From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42690
Date: 2006-01-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: [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.
***
Patrick:
The very concept of nursery words is infantile.
An infant does _not_ assign meanings to words.
An infant makes random sounds, and adults choose to reinforce some
associations and discourage others in exactly the same way that _any_
vocabulary item is taught.
***
<snip>
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.
***
Patrick:
Could you explain what you asserting here?
***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
There never was such an animal as *nepoH2t.
***
<snip>
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.
***
Patrick:
Pokorny p. 882 for *swe-; p. 911 for *sor-.
There is no such thing as a -*yeH1 suffix.
There is -*ye and -*a (-*h2).
***
<snip>
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.
***
Patrick:
It should not but it did. The original significance was lost over time; and
there was the pattern of *p6tér and other family members. PIE is bulging
with theoretical redundancy.
***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
Base your conjectures on the facts facts we do have then.
Speculation is not a license for free-association of ideas.
***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
If you are a 'worker', presumably, you will work tomorrow. Otherwise, you
simply have worked today.
PIE has a device for indicating a one time action: -*s.
***