>It did not behave as a plural when it comes to verbal agreement.
Yes, as Piotr has said. The word "chicken" is a perfect English example of a
grammatically singular word with a plural meaning. When I say "I eat
chicken", I'm probably refering to a couple of chicken wings or drumsticks.
No difference. You can play semantics all you want but collectives will
still have plural nuances to your chagrin. "Herd" is another example where
grammar doesn't quite conform to number.
>>How so? Where does the feminine come from then?
>
>As I said, my current theory is that it comes from the diminutive
>*-ik-(/*-ih2).
There's nothing internal or external to IE to warrant a "diminutive" *-ik-.
On what grounds do you base your **k>*H2 change again?
>So if *-x became lengthening (*h1, in fact), where does *-h2
>(collective, feminine) come from?
I will reiterate: Consonantal *-x disappears producing vowel lengthening.
_CONSONANTAL_ *-x disappears. Syllabic *-x continues on as in *-k^ontx
"-ty". If *x were not syllabic here, we would end up with an ugly *-CCC
cluster! I'm sorry I couldn't oblige you with more lost vowels but they
aren't needed here:)
>You were confusing the collective (*-h2) with the dual (no *-h2).
Yes I was confusing it together, wasn't I? My bad. But I feel perfectly fine
now :) So to be clear:
Mid IE Late IE
---------------------------------------------------
[dual] *-�ixe (misanalysed *t:w�-ixe "two") > *-i: [dual]
[collec] *-xe > *-x
> (vowel length)
Then, feminine *-x derives from the collective inanimate in a rather late
stage of IE.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com