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

Re: [tied] The centum-word.

Expand Messages
  • markodegard@hotmail.com
    MCV said ... Actually, the bull and his feminine-gendered herd makes a rather good explanation, provided one sees the (post-Anatolic) PIE-speakers being into
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      MCV said

      > The link between the collective and the feminine
      > is part of PIE orthodoxy, so to speak, but I have
      > yet to see a good explanation for such a thing.

      Actually, the bull and his feminine-gendered herd makes a rather good
      explanation, provided one sees the (post-Anatolic) PIE-speakers being
      into heavy-duty stock-breeding.

      You keep a few of the *best* males for breeding, and turn the rest
      into veal, while harvesting his momma's milk, or, turn him into a
      steer if you're just raising 'beeves'. Thus has it always been with
      cattle (and other edible domestic critters). Anything else is economic
      nonsense.

      Why is it not 'a good explanation', Miguel?
    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      ... It s a perfectly good description of what happens (what we do) with bovines, but I just don t see how you can derive a feminine gender from that. Steers
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:48:20 -0000, markodegard@... wrote:

        >MCV said
        >
        >> The link between the collective and the feminine
        >> is part of PIE orthodoxy, so to speak, but I have
        >> yet to see a good explanation for such a thing.
        >
        >Actually, the bull and his feminine-gendered herd makes a rather good
        >explanation, provided one sees the (post-Anatolic) PIE-speakers being
        >into heavy-duty stock-breeding.
        >
        >You keep a few of the *best* males for breeding, and turn the rest
        >into veal, while harvesting his momma's milk, or, turn him into a
        >steer if you're just raising 'beeves'. Thus has it always been with
        >cattle (and other edible domestic critters). Anything else is economic
        >nonsense.
        >
        >Why is it not 'a good explanation', Miguel?

        It's a perfectly good description of what happens (what we do) with
        bovines, but I just don't see how you can derive a feminine gender
        from that. Steers have names (because there's only a few of them),
        but so have cows (because you milk them every day). I don't think
        "cow(s)" were commonly referred to in the collective (*gwo:us is
        animate/feminine, but not an *-(e)h2 stem, and the same goes for most
        other female *pek^u(h2)), so why should *gwna(i)h2 be a collective?
        The "diminutive" explanation works much better.

        =======================
        Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
        mcv@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.