Re: ficken

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-01-21 00:32, stlatos wrote:
>
> > Greek has plenty of nouns ending in -gmos and -gma:, Latin has none
> > in -gmus or -gma but others with -mus and -ma after other C or V. The
> > only way to account for this is m>m.>n.>n after velar stops in Latin
> > (a sim. rule in Germanic).
> >
> > Also, the last time I remember you mentioning this you said that
> > o-mo nouns came from *-mn and so dismissed e-mo and 0-mo words I gave
> > to disprove a PIE origin of m/n-alternations (that supposedly occured
> > depending on the presence of a labial in the root). Is this another
> > thematicization you're proposing or did you slightly modify your
> > version of this theory?
>
> I'm not its author. If you re-read Jens Rasmussen's account of how it
> works, you will see that roots with *u normally don't get the O-infix
> but remain nil-grade.
>
> Piotr

When I questioned other theories of his he and you gave different
answers. I'm not going to attempt to merge your answers in some way
instead of responding to each thing you say. For example, for words I
gave before that you said contained *u they were o-mo; neither you nor
Jens said they should be 0-mo within this theory and you even said
that *dhu:xmos < *dhouxmos was a possibility.

I understand that you didn't originate everything you advocate, but
since the author of this theory stopped responding to my questions and
counterexamples in the middle of that previous discussion and you
often give modifications or personal rules concerning other theories I
seed nothing wrong with commenting on a derivation you just gave in
terms of your previous descriptions.

For this particular example, can you give one Latin noun in -gmus or
-gma or a reason why these in particular would be eliminated?