From: tgpedersen
Message: 39804
Date: 2005-08-27
> Miguel:cf., with respect to the similarly 'thematic' *pedom
> > 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.
>