Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/-umô

Alternative Etymology
Kroonen suggests that this suffix was based on the root of (< ), giving a proto-form. Thoughts on this etymology? Anglom (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the relationship with the Latin suffix is a bit too strong to be coincidence, though. 00:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that. But Sihler explains the Latin suffix coming from earlier *-ism̥mo-, *-isemo-, an Italo-Celtic innovation. Apparently the suffix gave many different forms -imus, -īmus, -ēmus, and so on, due to different sound changes and contractions. Anglom (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Or simply *-m̥mo- as well, I guess. Anglom (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Sihler suggests that a *-m̥Ho- phonologically makes more sense than *-m̥mo-, so it might be the same suffix after all. Anglom (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sihler does state that "*-(t)m̥Ho- solves the phonological problem", but I don't see what the problem is solved in the first place, the missing *-t-? -m̥mo- fits perfectly, from my understanding. Regardless, Sihler decides to continue using *-(t)m̥mo-. I created an entry for, but I didn't include *-(t)m̥Ho-. --Victar (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The cluster *-m̥m- implies a formation with geminate -m-, where PIE did not allow consonant gemination. Whether this extended to syllabic resonants before like resonants is extremely uncertain. A syllabic *-m̥- is required with a subsequent sound that disappeared, which *-m̥H- would allow for and which fits formally very well. Anglom (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)