Inanimate = Feminine (was: All of creation in Six and Seven)

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

> The lack of feminine in Anatolian is irrelevant. The point is that
> Semitic has two genders and IE has two genders. In Semitic,
> the feminine and collectives seem to go together, but Semitic
> doesn't have an inanimate gender. It would appear to me that
> there is a similar relation between IE inanimate gender and
> collectives. However, IE didn't originally have a feminine. Yet
> coincidently, the *-ax ending appears to have derived from an
> inanimate ending, as though feminines were thought of as
> collectives or inanimate. Proto-Tyrrhenian, I'd dare say, had
> two genders like IE as well -- animate and inanimate. Again, I'd
> say that, like in IE, feminine nouns were often treated
> grammatically as if they were collective inanimates.
>
> Perhaps feminists now hate me at this point, but this is what
> I notice in three neighbouring language groups. So I naturally
> think about the possibility of areal influence. We already have
> a case for mutual interaction so this seems like the next level.

Can we add Central Khoisan to the area? If we allow the equation
feminine = neuter, Alscher's suggestion of related gender markers at
the foot of http://members.pgv.at/homer/INDOEURO/afroasia.htm is
appealing. It's a shame there's little (no?) evidence to put
Central Khoisan in East Africa.

I'm happy to move the discussion to Nostratic-L if people want to
discuss possible genetic links.

Richard.