Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

>From: "Rob" <magwich78@...>
>Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
>wrote:
>
> > It is my fault that I wrote above "-t�".
> >
> > It obscures the fact that we must distinguish between *bh�r-t and
> > *bhr.-t�.
>
>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/� 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 d�ru bhert. = The man carries the wood.
>D�ru bhert xners dom h�ni 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 d�ru bher. = That (man) carries the wood.

This usage reminds me (greatly) of the Hittite particles that often open
sentences, such as nu- &c. Are we seeing an ancient tendency here?

>D�ru bher to dom h�ni 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-�s "[something] from the feeder"
> > > "[something] fed".
> >
> >
> > It is also important to try to understand HOW it was related.
> >
> > However, look at *m�r-to-s, 'mortal', and *mr.-t�-s, 'dead'. By
> > this measure, *pH2-t�s would mean something like 'what is fed'.
> >
> > *m�r-to-s looks very much like a back-formation from *mr.-t�-
> > s, 'dead', does it not?
>
>Indeed it does. I actually thought only the latter, *mr.t�s, existed
>in PIE. The question is, if *m�rtos 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 th�:s (G. the:t�s) 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, *dhet�s (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.

Perhaps, but another possibility is a (very old?) *ne-kweit-s (not
shining/white), in contrast to the light (shining) day. I am not sure this
explains the -o vocalism either, unless we assume *-ei- > *-oi- > *-o:-
which seems to be possible given the ancientness of the root (and I believe
has been suggested in a Caraculimbro (sp?) paper on PIE.

The evidence from the Hittite (nekuts) is rather suspect, possibly being
from nekuti. Is there any Luwian (or some other dialect) where *-ti didn't
give *-ts ? I would dearly love to know (from actual text) that the final
-ts is really, truly < *-tos

Can anyone help?

> >
> > 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 akt�: 'Night' (the
>goddess) if from *n.kWt-�H2-. 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'.
>
>Touch�.
>
>- Rob
>
>
>