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

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 enlil@... wrote:

>
> >> 1. Why two endings: thematic *-ex & athematic *-yex-?
> >>
> >> Because *-ex is from *-&-x, a typically "thematized" variant[...]
> >
> > Agreed, if it means that *-ex consists of thematic vowel *-e- +
> > collective marker *-H2. (I'll use traditional notation.)
>
> We're officially agreed.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> It was addressed because *-x is athematic which therefore is a suffix
> that doesn't make sense for a _thematic_ stem. The whole point of
> Thematicization was to create a seperate animate version of inanimate
> suffixes, so *-x would doubly not be used for the feminine then.

But the only thing that makes a form thematic is the presence of the
thematic vowel. Thus, to create the thematic optative you just add the
athematic suffix //-yeH1-// to the thematic vowel, this giving /-o-yH1-/.
There are no flimsy considerations about animacy to confuse this. If you
want a collective from an athematic stem you just add *-H2, as in
prs.ptc. Gk. phéront-a, Skt. bhárant-i. And if you want to make it from
a thematic stem you do the same, only from a thematic stem, as in
*náw-a-H2. It is not true that *-H2 is a desinence ("suffix") that does
not make sense for a thematic stem. Such forms are quite common and make
unforced sense.

> > Is the *-i now also a collective? What is the basis of this sudden
> > assertion?
>
> No, the *-i was _always_ a collective and I had always said this.
> Apparently you missed stems ending in *-t-i- which form abstract
> stems, for example. It may also be at the end of *xawi- "bird" which
> is an animal most often found in flocks.

That is simply not know. There is no basis for that statement.

> > 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.
>
> The matter of the "neuter plural" is evidently complicated considering
> that neuters were spoken of in the 3ps regardless of plurality. That
> fact shows this inanimate plurality must not have originally been of
> interest to the IE speaker. You assume that a neuter plural *-x was
> developped at the same time as the feminine in *-(e)x. In reality,
> it may just as well be that when the feminine arose, the neuter "plural"
> had not yet taken form.

I assume with a long tradition that the collective is the old form of the
feminine, only not "animated" or "individualized". If *all* uses of *-H2
are "later", there is no basis for any of them. The singular concord of
the ntr.pl. actually points in the direction of identity with the fem.sg.
This is the whole basis of the discussion centering around the collective
in the first place.

> In that way, there is no paradox because *newax would then have only
> been used as a _feminine_ adjective with the neuter always being
> *newom, singular AND plural. In fact, the use of *-om in the neuter,
> originally a genitive _plural_, hints clearly that neuter plurality
> was once a foreign concept. (So to be clear, the inanimate *-x would be
> used as a _derivational_ suffix to convey collective objects, and not
> used as a declensional suffix. Hence *-x at this stage is to be
> considered part of a noun stem. Example: We have *wodr and we might
> refer to "waters" as *wodrx but both words are in fact the same
> semantically and were declined the same at this stage, not as singular
> versus plural.)

None of this is anywhere near known: it is specifically not known that
the thematic neuter nom.-acc. sg. *-om was originally a genitive plural;
the genitive plural does not even *look* that way. And what nonsense is
meant by the argument anyway: neuters did not distinguish sg. and pl., so
they just took marked plural endings and used them in their own lawless
way?

If any of this nonsense were true it would mean that Anatolian forms
reflecting ntr.pl. forms in *-H2 would be, not IE collectives, but IE
feminines. Now, the only mission of the elaborate story was originally
to avoid just that.

Is it now the neuter plural that had not been created when Anatolian boke
off? I suppose that is supported by the fact that the neuter plural is
attested in Anatolian, making it a worthy challenge to account for its
absence.

> > 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.
>
> There are a lot of things in English that if dismissed would make
> our language a whole bunch easier. Like that pesky the/a distinction.
> I mean, really, who cares if a noun is definite or not?

Nonsense again, these things are reamins of things once of greater
importance ("that" opposed to "one", being generalized). What is being
suggested here is deliberate *introduction* of an irregularity without any
purpose.

> >> 2. How can *-yex- show ablaut if it's not old
> >
> > But that presupposes that the function of *-yeH2- was not feminine
> > when it was created. I have no objection to that - yet.
>
> Ugh. It doesn't really. _You_ in fact presuppose that *-yex- existed
> before its synthesis for a feminine. I'm in reality trying to get
> across that *-ix is like a simple inanimate stem in *-i-, being given
> an added *-x just simply to convey the feminine athematic.

That's neither here nor there. If the added *-H2 conveyed the idea of the
feminine (even "feminine athematic" if that makes sense to anybody), the
-i- part is still left unaccounted-for. For the stem of thich the suffixed
form is the feminine does not comprise the -i-. Then what is the -i-? An
"inanimate stem", we're told; but why would that be added to mark the
feminine? I could better understand "animate", to make sure it is
understood that the collective, otherwise a sure inanimate sign, is
unexpectly used about an animate being. Is that really meant as a serious
explanation?

> There
> doesn't need to be a previously inanimate *-ix, if this bothers you so.
> We wouldn't use *-x alone because this would just be the inanimate
> collective from which thematic feminine *-ex was derived in the first
> place.
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> As per above: *-ix didn't exist prior to its use as a feminine.

So if its reflex does turn up in Anatolian, the theory is falsified, if
only in this version.

> >> 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?
>
> What does the definite/indefinite contrast in English do that's
> all so important? For whatever reason, athematic and thematic
> suffixes were not mixed up into a bag and randomly assigned
> to both athematic and thematic stems alike. There was a difference
> maintained. Why? That's a matter of psychology or sociology.
> It's just what we see in IE so we have to accept it.

So it was an innovation created specifically for no reason. This can be
entered as a plea of guilty.

> >> 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.
>
> Not at all. Anatolian simply keeps *-ont-s but there is no corresponding
> feminine at the time. After Anatolian ditches the clubscene, *-ont-s
> and *-o:n develop predictable feminines: *-nt-ix and *-n-ix. Simple.

Frightfully complicated, really. For *-o:n and *-onts are two stages in
the development of the same form. And both stages spawned feminines, which
turn up as *-n-iH and *-nt-iH respectively. Thus if feminines were created
before *-o:n was replaced by *-ont-s, any language showing *-ont-s must
also have shared in the feminines of the *-o:n type. Surely it is now
simpler to accept the feminine.

> >> 6. Origin of i-adjectives
> >>
> >> One consideration is Schwa Diffusion where *& became *i
> >> pretonically.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I don't see how "other branches" show evidence for your analysis
> _within_ Anatolian.

The matter is called comparative linguistics, often proved to be useful in
capable hands. or is it no longer legitimate to take Hittite to be some
kind of Indo-European-related language?

> Do you have something else from your bag o' tricks
> that would add to this idea? Tell me why /mekki-/ must be singled
> out from the other i-adjectives based on Anatolian evidence alone.

No. Comparative evidence is not just zero. None of the i-adjectives has
any apparent justification from within Anatolian. Those that correspond to
forms with suffixal *-Co- in other branches may be Caland compositional
forms, but *még^-o:H2-s, *még^-oH2-m, ntr. *még^-&2, fem. *meg^-H2-iH2
does not qualify; but its feminine is eminently qualified as a
comparandum.

> >> 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.
>
> Well, there's always good ol' Caland where thematic stems are typically
> animate.

No, that's a total word salad. Caland is about a stem-replacing -i- which
is neutral in this respect. And some of the material it alternates with
(and therefore is included in the "Caland system") is inanimate, as the
s-stem adjective abstracts.

> >> 8. Doesn't /man/ 'when' and /mahhan/ 'as' reflect *mo-m & *me-x-m
> >>    just as Latin quom/quam similarly reflects?
> >
> > 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?
>
> Yes, accusative makes sense here because the case is sometimes used
> to refer to a moment "during which" or a place one is headed towards
> with verbs like /i:re/, if I recall. Since Latin inherits the feminine,
> and if we take your input that it once modified a masculine noun for
> "time" and a feminine for "amount", that all makes sense.

Nice constructive tone, thanks. Let's see if it lasts.

> However you're jumping the gun if you think that /quom/ and /quam/
> are entirely identical to /ma:n/ and /mahhan/ when they don't even
> have the same stem.

Nor does quom have the same stem as tum. Or quam as tam. So this would be
a third pair of this kind.

> Looking at what Miguel listed, one can't help
> but notice that -an- does appear to be used to mark locatives
> elsewhere and since these two words can conceivably be built on
> locatives based on their semantics, I have a different idea on their
> origin.

> > I have seen no other way to account for this apparent evidence.
>
> Sometimes people fail to see simply because they want to hold on
> to old ideas that comfort them.

Now, this is of course even weaker, but still it could conceivably be
true. But even if the /-Vn/ part of ma:n and mahhan is taken to contain a
locative marker the -hh- would be hard to separate from the marker of the
feminine. It looks like a real stinker to anybody keen on getting rid of
any indication of the feminine in Anatolian. I wouldn't like it if I had
bet on the absence of the feminine in the PIE from which Anatolian broke
off. That actually is why I do not do that, and not the other way around,
because I hang on to a nice old idea I love, as is being insinuated.

Jens