From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39780
Date: 2005-08-26
>I said:So why do you ignore it?
>> Gender has nothing to do with it. The first stem
>> is *?ekwo-, the second is *yugom-. The second ends
>> in *m and that's what makes the difference.
>
>Miguel tries to re-emphasize facts that I already
>know:
>> It ends in o/e- (pl.obl. -oy), of course:
>>
>> NAV *yug-ó-m
>> G *yug-ó-syo (~ -syó)
>> D *yug-ó-ei
>> L *yug-ó-i
>> I *yug-ó-(e)h1
>> Ab *yug-ó-od
>
>I know, already!
>As I already mentioned here, the "deeperHow can it be unable to carry *-m if it's carrying it?
>consideration" that we must understand about *yugom
>is that it is _inanimate_ and therefore unable to
>carry the accusative *-m which is well documented
>to be exclusively **animate**
>> And it's *-o: (bhéro:) and *-ó: (*tudó:),They do.
>> independent of accent.
>
>I explained in another post in response to Piotr's
>input that accent on the thematic vowel is by
>analogy with thematic aorists which can only have
>occured right before Fragmentation. Acrostatic
>Regularization, which must exist to explain the
>dominant acrostatic pattern of thematic stems, would
>have predicted that presents with accented thematic
>can't exist.