[tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >>> No, it's from da-da.
> >>
> >> Why not from <dad>? Or would you simply allow <dad> as a
> >> possible intermediate step, with both da-da > daddy and
> >> da-da > dad > daddy?
> >
> > My point was why /d/? My idea was that something like /dada/ might be
> > an acceptable approximation to _fæder_, whereas /tata/ has nothing
> > going for it.
> >
> > Richard.
>
> interesting that for other languages, mostly unknown, people are ready
> to see immediate an disasimilation there where something "looks-like".
> thus, from "faeder" to "daeder" and from here to "dad" with diminutive
> "dady" appears a very short way.

We're talking of highly degenerate language here! And its _fæder_ >
*dada in one step - /r/ is a difficult sound for an infant.
Unfortunately, it isn't attested before the 16th century, though the
Scottish forms (also 16th century) _dade_, _daid_ and _dadie_, suggest
to me that it had a long history behind it. Just to confuse matters,
_dad(d)a_ doesn't appear until the 17th century.

Some people want to derive it from Welsh _tad_ 'father' (or, I
suppose, the even better fit of _dy dad_ 'your father'.) The earliest
attested English for 'mummy' also appears in the 16th century, and is
_mam(m(a))_, and likewises matches the Welsh _mam_ 'mother'. DNA
studies apparently indicate that the English are predominantly
British, though the rural Welsh are far from free of English blood.

Richard.