On the paradigm of *yugom:
>>I know, already!
>
> So why do you ignore it?
Because it's harder to not fully explain the odd
disappearance of *m in those oblique cases.
Miguel:
> The thing about *yugom is that it's thematic, and
> the neuter NA ending is *-m,
You can reiterate this all you want but *m simply
is not a "neuter NA" ending. There's nothing "NA"
about it. The ending is derived from the same
source as the genitive plural in *-om, from which we
get the neuter thematic adjective as well. The
connection involves "collectivity" or "uncountability"
which then ties it with the inanimate gender.
The ending cannot have anything etymologically to do
with the nominative, accusative or VOCATIVE cases so
*-om- is clearly part of the stem which happens to
**disappear** in the oblique cases. No other
analysis, including yours, makes any sense.
I don't doubt that IE speakers came to consider
*yugom as "thematic" because of the nature of the
paradigm, however.
On thematic presents again:
> That immediately half-explains why it is not
> affected by zero grade.
I like that: "half-explains"?! What *fully*
explains it is that the inherent durative verb once
had the theme *-e- in MIE, placed between root
and pronominal suffix. During Syncope, unaccented *e
was reduced to *& and *a was reduced to zero. The end.
So *bHereti < MIE *bér-e-tai. That's all there is
to it. The accent is also ante-penultimate by QAR.
= gLeN
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs