On Nominative Misanalysis, Jens states:
> The two do not have the same form, so it clarifies nothing, except
> perhaps something void of interest associated with "ignorance and
> stubbornness".
The two what? The sets of endings between nom/acc and gen.sg/gen.pl?
They have a similar enough form to be anti-etymologically associated
with each other. The proof that it is a psychological temptation
to pair them together against logic and reasoning is even shown by
some preIEists who continue to persist at relating them together as if
they could somehow be derived from the same original case endings by
putting them through a clever little ergative funhouse to get the
desired results.
Concerning the "big" word, Jens:
> The Greek form is mégas, the Vedic nominative is mahá:n, and its
> accusative is maháam with a disyllabic long a. The neuter is
> congruent in both, Gk. méga, Skt. máhi, reflecting *még^-&2.
I don't get how *mego:xs becomes /megas/ unless it's directly from
*mege:xs or *megxs instead. Why don't we see Greek *mego:- anywhere?
Oh yes, of course: "The forms that do not fit each other are EASILY
explained by levelling or adjustment to productive patterns." Imagine
if that was the excuse for everything. I certainly am never allowed
to get away with it. Neither should you :)
I see problems. _Mega_ problems:
1. What the hell is *-ox- is supposed to be?
(A still unanswered question I asked in a previous post!)
2. Why do none of the cognates you show reflect this *mego:xs
without lots of 'levelling'?
3. Why are there no forms that directly reflect *mego:xs?
Easily, my ass. Something's not adding up at all. I see it now.
You've had me try to jump dog tricks around a form that you
made up yourself based on your own assumptions about IE/preIE.
I've gotta watch you like a hawk.
This is what I'm thinking, so correct me if I'm wrong. I propose that
a better explanation of the "big" word is an athematic root *megx-.
I'd say that since the Sanskrit nominative is /maha:n/ (and not the
expected and quite different form *maja:s), naturally the only way to
explain it is to accept the obvious: It is the product of the _true_
root *megx- or its thematicized derivative *megx-o- "power", and the
famous suffix *-hon-. This now yields /maha:n/ properly and even
explains the otherwise abherrant "h" which is surely the reflex
of the *gx combo, a pattern seen also in /aham/ < *egxom (a variant
of the 1ps). So Sanskrit seems to show *megx- through and through.
In Greek, *megx-s can resolve /megas/ directly without levelling
and unless there is a reflex of *mego:- to support your case, I
rest mine. There is ample evidence of /mega-/ on my side.
In Hittite, /mekkis/ may reflect *megx- plus an *i element. It
could indeed be explained as a derivative of *megx-o- "power" through
simple Calandization to *megx-i- without any need for a feminine
to have existed at the time.
So the athematic root *megx- would explain all the above forms
better AND could finally make morphological sense of this root since
we can recognize what the meanings of *meg- and *-x- are. I still
don't know, contrastly, what **-ox- means!
By the way, the feminine, being derived at a late date from the
masculine, is as expected even with *megx- as the root: *megx-ix.
> No, it should be *még^-H2-iH2. I forgot the middle laryngeal one
> of the times. It should be there. It is reflected in the Vedic
> aspiration and in the Hittite gemination alike.
Then I forgive you. Just checking if we're on the same page here.
All's good then.
On the exact meaning of *pedom:
> The many footprints form a ground, and the form is also a plural,
> so 'grounds' had the same form. Thus, a single gound would te the
> neuter singular form. What else could explain the facts we find?
I'm afraid there is another explanation because we can at least
see that *pedom is a derivative of *po:ds "foot" so its meaning
should revolve around its semantic source. Just as *yugom means
"that/those of yoking; a yoke" and collectively refers to the
act of yoking, *pedom basically means "that/those of feet". Yes,
it could mean "footprint(s)", "footstep(s)" or "path" since this is
certainly "that/those of feet", but it can also mean "ground" which
is also "that of feet", as in "that which the feet rest upon".
A deciding factor is *kmtom, which may perhaps still be thought of as
being from a phrase */kmtom kmtx/ "tens of tens" out of undying
stubbornness. A simpler and more rewarding etymology that accounts
for more of the facts, however, is simply one deriving *kmtom from
*kmt-om "that/those of tens". In this case, *-om can only reflect the
plurality or uncountability of its source (ie: "tens") regardless of
the true plurality of the source form. This shows that *-om is a
natural collectivizer, not a singulative by any means. This might be
an additional reason why *neun "nine" appears in some IE languages as
though it were identical with another possible collective form,
*new-om "those of the new". Again, this reflects a collective of the
_plural_ of its derivational source even though the resultant form
does not refer to any plurality of its own since it is afterall an
uncountable grouping.
So *kmtom can mean any number of tens but surely it is a _plural_ of
tens. Likewise *yugom refers to the object(s) of the act of yoking,
not to one specific event of yoking. In *pedom, it is that of both feet,
not of one foot, hence "ground" or "foottracks" being the primary
meanings. Only from this can a singular meaning be secondarily derived
but lo and behold the attested "singulative" meaning you offer doesn't
show up as well as the aforementioned _pan-IE_ attestation of "ground"
does. Look who's throwing comparative evidence out the window now.
You're focusing only on *pedom trying to prove your case. I'm focusing
on all forms with *-om to show mine. None of the above forms make as
much semantic sense by imposing a singulative meaning to them so you
must be wrong.
> No, it is up to you to clarify your statements where they are
> unclear as they turned out the first time (or the first many times)
> around.
And it is up to you to strive towards a proper comprehension of your
opponent's viewpoint in a debate. At any rate, my position is clear
on the *s/*m thing now, so let's move on from that new understanding.
I'll let you know if I ever get the funny inkling to actually
etymologize nominative *-s and genitive *-os together.
> The choice of gender must have some reason. It can hardly be
> anything than a masculine noun which is understood. So, if you
> understand a feminine word, you get the accusative feminine.
No, not necessarily. It depends whether the word reflects the true
gender of some implicit word or whether there is no such word
reflected and the _default_ gender is being used. For example,
in French, one will say "Ils sont ici" to reflect the company of
both men AND women together. The default gender, in many languages
which have gender opposition like that of IE, is "masculine".
So only a feminine form would raise my brow, but even then, you
have trouble proving that a form like **mex-m actually exists here
(and this can only be substantiated after you prove the basis for
including *mo- in the IE lexicon, something which I know from
previous debates on the Forum to be a daunting task). As such, your
"proof" is based on at least two unresolved questions. This is too
weak a base to support anything on it. Try another strategy.
> Latin quam has an exact match in Armenian k'an "than". Thus, the
> feminine accusative is not restricted to Italic.
I never said it was, but the above only shows that it exists
where it should be, in non-Anatolian languages where the feminine
gender is known to exist.
= gLeN