--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
[JER:]
> That is, one may
> > postulate earlier existence of forms like *wlkWos-yaH2, *wlkWos-
> yod,
> > *wlkWos-yo:(w), *wlkWos-yaH2iH1, *wlkWos-yoyH1, *wlkWos-yoy,
> *wlkWos-
> > yaH2as, *wlkWos-yaH2 also.
[RW:]
> Why do you propose feminine looking forms? Wouldn't they have
been
> an innovation of non-Anatolian IE if they ever existed at all?
Well, if the feminine is not that old, they should not be there. My
own opinion on that matter is rather in favour of accepting the
whole array of three genders for the totality of IE including the
prestage of Anatolian. But this is another matter, unless there is
some relevance in the problem of getiing the thematic vowel to
alternate again so as to produce the input for *te-H2- > *ta-H2- and
the like in pronouns where it plainly does that. Perhaps we'd better
leave that part of it be.
Jens