From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42672
Date: 2005-12-31
----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:24 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
> wrote:
> Well "p" (with variants in vocalism) is a nursery word so it's
> presence hardly needs explaining.
***
Patrick:
I am aware of no word "p", with or without variants in vocalism (just where
is the vowel there?) in PIE.
***
> But I'll go out on a limb here and
> trace it back to a PPIE **?ap, where *? is a non-phonemic glottal
> stop.
***
Patrick:
There has to be a "tree" for a limb to not be a fallen branch, and there is
none here.
There is no reason - whatsoever - for reconstructing pPIE *?ap if the word
we are reconstructing is *pa[:]-tér -> *p6-tér.
***
I would trace the suffix back to **h2tir. I don't know the
> ultimate origin of that but it's used not just for agents but also
> family relations.
***
Patrick:
You would be, so far as I know, the only person in the world to believe in a
*H2tir suffix for (p)PIE.
The suffix involved is clearly -*te[:]r, which is abundantly attested, and
recognized by everyone.
***
It may be a combination of two suffixes **h2t and
> **ir. The **h2t suffix may be present in *nepo:t, while the **ir
> suffix is found in *swesor. In any case according to my own sound law
> for PPIE we'd have **?aph2tir > *ph2ter.
***
Patrick:
There is no suffix *H2t in (p)PIE. There are suffixes -*a[:]
and -*t(o). -*a[:] is not involved here at all. When it is, it is dual
(better *ya) or feminine.
If *H2 (better *a[:]) were part of *nepo:t, it would be **nepa:t. I think
even the hardest-biting 'laryngealist' would assert that.
*swesor does not contain a suffix: it is a compound of *swe-, 'clan' + *sor,
'female'.
Your sound law is a law unto yourself only.
***
> The word for mother also contains a nursery word. In PPE it would be
> **me. With the above suffix this becomes *meh2ter.
***
Patrick:
The word *má[:]-ter is composed of *má[:]-, 'nurser' + agentive -*te[:]r;
surprisingly without the stress-accent.
Your analysis is a pure figment of your imagination; and has absolutely no
justification for anything which one actually finds attested in (p)PIE (or
even related languages).
The only point you _half_-make is that agentive -*te[:]r is, itself, a
compound of -*t(o), which indicates habitude and by inference, futurity
+ -*e[:]r-, 'set in motion, initiate'.
***