'of it'.

Patrick
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/