6.1195, Disc: Kinship terms, Re: 1170

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-1195. Fri Sep 1 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  46
 
Subject: 6.1195, Disc: Kinship terms, Re: 1170
 
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:  Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:55:24 EDT
From:  amr at CS.Wayne.EDU (Alexis Manaster Ramer)
Subject:  Kinship terms and etymology
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:55:24 EDT
From:  amr at CS.Wayne.EDU (Alexis Manaster Ramer)
Subject:  Kinship terms and etymology
 
Surely the point is simply that the English kinship terms
in -er are all of IE vintage, that we do not KNOW anything
for sure about the internal analysis of IE etyma like
*p at te:r (@=schwa) or *pHte:r (H=laryngeal) and that anything
that is said on the subject is pure speculation, and that
the OED is not a reliable authority on etymology (although
we hope that new edition now being prepared will be).
 
(On a side note, it appears that the recent work of the
Danish Indo-Europeanists Olsen and Rasmussen may offer a
way of deciding between the schwa and the laryngeal in
the 'father' word, in favor of the schwa, as I understand it.
Thus, at least we would be in a position to reject SOME of
the speculations.)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-1195.