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 are in origin genitival derivatives and that
*-om- was in fact part of the stem. So *m is lost
in weak cases.
> 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?
Your convictions mean nothing to me, only facts.
> 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? Nothing. You're being silly.
There's no analogy that can explain the accent of
*yugom. It is therefore the original accent. I can't
help it if my views are based on the facts rather
than suppositions on accent shifts that we cannot
see.
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com