Re: [tied] 1sg. -o: [was Re: IE Thematic Vowel Rule]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:55:40 -0700 (PDT), glen gordon
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Miguel:
>> It doesn't make any sense to claim there were no
>> neuter thematics, and that they were in fact
>m-stems.
>
>I never made that claim. There evidently are. I'm
>merely saying that stems with *-om- in these strong
>cases

I.e. neuter o-stems...

>are in origin genitival derivatives and that
>*-om- was in fact part of the stem.

I.e. m-stems.

>> It makes no sense to claim that the "loss of -m- in
>> the oblique" was caused by a sound law -?i > -?,
>> when there are probably more barytone neuters in -om
>> than oxytones.
>
>"It makes no sense... because _probably_..." Do you
>realize you're just confronting my theory with a
>mere probability made into a stubborn conviction?

No, I'm confronting your theory with the facts. There *are*
a lot of barytone neuter o-stems. The "probably" only
refers to the relative frequency of barytone vs. oxytone
neuter o-stems, on which I have no hard data, although it
must be close to 50/50.

>> And it certainly makes no sense to suppose there
>> were neuter m-stems ending in a stressed suffix
>> -?, because athematic neuters are always root
>> -stressed.
>
>And why pray tell would be the brilliant explanation
>for this accent choice?

It's simply what we observe.

>Nothing. You're being silly.
>There's no analogy that can explain the accent of
>*yugom. It is therefore the original accent.

Yes. And that means that -óm cannot be "part of the stem".
Only -ó- is.

>I can't
>help it if my views are based on the facts rather
>than suppositions on accent shifts that we cannot
>see.

Your views are based on not knowing the facts. Show me one
athematic neuter wich is stressed on the suffix
(hysterodynamic), and we can talk. Otherwise, your theory
goes straight to the trash-can.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...