Me:
> I mean *t-ex-, not *t-e-x-, where *-ex is the feminine ending,
> sorry. That makes a teensy bit of difference.
>
> To be clear, the feminine ending when it was created was not a
> feminine ending; it was a human collective ending.
Jens, warping the context of the above quote:
> That is a theory, perhaps a true one, but still only a theory as
> long as it has not been proved. It is not solved by a simple decree.
Yes, it is a theory, like yours which you "supported" by claiming
that the mere existence of *tex- somehow proves that your "decree"
is the correct one. Well, my theory shows that this is untrue.
Since my above "decree" shows that we can produce *tex- long AFTER
the original process that created e/o alternation in thematic
vowels, simply by affixing *-ex to a stem perceived to be *t- on the
basis of other case forms, the entire basis of your theory is
in reality non-existent.
Simple: *tex- does NOT conclusively show that we must accept that
IE had an original three-way gender system. The absence of
feminine gender in Anatolian proves the opposite and it is
this two-gender system that happens to be the consensus
for IE.
So unless you have other "evidence" to support your claim, I would
suggest discontinuing your own decrees which have no basis.
> There is no underlying vowel in the colletive/feminine morpheme *-
> H2. The form is a strong case, and there is no full-grade variant.
>
> Therefore, *táH2 must be analysed as *té-H2.
A new decree?
Say wha? If we don't have *-ex, where are later feminines showing
*-a: in various IE branches coming from?? Rather, IE shows both
*-x and *-ex, just as we see both *-r and *-or-, *-n and *-on-, etc.
If you claim that *-ex somehow doesn't exist, you employ yourself
full-time in a futile effort to erase all instances of this well
documented feminine ending. For what purpose other than to come
up with some crazy counter to an inevitable conclusion?
= gLeN