Re: [tied] The Rise of Feminines (aka Where's Waldo)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>
> Jens:
> > Look who's talking! Who just identified acc. *-om with the

gen.pl.

> > *-o::m?
>
> 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.

The two do not have the same form, so it clarifies nothing, except
perhaps something void of interest associated with "ignorance and
stubbornness".

>
> Jens:
> > 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?

It's supposed to be the nominative singular of the three genders of
the adjective.

> 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 Greek form is mégas, the Vedic nominative is mahá:n, and its
accusative is maháam with a disyllabic long a. The neuter is
congruent in both, Gk. méga, Skt. máhi, reflecting *még^-&2. The
nominative to go with that would be originally *még^-o:h2-s, and the
accusative to go with that would be *még^-oH2-m(.) . The forms that
do not fit each other are easily explained by levelling or
adjustment to productive patterns. The nom.sg. masc. in *-o:H2-s is
not at issue here, so if it had been replaced by a normalized form
already in the protolanguage thaat would not change anything in the
present context.

>
> > 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, it should be *még^-H2-iH2. I forgot the middle laryngeal one of
the times. It should be there. It is reflected in the Vedic
aspiration and in the Hittite gemination alike.

[...]

>
> > 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?

The many footprints form a ground, and the form is also a plural,
so 'grounds' had the same form. Thus, a single gound would te the
neuter singular form. What else could explain the facts we find?

>
> > 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.

No, it is up to you to clarify your statements where they are
unclear as they turned out the first time (or the first many times)
around.

>
> > 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.

The choice of gender must have some reason. It can hardly be
anything than a masculine noun which is understood. So, if you
understand a feminine word, you get the accusative feminine. Latin
quam has an exact match in Armenian k'an "than". Thus, the feminine
accusative is not restricted to Italic.

Jens