Re: [tied] All of creation in Six and Seven

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>

Since there's no feminine in Anatolian, by your own reasoning the
Semitic influence must have bypassed Anatolia and gone directly to
the 'other IE' branch north of the Black Sea. Seems you killed your
own bird too.

Torsten