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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:16:07 -0700 (PDT), glen gordon
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>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.

What doesn't make any sense is your analysis.

It doesn't make any sense to claim there were no neuter
thematics, and that they were in fact m-stems.

It makes no sense to claim that the "loss of -m- in the
oblique" was caused by a sound law -ómi > -ói, when there
are probably more barytone neuters in -om than oxytones.
And you still haven't given any example of -ómi > -ói vs.
'-omi = '-omi.

And it certainly makes no sense to suppose there were neuter
m-stems ending in a stressed suffix -óm, because athematic
neuters are always root-stressed.

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