Miguel:
>Still, the standard explanation for feminine -at- is that it developed out
>of a collective
I presume you mean, in pre-Semitic, since naturally the feminine exists in
Proto-Semitic itself. Actually, I recall the use of t-forms for the plural
of
the second person, in opposition to k-forms in AA languages. Is this
reconstructed for Semitic itself, Miguel? Does this relate to the
"collective"
idea perhaps?
Miguel:
>[I should add that I personally don't agree with that explanation, at least
>for PIE, where I think the feminine suffix *-ih2 (thematic *-eh2) derives
>from a diminutive **-iq].
Well, there is a clear enough link between the IE feminine in *-ax and the
collective, imho, just like it coincidently seems to be in Semitic (areal
influence?). You violate yet again Occam by proposing more than
we have too. Why have two different solutions for *-ax versus *-ix when
you can have _one_. The onus is on you to show that *-ix is _not_ a
hybrid suffix, *-i- + *-(a)x, so that the solution I give cannot apply.
Efficiency-wise, the superior solution is to use the same solution that
works
for *-ax and use it for *-ix as well. Anyone can see that *-ix is merely a
composite of *-i- plus the collective-gone-feminine *-(a)x. We kill two
birds collectively with one stone.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca