Re: Etymology of 'daughter' (was: Rg Veda Older than Sanskrit)

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

>
> --- 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...

This is interesting,

But I will not say that *dHeh1-u-s is the real answer here
BUT teh answer could be a suffix -u-g-

For a long time I suspected a suffix -u/o-g-, with a meaning:
an Y defines as X-o/u-g- means that "the Y is a container for X"


*dHh1-ugeh2 "container /-ug(e)h2-/ for the 'to suck' action"

[ I don't use the words below as an argumentation here but only for
similarity:
/uy&/ 'water' > /uyag&/ 'container for water'
/desag&/ 'bag, sack' (the fact that 'a bag' is a container is above
any doubt) ]

Maybe additional example in -og&/-ug& can clarify if the 'container'
assumption is true.

Marius