--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> Does Pinault offer any explanation of *-u- and *-g- in this word
> [daughter]?
>
His footnote mentions "the noun *dHh1-u-g-, itself based on a stem
*dHeh1-u-"; I'm guessing he takes the -u- as in *neh2-u-s and the -g-
as in Greek harpax -agos or pterux -ugos.
I was going to say that if they really are from 'suckle' and 'bear'
there's no reason why *dHh1ugh2te:r should have ended up as 'female
child' and *bHreh2te:r as 'male child', but presumably this *dHeh1-u-s
provides the answer. I'm putting words in Pinault's mouth though...
>
> I see one problem with it [Pinault's *bHr-eh2-te:r]. Collectives in
> *-a-h2 are formed from thematic stems (the vowel is in fact thematic
> *-e-, coloured by the laryngeal). A root noun like *bHer- would form
> its collective without a vocalic extension (*bHer-h2-), while a
> thematic *bHr-o- doesn't strike me as an expected formation.
It does seem as ad hoc as *dHh1-u-g-, but I'm no expert. His point of
departure is "an adverb *bHreh2-tr"; perhaps he assumed a
collective/proto-feminine bHer-h2 *bHr-eh2- 'progeny, brood',
comparable to *gWen-h2 *gWn-eh2- ??
>As for the contrastive suffix, one possible objection is that it
> doesn't normally occur without the thematic vowel in adjectives and
> nouns. How to explain the fact that the *-(h2)ter- family terms are
> all consonantal stems?
>
Sorry, it was unclear without the rest of the article. The fact that
they're athematic, unlike the later -tero-, is the reason why he calls
it a "new" *-ter- suffix.
He posits that "from an adverb *X-ter, one could derive a de-locatival
noun *X-ter-, with animate gender, nom. sg. *X-ter-s > *X-te:r,
referring to something or somebody by the contrastive situation or
identity."
So, while the later pattern sees the adv. *enter give thematic
*enteros, Pinault's archaic *-ter- would give e.g. nom. *ente:r gen.
*entros. He compares -mon- and -men- alongside -mn-o-.
The first half of the article sets out why he thinks PIE 'star' also
contains this suffix. His other examples are Gk. hetaros 'comrade',
supposedly thematised from an earlier *sete:r, from an advb. *setr 'on
one's side', and Indo-Iranian stri:- 'woman', supposedly from *sr.-ter
'among the females [as opposed to males]' with dissimilation of
*srtr-ih2 to str-ih2 as in Ved. tisrah 'three' (fem.nom.pl.) etc.
For 'star', he rules out the presence of the agent suffix -ter- on the
basis of Jasanoff's "quite important observation that root nouns
normally do not have doublets (parallel action or agent nouns) derived
from the same root with any suffix"; since there is evidence for a
root noun *h2oh1s- *h2eh1s- ('hearth', 'ashes' etc), then 'star'
cannot be 'the burning thing'.
This was news to me - is that argument really decisive?
Also, the hypothetical base adverbs *dHh1ugh2ter, *h1inh2ter etc seem
remarkably specific, especially if there aren't any other traces of
the steps in the derivation: how often would these adverbs have come
up in conversation?
Anyway, that's my impression of his explanation for the points you
raised. I'm not really doing his article justice - anyone who's
interested should look it up.
All the best, Oliver Simkin