Re: Fw: [tied] A question of reliability - Matasovic and "Gend

----- Original Message -----

From: Mate Kapović

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:54 AM

Subject: [Fwd: Re: Fw: [tied] A question of reliability - Matasovic and "Gender in IE"]

> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "C. Darwin Goranson" <cdog_squirrel@...>
> >> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:00 PM
> >> Subject: [tied] A question of reliability - Matasovic and "Gender in
IE"

> >>> I'd like to know is what he's saying is considered to be sensible or
>not. Such as the feminine *-eh2 and *-ih2 being posissive suffixes
>originally.

I am forwarding Matasovic's message:

Ranko Matasovic wrote:
<Just to clarify what I am saying in "Gender in IE": there was a
possessive <suffix *-ih2 and it is one of the sources of the feminine
motion suffix *-<ih2; there was never a possessive suffix *-eh2, but the
feminine motion <suffix *-eh2 is partly derived from the early PIE
collective in *-eh2
<(which is also the origin of the late PIE Nom-Acc pl. of the neuter
<thematic stems).

Mate

***

Patrick:

 

I think there are many problems with Ranko's message:

 

1. there was a possessive suffix *-ih2

 

No such thing. However, the relational (-*i) was used AS a possessive

2. it is one of the sources of the feminine motion suffix *ih2

 

This suffix is a product of relational -*i + feminine -*H2

3. there was never a possessive suffix -*eh2 from the early PIE p

 

Agreed.

4. the feminine motion suffix *-eh2 is partly derived from the early PIE collective in *-eh2

 

No. The collective is -*H2 from a different source than the feminine -*H2