[tied] Re: Risoe fo the Feminine (was: -osyo 3)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Will the torches of the Ancient-Feminine camp ever be finally
> snuffed out? [...] I feel unswayed.
> So I suppose I will respond one-by-one as concisely as possible.

Well, likewise, I'll do the same. I can find time for the first part
only at the moment, though, but that seems to be the core of the
matter.

>
> 1. Why two endings: thematic *-ex & athematic *-yex-?
>
> Because *-ex is from *-&-x, a typically "thematized" variant
> of *-x in order to convert it to an animate suffix for the
> function of animate collective, or hell, even "singulative" if
> you like that term better.

Agreed, if it means that *-ex consists of thematic vowel *-e- +
collective marker *-H2. (I'll use traditional notation.)

> However, *-ix/*-yex- is a composite suffix taking advantage
> of the athematic *i-collective. Before you think blindly that
> *-ex should do just fine to convert an athematic masculine
> to an athematic feminine, you should realize that the whole
> point is that *-ex is THEMATIC. So we need an "athematic"
> suffix and *-ex didn't cut it.

But taking only one of the two morphemes which *-eH2 consists of,
viz. *-H2 alone, would have done it just as well. Surely the
question is not being addressed.

> On the other hand, by combining
> two athematic suffixes together, *-i and *-x (both of collective
> origin), a unique feminine suffix for athematic stems was created.

Is the *-i now also a collective? What is the basis of this sudden
assertion?

Why would speakers need a uniqe feminine suffix for athematic stems,
if they did not mind using the collective form for the *thematic*
feminine? Again, the question is not being addressed.

> Otherwise, the whole athematic/thematic system would fall by the
> waist side and thematic stems would only be distinguished in the
> masculine or neuter for some bizarre hypothetical reason that we
> thankfully need not worry about.

That would have made the language much easier. Why would such a fine
state be avoided by a deliberate act of language change? That is not
being answered.

>
>
> 2. How can *-yex- show ablaut if it's not old
>
> A stupid question that you never cease to ask despite constantly
> giving you the straightforward answer: Function and Formation are
> two seperate issues. A suffix can be created during an ablauting
> stage (even _after_ Syncope as I established earlier) and yet
> still not be a functional feminine until quite late. Draw
> a diagram. It's not that hard. Ablaut has no relevance here.
> As I've always said, *-ix is a composite made up of *-i- and *-x
> which were ablauting suffixes already.

But that presupposes that the function of *-yeH2- was not feminine
when it was created. I have no objection to that - yet.

> 3. We never see *-ix/yex- as a collective marker
>
> So? Its individual components certainly were.

Well, if that is suppposedly what it was made for, why does it never
function that way? Surely this hangs completely in the air.

> 4. If *newex is both pl.n & sg.f, why the athematic contrast?
> Why *-ux pl.n not also feminine instead of *-éw-ix
>
> Because the unique etymology of *-ix as described above makes it
> so.

This is tautological: so because it's so. Not a message.

The athematic feminine needed to be distinct from the thematic

> in order to preserve that athem./them. system. It still all
> derives from the collective *-x in the end.

What did the "athem./them. system" do that was so important? I see
only a fortuitous difference between individual stem-final phonemes.
Why coould they not be inflected in parallel fashion? Same question,
again no answer.

> 5. Why *-ont-s versus feminine *-nt-ix
>
> Why not? What's really the issue here?

The point has not been understood: There were feminines made to go
with a masc. in *-o:n, not *-ont-s. That fem. form had the structure
*-n.-iH2. The reshaping of the masc. form from *-o:n to *-ont-s,
based on the participle of thematic verbs, must have occurred after
the formation of the fem. in *-n.-iH2. Then it is very embarrassing
that the reshaped form *-ont-s also appears in Anatolian. This is a
real question deserving the attention of whoever insists the
feminine had not been formed at the time Anatolian and the rest
separated.

> 6. Origin of i-adjectives
>
> One consideration is Schwa Diffusion where *& became *i

pretonically.

> This ultimately produced "compound stems" ending in *i pairing
> with their regular thematic *o-stem counterparts (since the latter
> contained *& posttonically where *& fragmented into e/o

alternation).

Not relevant for all the cases. Forms such as palhi- and salli- are
indeed quite probably Caland variants and do not demonstrably have
anything to do with the feminine. But the non-Anatolian
correspondences of mekki- 'big' are not thematic, so in this case
the other branches could only get an i-like morpheme in the
feminine, and indeed have that.

> 7. Anatolian's Motions-i, used often in nonneuter strong cases,
> must show *-ix, for what else could it be
>
> Lots of things, including the very *i-collective that the athematic
> feminine is based on.

A collective form expressly *avoiding* the neuter gender cannot be
meant as a serious suggestion.

> There's also the Schwa Diffusion situation
> which caused the thematic *o/*i alternation as mentioned in 6.

That may account for some of the forms, still it does not explain
its neutrophobia: why only common gender? The question is not being
answered.

> 8. Doesn't /man/ 'when' and /mahhan/ 'as' reflect *mo-m & *me-x-m
> just as Latin quom/quam similarly reflects?
>
> No. There's plenty of morphological remnants available to piece
> together an origin of /man/ and /mahhan/ without the need for
> a feminine. In fact, I don't see how the feminine has anything
> to do with "when" or "as" anyway. ???!

Latin has
tum 'then'
quom > cum 'when'
tam 'so (much)'
quam 'how (much), as (much)'.

These forms can hardly be anything other than the accusatives of the
masc. and fem., IE *tó-m, *táH2-m, *kWó-m, *kWáH2-m. What else could
they be? How could they get they get the function the show? By
ellipsis of a noun in the masc.¨and the fem. respectively, say a
word for 'time' and 'amount' respectively, provided 'time' was a
masculine, and 'amount' was a feminine. In that case "that (time)"
would mean 'then', and "what (time)" would mean 'when'. And "that
(amount)" would mean 'so much', and "what (amount)" would mean 'how
much'. That was quite easy once the idea was there.

Now, the Hittite synonyms of Latin quom and quam are ma:n and mahhan
respectively. Coming from Latin, we may expect form ending the
reflexes of IE *-o-m and *-aH2-m respectively. My suggestion is that
ma:n versus mahhan show that directly.

I have seen no other way to account for this apparent evidence.


Jens