Richard to Jens:
> Why do you propose feminine looking forms? Wouldn't they have been
> an innovation of non-Anatolian IE if they ever existed at all?
Precisely, but Jens is of the camp that thinks that feminines are
relevant in the older stage of IE. This and other points of
contention force us to conclude two wildly different views of
pre-IE. If the feminine is not ancient, this explains away *so
completely because *se-x is flatly a late innovation of *so,
leaving *so unmarked for both gender and case (while inheirently
animate to begin with). He disagrees and wants me to accept *se-x
as a relevent piece of evidence to propose underlying **so-z instead
of accepting what he sees -- an endingless morpheme, ending in
*-o like the *-yo in *-syo or the mediopassives to boot. Sigh.
= gLeN