From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52177
Date: 2008-02-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Nubia (WAS- Re: Limitations of the
comparative method)
<snip>
> ============
> Interesting question.
> Actually a reduplicated letter is a way of indicating glottal stop,
> so
> a probably better reconstruction that mawa.-t
> is *according to me* ma?wa.-t "mother"
> ?w being a single phoneme.
> So coptic maau is to be read [ma?w]
> I think the root is the same as in :
> - PIE maH2ter "mother",
***
If Coptic had a glottal stop, which I doubt even though this is current
received wisdom,
I believe they would have invented or borrowed a sign from LE Demotic for
it.
Greek had e:ta and o:mega but no sign for a long [a]; doubling it would have
been a common alternative to diacriticals.
I have no problem with *ma?aw as a basis for <maau> if we allow that
the -a?a- had become â, particularly in view of O&S's <ma?tin>, 'wife,
woman'.
"according to" you is wrong. There is no glottalized [w] in any language of
the area.
Wrong on *maH-ter-. This is Nostratic *ma?(a)-.
A longer form as in Egyptian may exist in Germanic: OHG <muoma>, 'aunt'
(*ma:u-?).
Patrick
***
> - Egyptian m_s "to beget, to bear"
> The root should be m_?-
> either suffixed by -w or -t.
> The change *t > s in Egyptian is regular.
> *p t k > f s x.
> Now,
> an objection to Egyptian m_s being *m_?_s
> is that ? is never written.
> But,
> In Coptic, Moses can be written Môu-ses
> Reduplicated vowel again !!
> hence [mo:?ses]
> Glottal stop is there.
>
> If we go back to maH2ter,
> I suppose that the root is in fact m_H2t-
> and the cut maH2-ter is false.
> As far as I am concerned I consider
> maH2t-er to be a participle of verb m_H2-t
> the bearing one > the mother.
> and -r/-n alternation is
> maH2t-er = nominative
> maH2t-en = oblique cases
>
> Arnaud
> =================