Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

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

From: Rob

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 9:22 AM

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

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

> > Xners déru bhert. = The man carries the wood.
> > Déru bhert xners dom héni heit. = The man who carries the wood 
> > goes into the house.
>
>
>   Here, I disagree categorically. I believe the pre-PIE vocalism 
> was *to. Pre-IE *ta, was, I think 'dew, drip, loosen' [cf. IE *ta:-
> ; PIE *taH2-].

Wouldn't the former have been *tax in (Pre-)IE?  Where do you think
the o-vocalism of *to came from?

 

In my opinion, two of the primary characteristics of pre-PIE were:

 

1) A three vowel system: *e, *a, *o; and

 

2) A tolerance of CV roots as opposed to the later almost exclusive requirement of PIE for CVC roots.

 

It is pure coincidence that the pronoun PIE *to (formerly a noun) has *o-vocalism. Pre-PIE *to -> PIE *té and *to.

 

> > 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.
>
>
>   And: *déru bher to???

What do you mean?  That would mean "wood-carrying one", I think.

Well, I thought OVS order might explain *bhert.

 

> > 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'.
>
>   One might also ask, was it earlier *'mr.-to-s?

That's possible.  Still, are there any reflexes in the daughter
languages that show *'mr.tos/mórtos instead of *mr.tós?

 

This is what Pokorny reconstructs. Take a look at the entry, and persuade yourself yea or nea.

 

> > 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).
>
>   My preference would be for *dheH1-, 'one who puts'. Cf. Greek  
> thetós, 'set, determined'.

How is that any different from my reconstruction?

 

First you have "*dheh to 'one who puts'" then "*dheht-s 'putter'", which, of course, is equivalent to 'one who puts'. I am simply expressing my preference for your *dheh-.

 

 

>   Between 'evening' and 'night' we have only different degrees of
> darkness. Clouds make the night "get dark"er. Also, if *ne/okWt- 
> was _not_ 'night', what was the word for it?

There may not have been separate words for "evening" and "night". 
Are there any parallels to this in other languages?

 

Well, we know 'dawn' and 'day' were distinguished.

 

>   For our ancestors, darkness was the time when the stars, which 
> were regarded as souls of the dead, became visible. Daytime ghosts
> are rare.

Did *all* of our ancestors at that time regard stars as such?

 

It seems pretty much universal, so, yes.

 

- Rob


Patrick


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/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/