Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation Q&A (1)
- On Pet, ožujak 31, 2006 4:35 pm, Piotr Gasiorowski reče:
> On 2006-03-31 16:21, Mate Kapović wrote:A typical 'chauvinistic' (or patriarchal) view that the female is
>> What do you think about a theory that the feminine *-ih2 is identical
>> originally with Latin/Celtic/etc. genitives in -i:?
> It's difficult to give an opinion without knowing the specifics. How
> would you connect the two functionally?
something that belongs to the male. The 'genitive' in -i: would thus
originally be a possessive, and *wlkWih2 would be 'wolf's' > 'she-wolf'.
The claim would be that *-ih2 was an old possessive suffix which than
evolved into a feminine suffix (because of the mix up with the final *-h2
in *gWenh2 and with the interpretation of *-eh2 as feminine rather than
collective) and in some languages into a sort-of-a-genitive.
- On 2006-03-31 22:50, Sean Whalen wrote:
> As I said, Sihler's explanation is different fromMost evidence is indecisive either way, since initial *h2w- and *w-
> mine, but there's nothing arbitrary about this
> derivation. It's to explain why a syllable most
> evidence shows to be * wlh2 shows up as if from * h2ul
> in Hittite (according to most; I think hu represents
> xW or GW here).
merge almost everywhere. Greek can't be used as evidence if it's the
Greek development we want to establish. There remains Anatolian, where
both <hulana-> and <hulija-> point to a root with initial *h2. If other,
independent data allow us to account for the absence of a prothetic
vowel in Greek, metathesis is simply unnecessary.