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

From: enlil@...
Message: 32634
Date: 2004-05-16

Concerning a perceived *s/*m pattern in IE:
>> They have a similar enough form to be anti-etymologically
>> associated
>> with each other.
> No, vowel length matters in this language.

Yes, but so what? Tone matters in Mandarin but it doesn't stop
speakers from similarly connecting /si4/ "four" with /si3/ "death".
Hell, Torsten does it all the time, connecting things he thinks
are similar-looking. It's a natural tendency of speakers to play
with their language even unconsciously and connect dots that aren't
there. So similarly, IE speakers would reapply the *s/*m to new
structures such as they did by applying the animate/inanimate
contrast of nouns in *-o-s and *-o-m respectively and applied it
to adjectival declension.

> I do not insist on PIE *még^-o:H2-s,

You had for the past few posts. Now you admit to its irrelevance
and to your inability to prove what you assert.

You only have a SINGLE language showing an INDIRECT form /mahaam/
which only has /mahaan/ as a nominative, clearly a derivation
anyway. And all this has nothing to do with /mekkis/ since it too
doesn't reflect **mego:xs. In fact, NOTHING reflects it at all
out of hundreds of IE languages to choose from.

If that isn't an irrational game of smoke and mirrors, I don't know
what is.

> The last part of the stem which consists of root //meg^-// + a
> suffix //-eH2-//.

No, you're apparently showing *meg- and **-ox-. Forms like *gWen-ex-
only show *-ex-, not **-ox-, and we know what *-ex- is, a post-IE
feminine marker. So what's this cowcrap about? It still makes no

> 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.

Then you can go ahead and connect every word that ends in -n to a
zero in IE. Right. Whatever.

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

Yes, you've made it clear that you bring up irrelevancies to hamper
the logical course of a debate.

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

It's irrelevant because in many languages this distinction disappeared.
Hence they were identical as I said.

> 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 [...]

There's no need for this superfluous haplology if you just accept
*kmt-om as is without trying to repair it.

> 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.

I'm interested in the existence of *mo-, certainly, however even
if we accept *mo- biasedly, it doesn't mean that **mex-m exists at
all because /mahhan/ can reflect any number of things and because most
people understand that Anatolian never had a feminine to begin with.
My ability to accept *tex-m never had a bearing on the existence
of *mex-m in Anatolian. Those are seperate issues that only relate
in your own persistent mind.

= gLeN