Re: Brothers-in-law
| From: | Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, May 4, 2006, 20:29 |
|---|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 00:13:59 -0400, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>
wrote:
> Brothers-in-law
> ------------------
>
> Here's something to ponder when you're next constructing a society, and
> a language to suit its needs.
For Proto-Indo-European, Beekes reconstructs the following familial terms:
father - pAte:r
mother - meAte:r
brother - bhreAte:r
sister - sueso:r
son - suHnu / suHiu
daughter - dhugAte:r
son's wife - snusos
husband - potis
husband's father - suek^uros
husband's mother - suek^ruH
husband's brother - deAiue:r
husband's sister - g^elAo:u
husband's brother's wife - ienAter
daughter's husband - g^emHo:r
mother's brother - meAtro:us
mother's father - AeuAos
marry - uedh (verb with husband=agent and wife=direct object)
widow - EuidhuA
head of household - demspotis
For the non-PIE-literate...
A = probably /?\/
E = probably /?/
O = probably /?\_w/ (not needed above)
The letter H stands where one of those three is needed, but it is not
clear which one.
The letters k^ and g^ are palatals and/or fricatives of some kind.
Apparently, there is no common PIE word for "wife" reconstructable, nor
for any wife-relative family terms. What this says about the structure and
nature of PIE families is left as an exercise for the reader...
Paul
Reply