Re: [tied] Plural of nouns

> on Latin -a non-feminines
> > what are the exceptions ? nouns like agricola are not derived from a
> > corresponding form in -us are they ?
>
> I worded that badly. Apart from masculines in -a, such as agricola, there
> are forms like aquila (f) used for male eagles, and incola, advena, auriga
> which are of "common" gender, meaning they take the form of the adjective
> appropriate to the natural gender of the person to whom they are applied.

I repeat:
yes but these are not from a corresponding form -us are they ? (If
you gave these examples as a response to my "what are the exceptions
question" then please disregard). thanks

> > What are the current ideas on exactly how/why this -h2e form came to be
> > used as the adjectival ending in PIE -os adjectives
>
> The literature has only wild guesses (at least in my opinion) but some are
> more believable than others. The best of these guesses suggest that at an
> early stage in its development PIE may have been ergative (or something of
> that kind - it is hotly debated). This means that nouns and verbs
> distinguished between active and non-active ("stative") vocabulary items.
> This explains that many apparent doublets for words like fire, water, and so
> on. Nouns and adjectives therefore had to be marked for active or stative
> (or whatever the different categories were) if they were not already so
> marked or understood. Hence you get the origins of agreement.

This is irrelevant, I was wondering how the -h2e acquired a feminine
(natural gender) meaning. It indeed dit, because things of natural
feminine gender take a -h2e ending on any -us (or gr. -os sanskr. -as
etc) adjective. Are there any ideas on how the step from collective
to feminine was taken ? Piotr ?

mvh

Harald