Origin of Thematic Neuter -om (was: 1sg. -o:)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, 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.

If I understand you, you are saying that the nominative / accusative
was in origin the gentive plural -om. However, there is no need to
assume that -om was ever part of the stem. The other cases may simply
always have been inflected on the stem in the thematic vowel, without
-m- ever appearing in the oblique cases.

Russian offers a partial analogy. The inflection of the larger
Russian numerals (such as p'at' 'five') plus noun comes to mind.
While the nominative and accusative take the noun in the genitive
plural (and the numeral has the form of a singular noun in the
nominative/accusative), the cases of the components agree in the other
(oblique) cases and have plural endings on both numeral and noun.

Richard.