[tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter

> 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.
>
> ***

Again, I need to say : I fully agree with you, on this pseudo-
'nursery' concept

> > 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.

I also think that we can split PIE suffix *-ter in *-t(o) + *-er

a. because *-er= and *-t(o)- exist as distinct PIE suffixes

b. because the meaning has sens:

<<X-to>> means "always-having,making,doing-X/always-full-of;plenty-
of-X"

<<X-er>> means "The Agent of X"

<<X-t(o)-er>> means "The Agent of always-doing-a-full X"

'Father' > *ph2-t-er => means: 'The Agent that always-performs-a-
full/a-complete protection'