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

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

> On Nominative Misanalysis, Jens states:
> > The two do not have the same form, so it clarifies nothing,

except

> > perhaps something void of interest associated with "ignorance and
> > stubbornness".
>
> The two what? The sets of endings between nom/acc and

gen.sg/gen.pl?

No, the thematic accusative sg. and the genitive plural. They are *-
o-m and *-o::m (or *-oom) respectively.

>
> They have a similar enough form to be anti-etymologically

associated

> with each other.

No, vowel length matters in this language. We are talking about the
protolanguage or a prestage of it, not some latterday daughter
language that neutralized length before *-m.

> The proof that it is a psychological temptation
> to pair them together against logic and reasoning is even shown by
> some preIEists who continue to persist at relating them together

as if

> they could somehow be derived from the same original case endings

by

> putting them through a clever little ergative funhouse to get the
> desired results.

I know, but I am not that dumb.

>
> Concerning the "big" word, Jens:
> > 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.
>
> I don't get how *mego:xs becomes /megas/ unless it's directly from
> *mege:xs or *megxs instead. Why don't we see Greek *mego:-

anywhere?

> Oh yes, of course: "The forms that do not fit each other are EASILY
> explained by levelling or adjustment to productive patterns."

Imagine

> if that was the excuse for everything. I certainly am never allowed
> to get away with it. Neither should you :)

I do not insist on PIE *még^-o:H2-s, except that it must have been
the form of the nominative at the time the accusative *még^-oH2-m
was formed. That form is reflected in Vedic maháam which is the
regular acc. to go with a neuter *még^-&2 (Ved. máhi, Gk. méga). I
am deeply saddened to learn that you do not like the fact that the
languages have not retained the original nominative, and I hope you
will take my word for it when I say I had nothing to do with it. If
it's any consolation *még^-o:H2-s may have been replaced by some
other form before the time of the stage we reconstruct as the
protolanguage, perhaps even by one more to your liking. I insist
only that the accusative corresponding to the original nom. you
abhor was retained in Vedic, and that the neuter was retained in
many places. The Greek paradigm is of course deficient due to the
introduction of the stem megálo-, leaving only /mega-/ in a few
places, as the NAsg neuter méga, the original locus, and the strong
cases mégas, mégan which were reshaped on a stem mega-.

> I see problems. _Mega_ problems:
>
> 1. What the hell is *-ox- is supposed to be?
> (A still unanswered question I asked in a previous post!)

The last part of the stem which consists of root //meg^-// + a
suffix //-eH2-//. That's what the forms and segmentations I gave say
already.

> 2. Why do none of the cognates you show reflect this *mego:xs
> without lots of 'levelling'?

The languages are not identical. Sanskrit has nom. mahá:n which may
indeed reflect this form in the same way as the comparative in IE *-
yo:s has -ya:n in Sanskrit, and the pf.ptc.act. in IE *-wo:(t)-s has
Skt. -va:n.

> 3. Why are there no forms that directly reflect *mego:xs?

Languages change. Note that this form in not needed for the argument
at hand, as I have made clear already.

> Easily, my ass. Something's not adding up at all. I see it now.
> You've had me try to jump dog tricks around a form that you
> made up yourself based on your own assumptions about IE/preIE.
> I've gotta watch you like a hawk.

You seem to be doing just that. I made the form to go with the acc.
in -VH-m, just as Sanskrit has pántha:s to go with acc. pánthaam.
This is one of the classics of laryngeal theory: Avestan pantå shows
the nom. ended in *-t-VH-s with the laryngeal separated from
the /t/, while the weak cases with -{th}- reflect *-t-H- + ending.
What is so terrible about remembering what one has learnt?

> This is what I'm thinking, so correct me if I'm wrong. I propose

that

> a better explanation of the "big" word is an athematic root *megx-.

Okay, you are wrong.

> I'd say that since the Sanskrit nominative is /maha:n/ (and not the
> expected and quite different form *maja:s), naturally the only way

to

> explain it is to accept the obvious: It is the product of the

_true_

> root *megx- or its thematicized derivative *megx-o- "power", and

the

> famous suffix *-hon-. This now yields /maha:n/ properly and even
> explains the otherwise abherrant "h" which is surely the reflex
> of the *gx combo, a pattern seen also in /aham/ < *egxom (a variant
> of the 1ps). So Sanskrit seems to show *megx- through and through.

The Sanskrit n-form goes with a stem in -nt-, a type that always has
a nominative in -n. A suffixed *-hon- could not yield any of this.
Generalization of aspiration is not at all exceptional in Indic:
beside nom. pántha:s we have cases like aor. ástha:t, nas.prs.
gr.bhn.á:ti (from *ghr.b-né-H2-ti with -bh- generalized from allied
forms), and many more.

> In Greek, *megx-s can resolve /megas/ directly without levelling
> and unless there is a reflex of *mego:- to support your case, I
> rest mine. There is ample evidence of /mega-/ on my side.

Yes, mega- is the stem when the suffix is in the zero-grade. That
does not say much.

> In Hittite, /mekkis/ may reflect *megx- plus an *i element. It
> could indeed be explained as a derivative of *megx-o- "power"

through

> simple Calandization to *megx-i- without any need for a feminine
> to have existed at the time.

But why to such lengths just to *choose* that? This is plainly
biased.

> So the athematic root *megx- would explain all the above forms
> better AND could finally make morphological sense of this root

since

> we can recognize what the meanings of *meg- and *-x- are. I still
> don't know, contrastly, what **-ox- means!

No, what does it mean in //pónt-eH2-// 'path'? What does it mean
in //gWén-eH2-// 'woman'? What do suffixal parts (indeed, any parts)
of lexicalized words ever mean?

> By the way, the feminine, being derived at a late date from the
> masculine, is as expected even with *megx- as the root: *megx-ix.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Then I forgive you. Just checking if we're on the same page here.
> All's good then.
>
>
> On the exact meaning of *pedom:
> > 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?
>
> I'm afraid there is another explanation because we can at least
> see that *pedom is a derivative of *po:ds "foot" so its meaning
> should revolve around its semantic source.

But it does, no matter how we twist and turn it.

> Just as *yugom means
> "that/those of yoking; a yoke" and collectively refers to the
> act of yoking, *pedom basically means "that/those of feet". Yes,
> it could mean "footprint(s)", "footstep(s)" or "path" since this is
> certainly "that/those of feet", but it can also mean "ground" which
> is also "that of feet", as in "that which the feet rest upon".

I guess I agree. I don't see what it changes.

> A deciding factor is *kmtom, which may perhaps still be thought of

as

> being from a phrase */kmtom kmtx/ "tens of tens" out of undying
> stubbornness. A simpler and more rewarding etymology that accounts
> for more of the facts, however, is simply one deriving *kmtom from
> *kmt-om "that/those of tens". In this case, *-om can only reflect

the

> plurality or uncountability of its source (ie: "tens") regardless

of

> the true plurality of the source form. This shows that *-om is a
> natural collectivizer, not a singulative by any means. This might

be

> an additional reason why *neun "nine" appears in some IE languages

as

> though it were identical with another possible collective form,
> *new-om "those of the new".

What is meant by identical here? These are different, and 'nine' has
an initial laryngeal, 'new' does not.

> Again, this reflects a collective of the
> _plural_ of its derivational source even though the resultant form
> does not refer to any plurality of its own since it is afterall an
> uncountable grouping.
>
> So *kmtom can mean any number of tens but surely it is a _plural_

of

> tens.

No, it can mean a single "group of (ten) tens". The expected form of
that would be *dk^mt-dk^mt-ó-m. If that was haplologized - not an
uncommon thing in a numeral if it applies - it would yield what we
find. Then 200 and 300 can have dual and plural forms, as we see in
Slavic.

> Likewise *yugom refers to the object(s) of the act of yoking,
> not to one specific event of yoking. In *pedom, it is that of both

feet,

> not of one foot, hence "ground" or "foottracks" being the primary
> meanings.

I do not think there are any such rules. There are cases that go
like that, while other cases have taken a different course. These
are matters of language usage belonging to the lexicon. Nor is there
any morphological rule I know of that distinguishes appurtenance to
a singular concept from appurtenance to a plural concept as your
argument presupposes.

> Only from this can a singular meaning be secondarily derived
> but lo and behold the attested "singulative" meaning you offer

doesn't

> show up as well as the aforementioned _pan-IE_ attestation

of "ground"

> does. Look who's throwing comparative evidence out the window now.

I never dismissed the meaning 'ground'. I only dismiss the fairytale
you are constructing on top of it. Since there waas only a single
PIE language, attestation in all IE branches does not make a form
older than the protolanguage.

> You're focusing only on *pedom trying to prove your case. I'm

focusing

> on all forms with *-om to show mine. None of the above forms make

as

> much semantic sense by imposing a singulative meaning to them so

you

> must be wrong.

Wrong about what? Backformation of a neuter from the collective of a
masculine is in fact quite common once it has been pointed out.

>
> > 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.
>
> And it is up to you to strive towards a proper comprehension of

your

> opponent's viewpoint in a debate.

You are not making that easy. And I am afraid my comprehension of
your viewpoints is just that - proper.

> At any rate, my position is clear
> on the *s/*m thing now, so let's move on from that new

understanding.

> I'll let you know if I ever get the funny inkling to actually
> etymologize nominative *-s and genitive *-os together.
>
> > 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.
>
> No, not necessarily. It depends whether the word reflects the true
> gender of some implicit word or whether there is no such word
> reflected and the _default_ gender is being used. For example,
> in French, one will say "Ils sont ici" to reflect the company of
> both men AND women together. The default gender, in many languages
> which have gender opposition like that of IE, is "masculine".

You changed the subject. If you hadn't - or, before you did - your
reply should be 'yes'.

> So only a feminine form would raise my brow, but even then, you
> have trouble proving that a form like **mex-m actually exists here
> (and this can only be substantiated after you prove the basis for
> including *mo- in the IE lexicon, something which I know from
> previous debates on the Forum to be a daunting task).

Especially if believers fight each other!

> As such, your
> "proof" is based on at least two unresolved questions. This is too
> weak a base to support anything on it. Try another strategy.

I can't change the language. And if *mo- is expected on external
grounds to have existed in (pre-) IE, and other pronouns form
adverbs meaning 'when' and 'as' by using the accusative singular of
the masculine and feminine respectively, as *kWo-m, *kWa-H2-m, then
a potential reflex of *mo-m and *ma-H2-m ought to be treated with
some interest.

> > Latin quam has an exact match in Armenian k'an "than". Thus, the
> > feminine accusative is not restricted to Italic.
>
> I never said it was, but the above only shows that it exists
> where it should be, in non-Anatolian languages where the feminine
> gender is known to exist.

You insisted on accepting only the accusative singular of the
masculine as an IE adverb. Now you accept the feminine also in that
capacity. Next stop is acceptance for pre-Anatolian. We can see it
coming, can't we?

Jens