[tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter

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

It's a nursery word. Across many languages we find word for father
that look like pa, ?ap, ?ab, apa, appa, etc.

> 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.

Agreed.

> The suffix involved is clearly -*te[:]r, which is abundantly

attested, and

> recognized by everyone.
>
> ***

It is curious, don't you think, that the vowel is almost always a:.
Two of the exceptions, *yenh2ter and *ph2ter, have a vocalized laryngeal.

> 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.

Not if it comes from *nepoh2t.

> *swesor does not contain a suffix: it is a compound of *swe-, 'clan'

+ *sor,

> 'female'.

I'm afraid I can't find any listing in Pokorny for *swe (though if
IIRC it's the reflexive pronoun) or *sor. You may be right about the
division though. *swe- does figure into at least 3 words for
relatives. Maybe *snusos does as well if there was an *-n- infix in
nouns, though I don't know if there are any other examples to support
this. Possibly (but much less likely) also *sye:(u)ro if it has a
*-ye(h1)- infix.

> Your sound law is a law unto yourself only.
>
> ***

My sound law is proposed to explain the lack of high vowels and
diphthongs before resonants and the frequency of *a there as well.

> > 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.

If *ma: means nurser then it doesn't need an agentive suffix since
it's already an agent. This is another nursery word that appear
cross-linguistically in forms like Vm, mV, Vm, and VmmV.

> 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).

PPIE isn't attested anywhere. Neither is PIE for that matter. Any
attempt at reconstructing PPIE is necessarily conjectural. My sound
law is simply an attempt to explain the distribution of vowels and
diphthongs in PIE.

> 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'.
>
> ***

Why link *t(o) with habitude or futurity? These concepts don't seem to
have anything to do with agentives. One can certainly be an agent of a
one time, past, or present action. You're probably right about *er.