Re: Grammatical Gender
- 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?
--- In email@example.com, "Etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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:
- --- In email@example.com, johnvertical@... wrote:
>That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
> > 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
>But there might be a connection -x <-> -k in PIE (Miguel) or a substrate of it (me).
> > (the -v-, -j-, -k- are regular reflexes of *-Å- in Finno-Ugric).
> Not quite, PFU itself still had *Å, and there is no soundlaw -Å- >
> -k- in any of its descendants.
> Mordvinic *sÂ´eleÅ is form'd with a separate diminutiv -Å (not*Å -> *v exists in Baltic Finnic.
> restricted to tree names; even productiv IIRC).
>I never claimed it did.
> > The willow name, probably taken from the same language which gave
> us the *-aÅ- suffix, would be *saÅ-al-aÅ-, from *saÅ- "wet hole (to
> the other side)", the adjectivizing suffix *-al- and the
> individuating *-aÅ- suffix (our topic).
> > Torsten
> The FU evidence does not allow for an intervening syllable a la
> nor an original meaning of _willow_ (all but BF have "elm"),Which have similar uses (Paasonen)
> nor a non-palatal *s-.Make it *ÅaÅ-al-aÅ- then.
> Just for the record, for the benefit of rest of the list.You're welcome. As you can see, I'm busy here too.
> John Vertical