Richard to Jens:
> The theory of a late development of the feminine requires the
> development of feminine adjectives.
No, the "theory of a late development of the feminine" requires
only a simple reinterpretation and newfound application of an
existing suffix used for collectivity or diminuation, *-ex.
With an existent animate-inanimate paradigm for *to-, we have
instances of *tesyo alongside *tod. This shows *e/*o alternation
already and suggests an analysis by an innocent speaker of
*t- + *-esyo/*-od/etc. A speaker might even think something more
complex: *to- + *-esyo => *tesyo (annihilation of thematic).
At any rate, applying *-ex to *t(o)- yields *tex- innocently enough.
We use *t- instead of *s- here for the simple fact that *t- is
_already_ the stem of choice for the nonnominative cases. In the
nominative, we similarly apply *-ex to animate *s(o)- to yield
a specifically feminine pronoun *sex.
What's the problem? None. Jens needs there to be one though in
order to "prove" his case. Funny how that pattern of creating
problems where there are none is a recurring strategy for him.
What we gain from this is something that conforms to entropy.
We don't need to strain over reasons as to why Anatolian isn't
giving us the evidence we need to prove that Common IE had a
feminine gender. We accept what we see.
= gLeN
> Of course, the feminine gender's being recent does not mean it was
> not present in Proto-Indo-Hittite, but does make it plausible as an
> innovation of the IE branch.
No, it doesn't mean necessarily that, true, but the complete absence
of the feminine really really really makes it likely :) Otherwise we
have to wonder why it is that the feminine gender was eradicated
so efficiently. Did Hittites not like women? Did they import...
Or worse, were they a kingdom built on interior decorating?! Anyone
seen the movie "Jeffrey"? Patrick Stewart did an excellent job >:P
= gLeN