Quick question on development of Spanish gender

[Trailsend]

A friend has voiced some curiosity about the development of Spanish "noche" and "día" and how they fell into their respective genders. Could anybody point me in the right direction to find him an answer?

[Herra Ratatoskr]

"dia" was originally in the Latin 5th declension as a masculine. Most 5d nouns, IIRC, went over to the -a declension in Spanish, and dia retained its masculine gender. A similar situation can be seen with "la mano" (the hand) which was originally a 4th declension feminine, "manus", which retained its feminine gender when it merged with the -o declension. As for noche, it was feminine in Latin (as nox/noctis) in the 3rd declension, and it looks like it was feminine all the way back to PIE. Compare the distant cognates "die Nacht" in German and νύχτα (nychta) in Greek, both of which are also still feminine.

[Mornche Geddick]

It's still masculine in Portuguese: o dia, bom dia.

[Xonen]

It's still masculine in Portuguese: o dia, bom dia.

And in Spanish as well, which is probably why the question was asked in the first place... After all, there's nothing terribly curious about Spanish nouns ending in -a being feminine.

[Ser]

As for noche, it was feminine in Latin (as nox/noctis) in the 3rd declension, and it looks like it was feminine all the way back to PIE. Compare the distant cognates "die Nacht" in German and νύχτα (nychta) in Greek, both of which are also still feminine.

If Wiktionary is to be trusted, pretty much all cognates of noche/night in languages with masculine/feminine/neuter noun classes have it as a feminine.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix: ... 3k%CA%B7ts

It doesn't have an entry for the PIE root of día though, though the one for the Old Armenian cognate lists some cognates if others want to check them out...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D5%BF%D5 ... d_Armenian

Can we really say that PIE had masculine/feminine/neuter(?) gender though? Other similarly basic concepts often have differing gender, notably the words for sun vs. the words for moon.

[Drydic]

Can we really say that PIE had masculine/feminine/neuter(?) gender though? Other similarly basic concepts often have differing gender, notably the words for sun vs. the words for moon.

Up until its late stages it had Common and Neuter. The Feminine was one of the latest features to develop in the PIE grouping.

[Richard W]

It's generally (but not universally) held that Proto-Indo-Hittite did not have a feminine gender - that Anatolian lost the feminine is a minority view.

[Drydic]

It's generally (but not universally) held that Proto-Indo-Hittite did not have a feminine gender - that Anatolian lost the feminine is a minority view.

There's like 2 people that call it Indo-Hittite anymore.

[Basilius]

It's generally (but not universally) held that Proto-Indo-Hittite did not have a feminine gender - that Anatolian lost the feminine is a minority view.

There's like 2 people that call it Indo-Hittite anymore.

As someone representing here those crowds and crowds that don't - what do you call *it* (that very *it*) then?

[Viktor77]

Are tema, grama, mapa, and idioma also of the Latin 5th declension?

[Soap]

They may not have even been in the language at the time, since theyre all Greek loanwords, but Wikipedia seems to indicate that Greek loans in Latin that end in -a generally are 1st declension.

(edit: mapa is from the Hebrew for napkin, so I dont know about that one)

[Basilius]

They may not have even been in the language at the time, since theyre all Greek loanwords, but Wikipedia seems to indicate that Greek loans in Latin that end in -a generally are 1st declension.

(edit: mapa is from the Hebrew for napkin, so I dont know about that one)

Those in -ma are 3rd declension and *neuter* in Latin (and Greek); neuter masculine in the standard in all the Romance languages, AFAIK.

[Ser]

Grama doesn't belong to the same group as tema/idioma/gorila/clima/etc. though. It is indeed from a 3rd declension neuter, gramen, but it's one of those neuter plurals reinterpreted as feminine (illa gramina > la grama), not one of those Greek borrowings which later became masculine.

[Viktor77]

Grama doesn't belong to the same group as tema/idioma/gorila/clima/etc. though. It is indeed from a 3rd declension neuter, gramen, but it's one of those neuter plurals reinterpreted as feminine (illa gramina > la grama), not one of those neuter Greek borrowings which later became masculine.

Interesting. Is el cisma a Greek loan as well?

[Ser]

Try checking the DRAE.

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsult ... LEMA=cisma

And if you have access to Coromines's etymological dictionary, then go for it.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

My investigations show that clima was a third declension noun with the stem climat-. I wouldn't be surprised if other words like that were in use in Roman times.

[Drydic]

It's generally (but not universally) held that Proto-Indo-Hittite did not have a feminine gender - that Anatolian lost the feminine is a minority view.

There's like 2 people that call it Indo-Hittite anymore.

As someone representing here those crowds and crowds that don't - what do you call *it* (that very *it*) then?

Uhh, Proto-Indo-European?


Unless you want it call it Old Pseudo-Urartian or Pseudo-Cimmerian for little reason...

[Basilius]

It's generally (but not universally) held that Proto-Indo-Hittite did not have a feminine gender - that Anatolian lost the feminine is a minority view.

There's like 2 people that call it Indo-Hittite anymore.

As someone representing here those crowds and crowds that don't - what do you call *it* (that very *it*) then?

Uhh, Proto-Indo-European?

The potentially negligeable difficulty I see with your proposal is that a few oldschool guys are suited to the idea that "Indo-European" is a protolanguage for which there is some sort of reconstruction already available. Not a particularly stable or complete one, but certainly useful.

But this customary picture portraits a situation where Anatolian is not part of Indo-European.

That is, for the entity that two people (Richard W. and I, obviously) still call Indo-Hittite we don't have a working reconstruction yet. Not even a sketchy one. For example, there are plenty of observations on sound correspondences which are probably valid, but (AFAIK) no accepted chart thereof pretending to be reasonably complete; people are still debating very basic things like which "laryngeal" in Proto-Indo-European corresponds to which "laryngeal" in Hittite (a necessary reservation is that I'm speaking of those few who are aware of there being at least two different "laryngeals" contrasting at least intervocalically in Hittite).

So, renaming Indo-Hittite to Indo-European implies that we don't have a reasonably detailed PIE reconstruction anymore, which some other people (besides the two who've been successfully identified above) may find embarrassing.

I hereby approve sharing this old news with those multitudes of advanced people who taught you that "Indo-Hittite" wasn't a useful term anymore :)

[Drydic]

The potentially negligeable difficulty I see with your proposal is that a few oldschool guys are suited to the idea that "Indo-European" is a protolanguage for which there is some sort of reconstruction already available. Not a particularly stable or complete one, but certainly useful.

But this customary picture portraits a situation where Anatolian is not part of Indo-European.

That is, for the entity that two people (Richard W. and I, obviously) still call Indo-Hittite we don't have a working reconstruction yet. Not even a sketchy one. For example, there are plenty of observations on sound correspondences which are probably valid, but (AFAIK) no accepted chart thereof pretending to be reasonably complete; people are still debating very basic things like which "laryngeal" in Proto-Indo-European corresponds to which "laryngeal" in Hittite (a necessary reservation is that I'm speaking of those few who are aware of there being at least two different "laryngeals" contrasting at least intervocalically in Hittite).

So, renaming Into-Hittite to Indo-European implies that we don't have a reasonably detailed PIE reconstruction anymore, which some other people (besides the two who've been successfully identified above) may find embarrassing.

I hereby approve sharing this old news with those multitudes of advanced people who taught you that "Indo-Hittite" wasn't a useful term anymore

Here's the problem. You are assuming that Anatolian broke off some time before the other IE groups, which then shared some common development. But that isn't necessarily the case; it's been shown that there are parallels between Anatolian and Greek-Armenian-Albanian and Indo-Iranian, as opposed to Germanic/Baltic/Slavic/Italo-Celtic. Your 'old news' is also too old; it was shown in 1938 that Anatolian is a co-equal branch to the others. This means the 'useful reconstruction' needs to be adjusted, and that 'useful reconstruction' isn't valid anymore by itself, since the Anatolian evidence needs to be taken into account, not that an Indo-Hittite needs to be reconstructed separately.

And as to the laryngeals, do remember that one theory holds that they merged and re-split in (at least) Hittite. I'd provide more info but my book on the Anatolian languages has vanished mysteriously D:

[Basilius]

Your 'old news' is also too old; it was shown in 1938 that Anatolian is a co-equal branch to the others. This means the 'useful reconstruction' needs to be adjusted, and that 'useful reconstruction' isn't valid anymore by itself, since the Anatolian evidence needs to be taken into account, not that an Indo-Hittite needs to be reconstructed separately.

OK, let's swap around

Now I claim that what you stated above is a minority view today (and deservedly, IMO). The idea of Anatolian being co-equal just sounds nonsensical.

Also, if branches A, B and C allow for a rather detailed and coherent reconstruction which is already there, and the hypothesis that a branch D is co-equal to them necessitates an "adjustment" in the reconstruction that hasn't been demonstrated to be feasible yet (I mean, since 1938), I think it's the new hypothesis that is suspect, not the former reconstruction.

And as to the laryngeals, do remember that one theory holds that they merged and re-split in (at least) Hittite. I'd provide more info but my book on the Anatolian languages has vanished mysteriously D:

Either you are referring to one of those theories that are based on, like, 2.5 examples, or you are saying something completely new to me, and then I'm really interested to hear the details (environments, examples etc.). Maybe in a separate thread, not to hijack this one.

[Drydic]

Your 'old news' is also too old; it was shown in 1938 that Anatolian is a co-equal branch to the others. This means the 'useful reconstruction' needs to be adjusted, and that 'useful reconstruction' isn't valid anymore by itself, since the Anatolian evidence needs to be taken into account, not that an Indo-Hittite needs to be reconstructed separately.

OK, let's swap around

Now I claim that what you stated above is a minority view today (and deservedly, IMO). The idea of Anatolian being co-equal just sounds nonsensical.

Also, if branches A, B and C allow for a rather detailed and coherent reconstruction which is already there, and the hypothesis that a branch D is co-equal to them necessitates an "adjustment" in the reconstruction that hasn't been demonstrated to be feasible yet (I mean, since 1938), I think it's the new hypothesis that is suspect, not the former reconstruction.

At this point I think it better to agree to disagree unless we can start citing actual things and not just shout YOU'RE WRONG. 'Cause everything I've read (published since 1990) says it's coequal. I would ask tho why it sounds nonsensical? Mycenaean Greek, Old Persian, and Vedic Sanskrit aren't that far off from the Anatolian timeframe.

And as to the laryngeals, do remember that one theory holds that they merged and re-split in (at least) Hittite. I'd provide more info but my book on the Anatolian languages has vanished mysteriously D:

Either you are referring to one of those theories that are based on, like, 2.5 examples, or you are saying something completely new to me, and then I'm really interested to hear the details (environments, examples etc.). Maybe in a separate thread, not to hijack this one.

As soon as I find the damn book I'll throw up what I can. Maybe it's that, maybe it's something else.


At any rate, Wikipedia, while it mentions Indo-Hittite, in the end goes against your claim, and its cite for that (note 28) is 2007. Unfortunately the pdf it references is a dead link. I don't suppose anyone has it squirreled away?

[Basilius]

Your 'old news' is also too old; it was shown in 1938 that Anatolian is a co-equal branch to the others. This means the 'useful reconstruction' needs to be adjusted, and that 'useful reconstruction' isn't valid anymore by itself, since the Anatolian evidence needs to be taken into account, not that an Indo-Hittite needs to be reconstructed separately.

OK, let's swap around :)

Now I claim that what you stated above is a minority view today (and deservedly, IMO). The idea of Anatolian being co-equal just sounds nonsensical.

Also, if branches A, B and C allow for a rather detailed and coherent reconstruction which is already there, and the hypothesis that a branch D is co-equal to them necessitates an "adjustment" in the reconstruction that hasn't been demonstrated to be feasible yet (I mean, since 1938), I think it's the new hypothesis that is suspect, not the former reconstruction.

At this point I think it better to agree to disagree unless we can start citing actual things and not just shout YOU'RE WRONG. 'Cause everything I've read (published since 1990) says it's coequal. I would ask tho why it sounds nonsensical? Mycenaean Greek, Old Persian, and Vedic Sanskrit aren't that far off from the Anatolian timeframe.

Timeframe? I don't follow, sorry.

At any rate, Wikipedia, while it mentions Indo-Hittite, in the end goes against your claim, and its cite for that (note 28) is 2007. Unfortunately the pdf it references is a dead link. I don't suppose anyone has it squirreled away?

Sorry, but I couldn't resist quoting some bits....

Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology in Anatolia[25] and the preservation of laryngeals.[26] However, in general this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the Anatolian evidence.

Sure. I guess it's much more convenient to ignore Anatolian evidence while discussing the position of Anatolian... in general...

According to another view the Anatolian subgroup left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities in non-satem languages in general - including Anatolian - might be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language area and early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship.[27] Holm (2008)[28] based on lexical calculations arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.

Do you know what? this is absolutely perfect in its beauty! Early separation rather than a special ancestral relationship - I can't write like this! And immediately - the general scholarly opinion, which is corroborated by some powerful Holm (he's powerful, he alone is stronger than an army!). And another view seemlessly becoming the general scholarly opinion - did you notice? That's admirable!

Now, Holm....

- Solving distribution problems in corpora of natural languages -> improved IE "Family Tree" -
[Abstract: Linguists use to assume that languages were closer related, the more features,
in particular common innovations, they share. In Holm (2003) has been demonstrated that
this assumption is erroneous because these researchers miss the fact that the amount of
shared agreements depends stochastically upon three more parameters. Only by help of the
maximum likelihood estimator of the hypergeometric distribution we are able to find the
amount of features, which must have been present in both languages at the era of their
separation. This way we obtain a chain of separation between a family of languages for
which the appropriate data is available. When applied to data of the Pokorny IEW, the
resulting late separation of Hittite, Albanian and Armenian could well have been caused
by their central position and therefore did not appear suspicious. Only when in a further
application to Mixe-Zoquean data the same observation occurred that poorly documented
languages appeared to separate late, a systematic bias could be suspected.
This work reveals the reason for this bias peculiar to lists of natural languages, as
opposed to stochastically normal distributed test cases like those presented in Holm 2007a.
As more modern and linguistic reliable database the new "Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben",
2nd.ed. (Rix et al. 2001) was the best choice. Indeed the suspicion was confirmed and it is
shown how these biased data can be correctly projected to true separation amounts.
The result is a partly new chain of separation for the main Indo-European branches, which
fits well to the grammatical facts, as well as to the geographical distribution of these branches.
In particular it clearly demonstrates that the Anatolian languages did not part as first
ones and thereby refutes the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.]

Stupid linguists they didn't use maximum likelihood estimator of the hypergeometric distribution!!!!

One must be in love with this guy to quote from him, I don't say believe - and I am.... Drydic Guy, thank you! I haven't read stuff like this for ages!

[Salmoneus]

Let us know when you hit puberty.

[Basilius]

Let us know when you hit puberty.

I admit that maybe I was carried away.

Do you mean that this thread would look better without the lengthy quotes above? I'll delete them if you suggest so.

[Salmoneus]

No, I think things are better standing where they stand; that way we avoid confusion.

And sorry for my cheap jibe, by the way. Just got a bit annoyed.