> Look who's talking! Who just identified acc. *-om with the gen.pl.
It would be nice if your accusatory outbursts were based on something
real. Saying the above shows that you haven't paid attention to my
actual viewpoint for years now. You are only showing your ignorance and
stubbornness. If you will listen to my REAL viewpoint on this that
I've had for a good year, perhaps you can then come up with more
effective rebuttals instead of punching thin air.
I never said that the accusative and genitive were actually related!!
I was saying that an IE speaker, surely not having a linguistics
education, would have no clue about the true etymology of the morphemes.
So as far as he was concerned, he would make a false association
between nom. *-s/acc.*-m and gen.sg *-os/gen.pl *-om. This established
a false perception of an *s/*m pattern in the IE speaker's mind.
It is this false analysis that yielded new thematic nouns from genitival
nouns where the final consonant was misconstrued as a strong case marker
(explaining why *yugom becomes *yugoi in the dative instead of a common
sense form like **yugomi). It then also yielded a new *s/*m pattern by
being extended to a newly formed class called "adjectives" with *-m in
the inanimate and *-s in the animate, which was all clearly based on
the nominal thematic opposition of animate *-o-s and inanimate *-o-m.
So Nominative Misanalysis is a necessary event of early Late IE on many
levels, explaining too wide a variety of grammatical features to be
just waved away by your dismissive mind.
Hopefully now that's clarified everything for you.
> 7. Anatolian's Motions-i, used often in nonneuter strong cases,
> must show *-ix, for what else could it be
The issue of /mekkis/ is bothering me. Something is not right and
I can no longer take the information you represent at face value.
The information in question is the mention of a gender set of
masc. *meg-o:x-s, fem. *meg-x-ix and neuter *meg-(x-)&. Is this
supposed to be the form of the adjective or a noun?
Let's get to the heart of it. What is the basis for *meg-o:x-s?
What is *-ox- supposed to be. Certainly not the transitive
which surfaces as *-ex-. Given that we see */megam bHorom/ planted
in one 1979 variant of Schleicher's Tale, forgive me if I should
ultimately expect neuter *megxom instead of *megx.
> The form *meg^-iH2 is an inherited lexicalized feminine form of
> a specific adjective.
Whoa, in another post, you said *meg-x-ix. Now you say *meg-ix. Make
up your mind. Are you making this up as you go? :)
> No, that's a total word salad.
Everything is a word salad to you. I think you might need food.
Do you want me to ship you some cream cheese on a bagel or somethin'?
> The form in *-om is the singular of a thematic collective in *-e-H2,
> not itself a collective. IE *pedo'm is a single 'footprint', not
> something collective.
How can "ground" be singulative? Greek /pedon/ means "ground" and in
Sanskrit, /padam/ can refer to a _place_. How can you count a ground?
> Word salad. Is the point that the gen.sg. is originally a nominative,
> and the gen.pl. is originally an accusative? What sense would that
> make? Or is the intended message that the gen.sg. ending in *-s was
> animate and the gen.pl. in *-m was inanimate?
Neither, you missed the point completely. Read the first paragraph
and come back.
> It must reflect something, and a reconstruction *mo-m, *ma-H2-m would
> be completely in line with quom/quam and tum/tam. The masc.acc.
> certainly has a companion in Skt. yam, Celtib. iom and the Old Irish
> nasalized relative sentences. Also English then matches tum. However,
> I do not really know a pronoun *me/o- very well (surely *mo- 'my' is
> off), although Nostraticists are generally less reserved on that point.
Yes, one could compare an element *mo- with Uralic *mi- if derived
from an MIE pronoun *mei/*ma "what" that theoretically would oppose
*kWei/*kWa "who". We can be reasonably sure that the MIE 1ps was *me
with *e and therefore can only have yielded IE *me, as we find.
That's beside the point, however. You simply establish that the
masculine accusative is used here throughout IE for these purposes. So
what? We were talking about the supposed feminine in **ma-x-m which you
can't seem to prove.