[tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter

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

>
> > At 6:31:08 PM on Sunday, January 1, 2006, Patrick Ryan
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> >
> > >>> Utter ridiculous!
> >
> > >>> Who re-creates them?
> >
> > >> Parental interpretation and reinforcement combining with
> > >> the normal sequence of development of infant babbling.
> >
> > > Precisely. Just like normal language training!
> >
> > No, it isn't. Words like <mouse> and <foot> obviously
> > cannot be attributed to parental interpretation of infant
> > babbling.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Interpretation? What do you think the infant intends to convey?
>
> ***

The infant isn't trying to convey anything. It's babbling. Hence
Brian's use of the word babbling. When someone is making an ink blot
for a Rohrshach test, what information is he tring to convey? None.
But that doesn't stop people from interpreting the ink blots.

>
> > > And how old are these parentally sanctioned words?
> >
> > Words like <pop>, <pops>, <pappy>, <baba>, <da>, <dad(dy)>,
> > <tad>, <tata>, <mom(my)>, <mum(my)>, <ma(ma)>, <mama>, etc.?
> > Who knows? They're continually being re-created. I see
> > that you've asked Etherman why this is the case; the answer
> > is implicit in the mechanism that I gave in my previous
> > post, still visible at the top of this one.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Brian
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Why should they need to be recreated? They are never lost?
>
> ***

They're lost in the sense that sound changes can change them. Like
*ph2ter becoming Germanic father. However, since each new baby starts
using the word they're never _really_ lost.