Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Etymology: Oldest record of pater[edit]

Please correct me if I am wrong but we have a fact here which it should be in the etymology section. The fact is that the oldest attested record for father is the Mycenaean Greek pa-te' πατήρ (pater). Why then does a hypothesis ("Proto-Germanic *fader, Proto-Indo-European *p@ter") takes the place of the fact? Kassios 12:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Because Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European is not a hypothesis but a solidly established theory (essentially a fact, just like dinosaurs), and Greek is not a direct ancestor of English father (nor of Latin pater), so if anything, Mycenaean Greek is the oldest attestation of the Indo-European etymon going back to Proto-Indo-European *ph₂tḗr. Also, the Vedic attestation (even if indirect) at least rivals the Greek one in age. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RfD discussion for possessive form (father’s)[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Any reason why this particular possessive is kept? --Jackofclubs 13:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - this use of the apostrophe is confusing for us johnny-foreigners. Παρατηρητής 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No reason to keep that a johnny-foreigner-me can see. --Duncan 14:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete; neither the possessive nor the contraction is a special case. Equinox 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete and modify adjacent words' {{rank}} calls to refer to father{{!}}father's rather than to father's. (That will work, right?)—msh210 19:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Probable Delete, but can anyone explain why we accept simple plurals (e.g. fathers) but not simple possessives? SemperBlotto 08:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
See the pertinent section of the CFI, as well as the explanation therefor. The technical argument is that the possessive “word chunks” (<’s> usually, but <’> after some terminal esses (usually sounded as [z])) are not suffixes but rather enclitics, added to mark the possessive of an entire noun phrase, not just a single word in it, and so, therefore, there is no “word” to speak of when we speak of the coöccurrence of father + ’s as ʀfather’s.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say because a plural is a "word in itself" (lexeme or something?) and may be irregular (children, cacti) or non-existent (arguably rice), whereas the possessive suffix is pretty much standard and can be tacked onto anything. For me it's a similar argument to that against the French s'en, m'a, etc. we had a while ago (though few enough agreed with me on that!). Equinox 11:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. DAVilla 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

British English audio file[edit]

Can someone upload a clearer version of the British English audio file? Tharthan (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC) BUMP Tharthan (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)