From: tgpedersen
Message: 45997
Date: 2006-09-07
>And is Novgorod m.nom. -e = vocative?
>
> > > > Why did unstressed *-os become -U in masculines, but
> > > > become -o in neuters?
> > >
> > > Either, as Piotr suggested, the presence of oblique forms
> > > in -es- triggered a special development of the NAsg. in -os,
> > > or the -o of the s-stems does not continue PIE *-os, but
> > > pronominal *-od.
> > >
> >
> > Is it possible that PIE had a non-sigmatic nominative
> > which survived only in Slavic? After all, the nom. -s
> > in athematic inflections in many cases looks like it's
> > been slapped on later. CF. also the Novgorod nominatives
> > in -e. It would match the Fennic languages which became
> > substrates to the early slavic ones, they have unmarked
> > nominatives.
>
> Why do we keep saying that n.nom.acc. is -o when it's both
> -o and -e? Are those IE ablaut forms or something else? Is
> the Novgorod m.nom. -e the same suffix, and if so, why
> doesn't it alternate with -o?
>