Re: S mobile (Was : PS Emphatics)

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re:Re: [tied] Re: S mobile (Was : PS Emphatics)


>
>
> Earliest PIE had _no_ gender markings.
> =============
> Sure to be wrong.
> the invention of grammatical gender :
> that is to say : masculine versus feminine
> dates back to the earliest stage of PAA
> PAA including here PIE.
>
> And a rather odd phenomenon is -a
> initially was not a feminine ending
> as shown by Hausa ruwa : "water"
> in spite of its "tomâ" shape,
> it's masculine.
>
> Sometimes before PIE and Semitic split
> most words ending with -a were reclassified
> as feminine
> unless they were obviously "male"
> Greek naut-a
>
> Arnaud
> =============

***

There were two Nostratic endings: -Ha, indefinite plural; and -ha, female.

***





> Later, our ancestors being chauvinists par excellence, they introduced two
> suffixes to designate females: -*tm 'one who accompanies the male doer
> named
> in the root'; and -*(H)a:, which references a female's sexual
> characteristics.
>
> ==============
> I suppose,
> Ha was an onomatopeia because of the odor....
>
> tm
> was (je) t'aime !!
>
> Arnaud
> ================

tm was a typing error for -*t.

-h refers not to odor but 'hollowness' of certain parts.


Patrick