Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Grammatical Gender

Expand Messages
  • andythewiros
    I read it and while it provides an entirely satisfactory explanation for the origin of feminine suffixes (
    Message 1 of 45 , Aug 10, 2010
      I read it and while it provides an entirely satisfactory explanation for the origin of feminine suffixes (<collectives), I'm still left wondering why *sto:laz should be masculine but *skipam should be neuter. They're both inanimate and both made by human beings. Why should there be a gender difference?

      Andy

      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andythewiros" <anjarrette@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Forgive me if I have earlier posted a like message.
      > >
      > > I would like to know whether there exists any treatise, essay, book, etc. that offers a plausible explanation for the origin of grammatical gender in the Indo-European languages.
      > >
      > > Can anyone help me?
      >
      > You can try:
      >
      > http://books.google.com/books?id=tO9YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5&dq=noun+gender+brugmann&hl=en&ei=jCteTIjEBoOBlAeK0OiZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
      >
    • Torsten
      ... That s your opinion, and you re entitled to it. ... But there might be a connection -x -k in PIE (Miguel) or a substrate of it (me). ... *ŋ - *v
      Message 45 of 45 , Aug 23, 2010
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:
        >
        > > I will still claim that the suffix is individuating not
        > > collectivizing: it produces something unitary (note old 3sg verbs
        > > for NPlNom -a:) out of something plural. It became feminine not
        > > actively, but by being gradually excluded from the Masc. gender
        > > because of its other sense as diminutive (which can't be used for
        > > important men: no 'prezzie' for President or 'primie' for Prime
        > > Minister). For some reason it is similar in its use to a Semitic
        > > *-at- suffix (IIRC), but I think the original source in
        > > non-Anatolic IE is Finno-Permic or whatever lay under that: the
        > > suffix occurs also in FP tree names
        > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64751
        >
        > More correctly, "a suffix with no particular resemblance occurs in
        > Baltic Finnic in tree names, some of whose roots are of Uralic
        > heritage".

        That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

        >
        > > (the -v-, -j-, -k- are regular reflexes of *-ŋ- in Finno-Ugric).
        >
        > Not quite, PFU itself still had *ŋ, and there is no soundlaw -ŋ- >
        > -k- in any of its descendants.

        But there might be a connection -x <-> -k in PIE (Miguel) or a substrate of it (me).

        > Mordvinic *s´eleŋ is form'd with a separate diminutiv -ŋ (not
        > restricted to tree names; even productiv IIRC).

        *ŋ -> *v exists in Baltic Finnic.

        >
        > > The willow name, probably taken from the same language which gave
        > us the *-aŋ- suffix, would be *saŋ-al-aŋ-, from *saŋ- "wet hole (to
        > the other side)", the adjectivizing suffix *-al- and the
        > individuating *-aŋ- suffix (our topic).
        > >
        > > Torsten
        >
        > The FU evidence does not allow for an intervening syllable a la
        > _saCVl_,

        I never claimed it did.

        > nor an original meaning of _willow_ (all but BF have "elm"),

        Which have similar uses (Paasonen)

        > nor a non-palatal *s-.

        Make it *śaŋ-al-aŋ- then.


        > Just for the record, for the benefit of rest of the list.
        >
        > John Vertical
        >

        You're welcome. As you can see, I'm busy here too.


        Torsten
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.