I said:
> 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.
Richard:
> Newfound application as what? To have gender you need agreement in
> gender. Without agreement in gender, you don't have gender.
The feminine was applied to a previously "animate" system. It adopted
all the suffixes of the animate system, including accusative *-m. This
is what we see. Thus the formerly animate declension became strictly
masculine, while that marked with *-ex became feminine.
This is all common sense so what are you objecting to? Gender
agreement was simply an agreement regarding animacy previously. Later
when *-ex was used more and more as a feminine, a feminine system was
derived from the common animate gender in adjectives as well. Again,
we see in adjectives that the feminine is really nothing more than
*-ex- introduced into "masculine" endings. In reality, the "masculine"
endings are former "general animate" endings, endings that were
formerly used for either sex.
This creation of a new declensional system for feminines could only
arise once a gender contrast between masculine and feminine became
grammatical within nouns. However, that new gender system in the
nouns could only crystallize once the use of *-ex as a feminine
rather than just a collective or diminutive had arisen. It was that
latter stage where *-ex was merely a collective or diminutive that
Anatolian presumably split away towards Turkey, just before feminine
gender developped in the other dialects. The next 500 years or so
would see the development of this feminine gender without Anatolian
being there.
= gLeN