Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter


> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:23:02 -0500, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> >At 2:01:19 PM on Monday, January 2, 2006, Miguel Carrasquer
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:15:47 +0000, Richard Wordingham
> >> <richard@...> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>>As for _daddy_ itself - might not that
> >>>derive from the /d/ of OE _fæder_ 'father'?
> >
> >> 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?
> >
>
> I was merely following the usual spelling convention for
> nursery words (da-da, ma-ma, pa-pa, etc.).
>
> My almost 13-month old daughter says /t'at'/ a lot
> (palatalized t's -- she got some upper teeth only recently).
> It doesn't mean "father" (but I'm not sure what it *does*
> mean).

***
Patrick:

When you tell her, that is what it will mean (within the family circle).

***