Re: On the abuse of mekkis

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

>
> Now for poor ol' /mekkis/ which was also abused by Jens
> in other pseudoproofs signifying nothing. (That's all right
> little one, he won't hurt you anymore once I'm through with
> him... hehehe)
>
> Okay, after much ponder, I realized that there's no doubt
> that /mekkis/ is a "calandized" thematic noun *megxi-s
> that was converted out of a noun *megxo-s "strength".

It may indeed be (such nouns are s-stems, but that's of little
importance here, except that people generally go crazy over such
details), but there's plenty of doubt. Other Caland cases have zero-
grade + -i-, this one has full grade. This one has a comparandum if
it is equated with the fem. mahí:, not if it is put down as a Caland
form, not even for the underlying "non-calandized" form. And if the
root is that of Gothic mikils 'big' and Norse mjo,k 'much' it has
unaspirated *-g^- which could not produce a geminate in Hittite
while *-g^-H2- offers a fine basis for that.

> So it's simply presumptive to link /mekkis/ automatically to
> the feminine of all things when it merely has an animate
> connotation anyways. And I think this explanation makes the
> best sense. The above pattern would say that /mekkis/
> merely comes from *megxi-s and that does follow the sound
> laws. So, very simple. No **meg-ox- needed.

It is even more presumptive to just presume that I do this
automatically. I do it after due consideration of the options. And
it just is biased to automatically discount the possibility that
Hittite reflects inherited Indo-European morphology. A stem in the
order of *meg^-oH2- is in fact needed to account for the Vedic
accusative maháam. That form has been accorded no place in your
explanation.

Jens