From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39854
Date: 2005-09-02
>Nonetheless, I don't think it's a great sin for meYet another solution that yields circumflex -õ, but we need
>to ponder on whether a regular sound change is behind
>the development of *-o:. I still think that the only
>possible origin of it is via earlier *-o-mi. The more
>I think about it, the nasalization from *m would
>probably have transfered to the following *i in this
>unstressed intervocalic environment.
>
>Now, I don't know about your general view on /i~/ in
>languages but I don't see that often in the world.
>I'd think it's likely for the nasality itself to
>quickly sink /i~/ to /e~/. That would yield */-o(w)e~/
>out of earlier *-o-mi, which then can very easily
>become our lovely suffix *-o: by the concatenation of
>*o and *e.
>> It just proves that neuter thematics like *yugómSorry, but I completely miss that. The nominative *-s (from
>> are really thematics, not m-stems, and that it's
>> absolutely out of the question that the -m belongs
>> to the stem.
>
>While I admit *yugom probably doesn't have to do with
>*-o: like I thought earlier, there is no way that
>you can miss the fact that thematic nouns (which
>mirror their adjectival counterparts) are originally
>genitival derivatives in gen.sg *-os (> animate
>*-o-s) and gen.pl *-om (> inanimate collective *-o-m).
>There is nothing that you've posted yet that canThis has nothing to do with Nostratic, as the rise of
>better explain the origin of the (pseudo)suffix *-m
>in the inanimate thematics. Without the event of
>Nominative Misanalysis, you're grasping in the dark
>on the etymological source of this 'inanimate' *-m
>and you run the danger of reconstructing phantom
>morphology in Nostratic.