From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42706
Date: 2006-01-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter
<snip>
> Sure, and that's how words like pa and ma keep getting reintroduced
> into languages. Not sure what your point was.
***
Patrick:
Why ma/pa?
Re-introduced??? Never lost in the nuclear family circle is more like it.
When do you think they originated?
***
<snip>
> Look at the words for family members.
> father *ph2ter
> mother *meh2ter
> daughter *dHugh2ter
> sister-in-law *yenh2ter
> brother *bHreh2ter
> mother's brother *meh2tro:us
>
> Every other word I've found has a completely different ending. Common
> to all of these is the element *h2ter (zero grade in the last
> example). Seems perverse not to assume that *h2 is part of the suffix.
<snip>
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > There never was such an animal as *nepoH2t.
>
> Pokorny and Beekes reconstruct *nepo:t. Seems like it could come from
> either *nepeh3t or *nepoHt. Unless of course the long vowel is simply
> a result of Szemerenyi lengthening.
***
Patrick:
I reconstruct at a later stage *nepo:-t-.
mah*, *pah, *nepoh-t-; the formant, -*h, lengthens and preserves the vowel
quality from Ablaut.
***
<snip>
> > There is no such thing as a -*yeH1 suffix.
> >
> > There is -*ye and -*a (-*h2).
>
> On second though this may simply be the -ye suffix (or rather an
> infixed version). PIE didn't like having two resonants in a row so the
> *w may have been lost with compensatory lengthening of the vowel.
***
Patrick:
What *w, you mean as in *yew-?
***
> > > 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:
It is *attested by being a reconstruction that conforms within rules to all
actually written or spoken forms. I will use validated if attested offends
you.
***
<snip>
> We'll the first fact is that *h2 is present in all those family words
> with the *ter suffix.
***
Patrick:
No, *H2 is not present; a formant which lengthens vowels is present, in the
case of *ma: and *pa: it is -*h.
***
To me this suggests that it's part of the
> suffix. The second fact is that high vowels don't appear before
> resonants.
How about an example or two?
So what happened to them (the the past you've admitted that
> a vowel system of /a e o/ was typologically unlikely)? Diphthings
> don't appear before resonants but do appear before non-resonants. Why
> would that be?
*te:u-mo-
The vowel system was for Nostratic not PIE.
***
<snip>
> That's nice. Fortunately I'm always led to my theories because of
> evidence rather than fantasy.
***
Patrick:
Well, then, provide some.
***
<snip>
> > ***
> > 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.
>
> So after a mother stopped nursing what was she called?
***
Patrick:
*ma:ter, 'nurser (honorary)'
***