Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰugh₂tḗr

This Proto-Indo-European entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence.

Perhaps from *dʰewgʰ- (“to produce”), originally meaning "the (potential) suckler, the one that draws milk" (compare Sanskrit दुहे (duhé) / दुग्धे (dugdhe)), +‎ *-tḗr, the agentive nominal suffix common to other r-stem kinship terms.

*dʰugh₂tḗr

1. daughter

There are two PIE reconstructions that can be obtained using the comparative method:

• *dʰugh₂ter- on the basis of: PIIr. *dʰugHtar- (Sanskrit duhitár-, PIr. *dʰugʰtar- > *dʰugdʰar- > *dugdar- > Gathic Avestan dug^ədar-), Ancient Greek thugátēr-, Tocharian A ckācer, Tocharian B tkācer
• *dʰukter- on the basis of: Iranian *duxθrī (> Old Persian *duhçī) and *duxtar- (> New Persian duxtar) due to the absence of Bartholomae’s Law, possibly Gaulish duxtir, Gothic dáuhtar, Oscan fu-utreí (dative singular), Armenian dustr, Hieroglyphic Luwian t(u)watra/i-, Lycian kbatra-, Slavic *dъkti > *dъťi, Lithuanian duktė̃

The latter form is secondary, occurring due to the deletion of the medial laryngeal in the sequence CHCC in the oblique stem, which was paradigmatically leveled in the daughters. E.g. genitive singular *dʰugh₂tr̥és > *dʰuktr̥és. The CHCC > CCC change was a synchronic PIE phonological rule.

According to Kloekhorst, hieroglyphic Luwian tu(w)atra/i- and Lycian kbatra- reflect Proto-Luwic *duetr-, further reflecting Proto-Anatolian *duegtr- < PIE full-grade stem *dʰwegh₂ter-. The original inflection was thus hysterodynamic bandi-type as described by Beekes (1995: 175): *CéC-R, *CC-éR-m, *CC-R-ós:

• Nominative singular: *dʰwégh₂-tr̥
• Accusative singular: *dʰugh₂-tér-m̥
• Genitive singular: *dʰugh₂-tr-ós

After the split of Anatolian branch from Proto-Indo-European, the other Indo-European languages underwent a common innovation, replacing the nominative stem *dʰwégh₂tr̥ by the accusative stem in the zero-grade *dʰúgh₂tēr which however retained the original accentuation and which further underlies the attested Greek forms *θύγατηρ (Homeric θύγατρα (thúgatra)) > θυγάτηρ (thugátēr) (θυγατέρα, θυγατρός). In the other Indo-European languages the accentuation of the accusative was later on transferred to the nominative form, yielding the oxytonic paradigm listed in the declension table, as retained in Sanskrit (duhitā́, duhitáram, duhitúḥ) and Lithuanian (duktė̃, dùkterį, dukterès).

• *diwós dʰugh₂tḗr (“divine daughter, h₂éwsōs”)
  • Proto-Hellenic: *diwós tʰúgatēr
    • Ancient Greek: Διὸς θυγάτηρ (Diòs thugátēr, “daughter of Zeus”, Homeric epithet of Eos)
  • Proto-Indo-Iranian: *diwás dʰúǰʰitā
    • Proto-Indo-Aryan: *diwás dúźʰitā
      • Vedic Sanskrit: दिवः दुहितर् (diváḥ dúhitar, “daughter of heaven”, epithet of Ushas)
        • ⇒ Vedic Sanskrit: दुहिता दिवः (duhitā́ diváḥ)
• *bʰh₂gós dʰugh₂tḗr (“divine daughter; Venus”)
  • Proto-Indo-Iranian: *bʰagás dʰugʰdʰā
    • Proto-Iranian: *bagáh dugdā
      • Middle Persian: (*bgdwht' /⁠*bayduxt⁠/, “daugher of Ahuramazda; Venus”)
        • Classical Persian: بیدخت (bayduxt, bīduxt, “Venus”)
        • Classical Persian: بغدخت (bağduxt, “Venus”) (via Northwestern Iranian)
• *sh₂wéliyosyo dʰugh₂tḗr (“daughter of the sun(-god), mythical night-sun”)
  • Proto-Hellenic: *hāwélioyyo tʰúgatēr
    • Ancient Greek: Ἠελίου θυγάτηρ (Ēelíou thugátēr, “daughter of Helios”, Homeric epithet of Circe)
  • Proto-Indo-Iranian:
    • Proto-Indo-Aryan: *sū́ryasya dúźʰitā
      • Vedic Sanskrit: सूर्यस्य दुहिता (sū́ryasya duhitā́, “daughter of Sūrya”)
        • ⇒ Vedic Sanskrit: सूरः दुहिता (sū́raḥ duhitā́), सूरे दुहिता (sū́re duhitā́)

• Proto-Anatolian:
  • Hittite: 𒁺𒌓𒋻𒊑𒄿𒀀𒋾𒄿𒀀𒀸 (duttariyatiyas, gen.sg.)
  • Luwian:

    Cuneiform script: 𒁺𒌓𒋻𒊑𒄿𒀀𒋾𒅖 (duttariyatis)

    Anatolian Hieroglyphs script: 𔐱𔕬𔗬𔑰𔖱 (^FILIAtú-wa-tar /⁠tuwatar⁠/, acc.sg.)

  • Lycian: 𐊋𐊂𐊀𐊗𐊕𐊀 (kbatra)
• Armenian:
  • Old Armenian: դուստր (dustr)
    • Armenian: դուստր (dustr)
• Proto-Balto-Slavic: *duktḗ (see there for further descendants)
• Proto-Celtic: *duxtīr (see there for further descendants)
• Proto-Germanic: *duhtēr (see there for further descendants)
• Proto-Hellenic: *tʰúgatēr (see there for further descendants)
• Proto-Indo-Iranian: *dʰúgʰHtā (see there for further descendants)
• Proto-Italic: *fuɣtēr
  • Oscan: 𐌚𐌖𐌕𐌝𐌓 (futír)
• Proto-Tocharian: *t(ŭ)kācēr (see there for further descendants)

• Hackstein, Olav (2002) “Uridg. *CH.CC > *C.CC”, in Historische Sprachforschung‎ (in German), volume 115, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, →ISSN, section 2.1, page 5 of 1–22
• Schmidt, Gernot (1973), Die iranischen Wörter für “Tochter” und “Vater” und die Reflexe des interkonsonantischen H (ə) in den idg. Sprachen. Kuhns’ Zeitschrift 87.36–83.
• Kloekhorst, Alwin (2011), The accentuation of the PIE word for ‘daughter’. In: Pronk T., Derksen R. (eds.) Accent Matters. Papers on Balto-Slavic Accentology. 235–243.
• Beekes, Robert S. P. (2011) Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edition, revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company