From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42713
Date: 2006-01-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter
<snip>
> See above. We've disagreed on whether we should construct *h or *h2.
> However we have agreed that something besides a zero phoneme should be
> reconstructed. You haven't produced a single counterexample that
> doesn't have either *a: or *&. The laryngeal theory explains both as
> coming from *h2. Either *h2 is part of the root or part of the suffix.
> If it was part of the root we'd expect forms with any vowel or none,
> *e being the most common. If it's part of the suffix we would expect
> to find only *a:, *&, and *o: as vowels (with *o: being least likely).
> The examples I've adduced all show *a: and *& (and the possible
> *nepo:t). You've not produced any counterexamples. The evidence is
> quite clear. The *h2ter theory agrees with the data, the *ter theory
> requires an additional coincidence of relatively rare phonemes *a: and
> *& being common here. Occam's Razor clearly favors my theory.
***
Patrick:
That is not our disagreement at all.
You want to reconstruct a coloring laryngeal, namely *H2.
For this two words, *ma and *pa, I want to reconstruct a suffix *h, that is,
itself a stative: producing *mah and *pah.
In discussions with Marius, which trust you also read, *h was added to *po
producing *poh, 'protector'; better, 'one who scares away dangerous
creatures'.
*nepo:t is probably this later root with the compounding element *ne- and
the agentive -*t:
*ne- (unknown meaning) + *poh + *t, 'protector of ...'
***