From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 39408
Date: 2005-07-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:26 AM
Subject: [tied] Daughter (was: Short and long vowels)
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> The short answer to your question is that the two sets have different
> antecedents,
>
> + -*tér, occupational suffix, for *(am)ma:tér and *pa(:)(t)-tér.
>
> + -*á:tR, fire(side), for bhrá:tR and dhughá:tR; mechanically, we have
> zero-grade of the first and third syllables with stress-accent on
the first
> syllable of the compounding element.
>
> I am sure that everyone will agree that there can be nothing but
educated
> guesses here.
Which immediately raises the sensible question of where the accent was
in the PIE word and the mocking question of why the second vowel is
missing or reduced grade, whence the conventional reconstruction
*dHugh2ter-. Greek _thugáte:r_ argues for *dHúgh2ter-, Sanskrit
_duhitár-_ argues for *dHugh2tér-.
Richard.
***
Patrick:
I am not sure I understand why Greek _thugáte:r_ would argue for PIE
*dhúgh2ter-.
I would think it would argue for PIE *dhug(h)-Há(H)tR-; I believe the Greek
form correctly reflects the original PIE position of the stress-accent.
I believe the Sankrit form is a result of their misanalysis of the compound,
assuming that -tér is the agentive suffix as in *pHtér and *ma:tér, they
would have regarded the "first element" as *dhug(h)aH- rather than
*dhug(h)-; as a consequence, zero-grading it to *dhug(h)H-would have been
justified.
***
Yahoo! Groups Links