--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@>
> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: etherman23
> >
> > The PIE word clearly comes from the nursery word *me or *ma with
the
> > famial suffix *h2ter.
> > =============
> > What should this suffix be H2ter
> > instead of -ter ?
>
> father: *ph2ter
> mother: *meh2ter
> brother: *bHreh2ter
> daughter: *dHugh2ter
> brother's wife: *yenh2ter
>
> Odd coincidence if *h2 is not part of the suffix.
>
A recent consideration of this is found in Clackson, James: Indo-
European Linguistics. An Introduction. New York (Cambridge University
Press) 2007, p.70.
The counter argument would be *p- and *me-, since no lexical roots
may consist of one consonant only. On the other hand the words
themselves of course conflict with the root structure being
disyllabic. The breaking up into root+suffix would also be favoured
by the fact that the kinship terms "take secondary suffixes, that is,
suffixes which can attach onto other suffixes or compound word forms,
such as the adjectival suffix *-yo-". "Primary suffixes.... are not
used..."
His conclusion is that one should analyze the kinship terms "as
lexemes, or lexibal bases, rather than roots, and accept that the
details of their formation lie too far back in prehistory to be
recovered"
I THINK it is a reasonable suggestion to call *p- and *me- nursery
terminology and exempt the from root structure limitations. What
languages would not violate structure in this context....
Jouppe