# Indo-European suffix "-ter / -ther" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 12, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353 "2008-11-12T15:28:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/1 "2008-11-12T15:28:32Z")
Mo_ther_, fa_ther_, bro_ther_, sis_ter_, daugh_ter_,… son? Can I rightly assume that something resembling “-ter” was an indo-european suffix designating a blood relationship? If so, what the heck happened to the word “son”? It doesn’t appear to have ever had the suffix (at least, not since PIE times), while each of the other words has always had it. I doubt that it’s a pre-PIE loan since familial terms tend to resist change… and the PIE speakers were patrilineal, so the word for “son” would have been of extra-special importance. Hmmm… could that be the very reason for the lack of a suffix? Maybe \*_sunu_ originally meant something like “heir”, and only during PIE times did it begin to specifically refer to one’s male child? If “-ter” is not a suffix, then why the similarity across so many related words? Anyway, I’m just wondering. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/2 "2008-11-12T15:32:35Z")
And if so, what were they doing with those hamsters? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/3 "2008-11-12T16:24:48Z")
Your theory is pretty sound; the Sanskrit forms _pitar_ (father) and _bhratar_ (brother) follow exactly the same pattern, as do the Latin _pater_ and _frater_. ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/4 "2008-11-12T16:26:05Z")
It turns out that “sister” may not deserve to be on the list, either… \*_suesor_ or \*_swesor_ didn’t have the “-ter” ending, either. It may have been altered to match “brother” or “daughter”. Still though–hamsters aside–there seems to be a pattern. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/5 "2008-11-12T16:28:35Z")
I had wondered if -(t)er was a more general suffix denoting a person, rather than a relation (as in killer, factor, doctor, baker, etc.) but it looks like the Sanskrit names for professions generally end in -i and none of them end in any sort of -XXr suffix. ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/6 "2008-11-12T16:50:39Z")
I’m probably wrong, but I think that’s called the Actor Suffix. Maybe it _is_ related to the “-(t)er” ending I mentioned, after all–what would a father or a brother have been in those times but a specific role with well-defined responsibilities and entitlements? Perhaps “-(t)er” became “-i” in Sanskrit through regular sound changes, just as Latin “p” became Germanic “f”? Still, that leaves “son” or “\*_sunu_” out in the cold. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/7 "2008-11-12T18:32:57Z")
> [@SoulFrost](#): > > I’m probably wrong, but I think that’s called the Actor Suffix. Maybe it is related to the “-(t)er” ending I mentioned, after all Apparently not. Fortson’s _Indo-European Language and Culture_ (pp. 111–112) notes that the Indo-European agent suffixes \*-ter and \*-tor have not been successfully related to the Indo-European kinship suffix \*-ter. (It’s on Google Books if you want to look it up.) The word “son” is different from the kinship terms with the standard \*-ter- ending because it comes from a separate IE word _su-nus_ (proto-Indo-European _swHnws_), meaning “born”. > [@Really Not](#): > > it looks like the Sanskrit names for professions generally end in -i and none of them end in any sort of -XXr suffix. Many agent nouns in Sanskrit do indeed end in _-tR_ (where “R” is the vocalic “r”), exactly as their cognates in other IE languages end in suffixes derived from \*-ter, \*-tor. Consider Sanskrit _kartR_, “doer, maker”, or _pAtR_, “drinker”. I’m not clear where you’re getting that statement about names of professions. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/8 "2008-11-12T18:41:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m not clear where you’re getting that statement about names of professions. Apparently erroneous Googlage. It’s a book result, so I can’t quote from it: > **[Urdu/Hindi: An Artificial Divide](https://books.google.com/books?id=zINY5Dpa_-kC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=sanskrit+vocabulary+names+of+professions&source=web&ots=-6uK-a9jcM&sig=5CrI_VMnNPXUCPoQwwDx85mjm1E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA122,M1)** > > In a blow against the British Empire, Khan suggests that London artificially divided India's Hindu and Muslim populations by splitting their one language in two, then burying the evidence in obscure scholarly works outside the public view. All... ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/9 "2008-11-12T19:03:04Z")
Thanks, I think I see where the misunderstanding arose. You’ve got a book there on Urdu/Hindi which is talking about the Sanskrit **roots** of many Urdu/Hindi words, but the words it actually quotes are mostly the Urdu/Hindi ones. Those “-i” endings aren’t Sanskrit agent suffixes. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/10 "2008-11-12T19:04:39Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Thanks, I think I see where the misunderstanding arose. You’ve got a book there on Urdu/Hindi which is talking about the Sanskrit **roots** of many Urdu/Hindi words, but the words it actually quotes are mostly the Urdu/Hindi ones. Those “-i” endings aren’t Sanskrit agent suffixes. :smack: I should have seen that. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/11 "2008-11-12T20:43:50Z")
I checked the _Hittite Etymological Dictionary_ by Jaan Puhvel and A Hittite Glossary by Edgar Howard Sturtevant (Hittite, in case you didn’t know, was an Indo-European language) and it seems the Hittites had some very finely developed kinship terms, at least as many as we have in English today. _Annaneka_, “sisters by the same mother” _Anniniyami_, “cousin” _Anna_ or _Anni_, “mother” _Antiyant_, “daughter’s husband” _Atta_, “father” _Attas Anas_, meant literally “father-mother”, really something like “parents” _Assiyanza hassas_, “beloved granddaughter” _Dam_, “wife, marriage” _Dumu_, “son” _Dumu Dumu_, “grandson” _Dumu-las_, “child” _Dumu Munus_, “daughter” _Dumu Hatti_, “Hittite” _Hassanna_ or _Hassatar_, “family” _Huhha_, “grandfather” _Hannis_, “grandmother” _Kaena_, “son-in-law”, “brother-in-law” _Kusa_, “woman, wife” _Šeš_, “brother” You can see a resemblance between Hittite _huhha_ and Armenian _hav_, Latin _avus_, and even Icelandic _afi_, all meaning “grandfather”. _Atta_, “father”, is even more familiar to Greeks, Romans, and Goths, all of whom said _atta_. _Anna/anni_ can be compared to Latin _anna_, “foster-mother”. As for _dumu_, I’m not sure, perhaps it’s a variant of Proto-Indo-European \*_sunu_. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/12 "2008-11-12T23:18:08Z")
This is a very interesting subject and one which I’ve researched to some extent. In addition to the kinship terms, we see the adverbial ending “ter” being appended to Latin prepositions to form pairs such as prae/praeter, post/poster(us), alius/alter, in/inter, ex/exter, etc. Latin also gives us the lovely example of mater (mother) - matertera (aunt). Ter also shows up in the English word “under” (cognate with Latin inter), and in the English names of the Irish provinces Leinster, Munster and Ulster. In Irish, “thar” on its own means “beyond”, Latin has trans, and this is described by White as “Akin to Sanscrit root TAR or TRI”. Finally, entering the realm of speculation and fancy, there is the number three itself, whose name - remarkably consistent across the IE family - may suggest that it was the number “beyond” an earlier simple one-two counting system. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/13 "2008-11-12T23:21:34Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > _Anna/anni_ can be compared to Latin _anna_, “foster-mother” You’ll also find it in Hungarian, as _anya_, meaning _mother_. Hungarian _father_ is _apa_, which seems like it could be related to _atta_. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/14 "2008-11-12T23:36:46Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > You’ll also find it in Hungarian, as _anya_, meaning _mother_. Hungarian _father_ is _apa_, which seems like it could be related to _atta_. Hungarian is Uralic, though, not Indo-European. Some linguists support the Nostratic theory, which would group the IE, Uralic, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, and Dravidian (among some others) languages into one big super-group, but it is by no means a done deal. Complicating the matter is that a language might borrow a great deal of vocabulary from a neighboring, unrelated language (such as Persian borrowings from Arabic) but that doesn’t make the two languages genetically related in the linguistic sense. It’s a tricky business, ascertaining how and which languages are related to each other. _Anna_ and _anya_ and _atta_ and _apa_ sound alike, but look at the other Hungarian kinship terms: _báty_ does not resemble _šeš_ in the least, nor does _lány_ or _fiú_ resemble _dumu_ or _kusa_. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/15 "2008-11-13T00:20:45Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > Ter also shows up in the English word “under” (cognate with Latin inter), and in the English names of the Irish provinces Leinster, Munster and Ulster. Cite for the Irish provinces? The suffix has to be _-ster_ because the Irish is _Laigin_, _Mumain_ (dat.), and _Ulaid_, by Middle Irish pronounced _lan_, _mun_ and _ul_, each of them palatalized. I had always heard that the termination was a Norse word. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/16 "2008-11-13T00:20:56Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > _Anna_ and _anya_ and _atta_ and _apa_ sound alike, but look at the other Hungarian kinship terms: _báty_ does not resemble _šeš_ in the least, nor does _lány_ or _fiú_ resemble _dumu_ or _kusa_. True. I assumed the words are loan words from other languages, as Hungarian seems to be a bit of a mutt of a language. Like the terms for days of the week: Wednesday through Saturday seem to come to the language via Slavic (Indo-European). Sunday through Tuesday seem to be Finno-Ugric words. I didn’t mean to say they are genetically related–just that [seemingly] cognates of those terms currently exist in a particular living language. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/17 "2008-11-13T00:52:53Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > True. I assumed the words are loan words from other languages, as Hungarian seems to be a bit of a mutt of a language. Like the terms for days of the week: Wednesday through Saturday seem to come to the language via Slavic (Indo-European). Sunday through Tuesday seem to be Finno-Ugric words. I didn’t mean to say they are genetically related–just that [seemingly] cognates of those terms currently exist in a particular living language. A lot closer than Hungarian’s _anya_ and _apa_ are Turkish’s _anne_ (pronounced “ah-neh”) and _ata_, which mean, you guessed it, “mother” and “father”. I don’t know if these are loan words or they just happen to have identical words as those of the ancient Hittites. Here’s some kinship terminology from another cool, obscure old IE language, Old Church Slavonic (I’m transliterating myself, so bear with me): _Bratru_, “brother” _Dushter_, “daughter” _Dedu_, “grandfather” _Mati_, “mother” _Mozhi_, “husband” _Ochi_, “uncle” _Otitsu_, “father” _Sestra_, “sister” _Zhena_, “wife” This is the best I could transliterate it, using English letters. Slavonic had some odd letters that are no longer used in modern-day Slavic languages. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/18 "2008-11-13T01:23:13Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > A lot closer than Hungarian’s _anya_ and _apa_ are Turkish’s _anne_ (pronounced “ah-neh”) and _ata_, which mean, you guessed it, “mother” and “father”. I don’t know if these are loan words or they just happen to have identical words as those of the ancient Hittites. It would make sense to me if it came to Hungarian via Turkish. > [@](#): > > Here’s some kinship terminology from another cool, obscure old IE language, Old Church Slavonic (I’m transliterating myself, so bear with me): > > _Bratru_, “brother” > _Dushter_, “daughter” > _Dedu_, “grandfather” > _Mati_, “mother” > _Mozhi_, “husband” > _Ochi_, “uncle” > _Otitsu_, “father” > _Sestra_, “sister” > _Zhena_, “wife” > > This is the best I could transliterate it, using English letters. Slavonic had some odd letters that are no longer used in modern-day Slavic languages. Most of those look very similar to words in current-day Slavic languages. Interesting to see. ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/19 "2008-11-13T01:36:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Apparently not. Fortson’s _Indo-European Language and Culture_ (pp. 111–112) notes that the Indo-European agent suffixes \*-ter and \*-tor have not been successfully related to the Indo-European kinship suffix \*-ter. (It’s on Google Books if you want to look it up.) > > The word “son” is different from the kinship terms with the standard \*-ter- ending because it comes from a separate IE word _su-nus_ (proto-Indo-European _swHnws_), meaning “born”. > Many agent nouns in Sanskrit do indeed end in _-tR_ (where “R” is the vocalic “r”), exactly as their cognates in other IE languages end in suffixes derived from \*-ter, \*-tor. Consider Sanskrit _kartR_, “doer, maker”, or _pAtR_, “drinker”. I’m not clear where you’re getting that statement about names of professions. Yes, thank you! I will read Fortson immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Panurge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@Panurge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Panurge)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353/20 "2008-11-13T12:01:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Apparently not. Fortson’s _Indo-European Language and Culture_ (pp. 111–112) notes that the Indo-European agent suffixes \*-ter and \*-tor have not been successfully related to the Indo-European kinship suffix \*-ter. (It’s on Google Books if you want to look it up.) > > The word “son” is different from the kinship terms with the standard \*-ter- ending because it comes from a separate IE word _su-nus_ (proto-Indo-European _swHnws_), meaning “born”. > Many agent nouns in Sanskrit do indeed end in _-tR_ (where “R” is the vocalic “r”), exactly as their cognates in other IE languages end in suffixes derived from \*-ter, \*-tor. Consider Sanskrit _kartR_, “doer, maker”, or _pAtR_, “drinker”. I’m not clear where you’re getting that statement about names of professions. According to MacDonell’s _A Vedic Grammar for Students_ Sanskrit words with the _tṛ_-suffix fall in two different classes. The smaller one konsists of the kinship terms already mentioned several times (_pitṛ_, _bhrātṛ_, etc.). The second, and much larger, class uses _-tṛ_ as an agent suffix and is clearly related to similar Indo-European endings, like the Latin _-tor_. Interestingly none of the ca. 150 words using the _-tṛ_ agent suffix are feminine, and only a few are neuter. Point is: Apparently the agent suffix is different from the kinship suffix in some way; MacDonnell is not clear about the exact nature of the difference - perhaps someone with more Indo-European expertise can clarify whether they are two different things altogether. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indo-european-suffix-ter-ther/472353.md?page=2)