Knut:

>The, problem is simply that I do not think a late developement could
>explain the whole scenario of thematic noun usage. The teory seemes easy at
>the first glance, put is not if you try to
>explain all instances of thematic wovels from it. I can explain
>in greater depth why I think so later.

Well, I guess I will have to wait until you properly explain
the problems that exist then.

Or, perhaps you're refering to nouns such as *yug�m with accent
placed on the final? In fact, these nouns continue to conform
to the original penultimate accent pattern. So, clearly, their
accentuation has not been regularized to the initial like roots
derived from the singular genitive *-�s, even though they
_are_ thematic nouns. Why?

Well, there are differences between *os-derived nouns and
*om-derived ones. Only the genitive singular could have ever been
confused with the nominative in *-s. Obviously, at best, the
genitive plural formations could only be confused with the
_animate accusative_ in *-m. Indeed, the accusative
of *yug�m is the same, probably misanalysed as *yug�-m. But this
still doesn't answer the begging question: Why does its
accentuation fail to be regularized like the other thematic roots?

Well... this requires understanding a few things about IE grammar
and its dynamics. First of all, the inanimate class is not just
for individual, physical, inanimate objects. Abstract nouns
such as "happiness" and other anamorphic concepts such as "sky"
also naturally belong to this gender class. As well, continuing
with the concept of anamorphia, _collective_ nouns like "herd"
(nb. *pek^u) are also natural inanimates. Second of all, the
thematization seen in nouns appears to have been associated with
animacy in Late IE... but clearly, if my view on original final
vowels is correct, this cannot have been always the case, since
there would have been thematic animates as well as thematic
inanimates. Instead, it would appear, that the connection between
thematic vowel and animate gender is an association developed
over a period of time (specifically during the thousand years
of the Late IE period).

So... back to *yug�m. How does the above facts pertain to this
etymon? Quite simply, words derived from the genitive plural
*-�m were not originally animate. They were inanimate. Collectives
even, which goes well with a genitive _plural_. Words such as
*o:wiom "egg" and *yugom "yoke" (MIE *xewei-�ne, *yeug�-ne) are
obviously not true "animate" objects since they are describing
immobile objects and abstract concepts. Thus, they have been
artificially placed in the animate category by some analogical
mechanism, namely, the identification of thematic nouns with
_animacy_. To further add, it makes further sense why the
nominative and accusative of *yug�m should have been identical: Inanimate
nouns do not have a seperate accusative case.

One extra dynamic to note about IE grammar is the association
of regular accent with the more common animate category versus the
preserved erratic accent pattern seen in the lesser inanimate
category. Since *yugom would have always been regular (even if on
the final), its position in the inanimate class made it all the
more awkward.

Perhaps, then, I should be clearer about this regularization
rule: The accentuation of all **ANIMATE** thematic nouns as well
as the present conjugations of thematic verbs have been regularized
to the initial in Early Late IE. (Further processes then transfer
some thematic inanimates to the animate class.)

So, if this is your concern, I hope I nipped it in the bud for
you ;)

- love gLeN



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp