Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

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

> It is my fault that I wrote above "-tó".
>
> It obscures the fact that we must distinguish between *bhér-t and
> *bhr.-tó.

No problem. I knew what you meant.

> 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.

I agree that *to was originally a demonstrative. I actually
attribute it to an earlier form *ta, with monosyllabic lengthening
giving *ta: and later *to. However, when attached as a suffix, there
was no lengthening (or the vowel was shortened), giving -ta > -t& > -
t, the final form being what we see reconstructed. I'm not sure if
the nomen agentis was the first use thereof. It seems more
reasonable to me that it was first an enclitic demonstrative to
indicate a third-person (singular) subject, and later was employed as
a "participial" form, e.g.:

Xners déru bhert. = The man carries the wood.
Déru bhert xners dom héni heit. = The man who carries the wood goes
into the house.

Actually, come to think of it, you could be right. Why use "man"
when one could simply use ~"one" instead? Like this:

To déru bher. = That (man) carries the wood.
Déru bher to dom héni hei. = The one who carries the wood goes into
the house.

> > 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?

Indeed it does. I actually thought only the latter, *mr.tós, existed
in PIE. The question is, if *mórtos IS a back-formation, why does it
have a full grade? There are words with accented syllabic resonants
(though not many), like *wl.'kWos 'wolf'.

> 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').

That Greek word has to be from *dheh- 'put'. So, the analysis would
be something like *dheh to 'one who puts' (more likely something like
*'dah ta' at this stage) > *dheht-s 'putter' (not the golf term :b )

> *dhe:s, *dhetós (lengthened grade restored in Greek genitive).

>
>
>
> 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???

From Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, 1995 (p.
113):

"For most of the history of IE studies, PIE *nokWt- 'night' was known
only in the o-grade (as in Greek nux, Latin noct-, Old High German
naht) and possibly as a zero grade in Vedic aktá: 'Night' (the
goddess) if from *n.kWt-éH2-. However, Hittite ne-ku-(uz-)
zi /nekWtsi/ 'becomes evening', a root-inflected verb, and ne-ku-uz
(me-h.ur) /nekWts/ 'at eventide', reveal actual e-grades for this
root, and of great antiquity. Tocharian B nekci:ye 'in the evening'
reflects o-grade, but its meaning at least supports the theory that
real meaning of PIE *ne/okW-t- to have been 'evening', not 'night',
with the further implication that the root *nekW- originally meant
something like 'get dark'."

> 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'.

Touché.

- Rob