6.1135, Disc: Kinship, Re: 1119

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-1135. Sun Aug 20 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  81
 
Subject: 6.1135, Disc: Kinship, Re: 1119
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: dseely at emunix.emich.edu (T. Daniel Seely)
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Sat, 19 Aug 1995 14:05:34 EDT
From:  Jefweb at aol.com
Subject:  Disc: Kinship terms, Re: 1119
 
2)
Date:  Sun, 20 Aug 1995 17:22:01 EDT
From:  sstraigh at bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu ("H. Stephen Straight (Binghamton Un
iversity/SUNY)")
Subject:  Re "Son"
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Sat, 19 Aug 1995 14:05:34 EDT
From:  Jefweb at aol.com
Subject:  Disc: Kinship terms, Re: 1119
 
 
   The asymmetry of 'son'  with some of the other kinship terms has been
pointed out: mother, father, sister, brother and daughter.
   The '-ster' (as found in Norse borrowed 'sister' ) seems to be the
feminine agentive, perhaps related to the others, but of a different order.
Iinterestingly, this at one-time feminine '-ster' is found in 'mister' -- but
by Norman times the prefix had lost its specificity for sex distinctiveness.
What is the '-er' as found in IE cognate languages, and seen in these kinship
terms? Help with this would be appreciated. The '-er' prefix in Germanic is
in many cases overtly agentive. 'Father' can be argued to have had a sense
related to occupational 'feeder' in some remote connection; and
chronologically closer, the feminine form of 'father' is given in the OED as
'foster', from the time when '-ster' was productively feminine.
   No doubt they worked it out, but I wonder how George Forman calls
specifically to one of  his sons, if he calls out 'son', how do they know
which of the five he's calling. Calling out by name isn't too helpful either
 -- he named each of his five sons 'George'! I'm sure at his house incoming
telephone calls have resulted in no small number of  family stories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Sun, 20 Aug 1995 17:22:01 EDT
From:  sstraigh at bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu ("H. Stephen Straight (Binghamton Un
iversity/SUNY)")
Subject:  Re "Son"
 
I don't understand Alexis Manaster Ramer's statement that
 
> dad and mom pattern with father and mother, while son is different (it
> is not used as a true vocative but is used as the usually-postposed
> "bonding" form), and brother is different still, since it is not used
> in either way.
 
To the extent that dad and mom pattern differently from son they go beyond
being vocatives to become virtual proper names, as in "I'm writing a
letter to Dad asking for money."  When used vocatively they're no
different from son.  And as for brother and sister, aren't bro and sis
sometimes used the same way as son and mom and dad?  On this account the
odd kin type is not son but rather daughter, which has no attested
vocative.  Might this difference reflect upon controversies that have
emerged in this discussion regarding the universality and/or antiquity of
gender differences?
 
H Stephen STRAIGHT, Anthro/Ling/Lgs Across the Curric, Binghamton U (SUNY)
Box 6000, Binghamton NY 13902-6000   Tel: 607-777-2824   Fax: 607-777-2889
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-1135.