Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/yéwgos

Isn't it semantically difficult to connect this with ? Doesn't (nom. sg., Vedic ) makes more sense? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is true; the problem is the declension. This *yéwgos is a neuter *-s- athematic declension noun (as is योगस्), whereas योग is a masculine thematic declension noun. The meaning is closer in line in attested usage, but योग underwent the same semantic shift (yoking > application or concentration of the thoughts > meditation) as योगस्. Under, we list the thematic declension separately (though annoyingly, it has the same lemma form, *yéwgos). I believe योगस् is the direct descendant of the athematic *yéwgos but is not very common, whereas योग is either from a separate thematic *yéwgos (though I would like to see a few cognates) or is a later Sanskrit deverbal noun, but clearly is more common than योगस्. Does that make sense? — JohnC5 20:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It kind of makes sense – the thematic and athematic distinction is what differentiates the two. Does this mean Proto-Indo-Iranian should have two noun sections? One for the athematic  and another for  or should bothe be listed together? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, *yáwgas should have two nouns with separate declensions as, in theory, should *yéwgos. I'd like to see a few more examples within or outside of PII of the thematic declension. You still seem hesitant about the distinction I've made. Is there anything Code or I could explain? — JohnC5 20:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just an interesting concept, one that I will take time to fully understand and accept. This table of the declension of yogas makes it much more acceptable; it lines up nicely with the declension of *yéwgos. Thank you! —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, check out >,  > , > ,  > ,  > ,  > ,  > . — JohnC5 21:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way. The thematic is masculine and has the stem  plus the masculine nominative singular ending . Thus, the -s is a case ending and appears only in the nominative singular and is replaced with other endings in other cases. The athematic  is neuter and has the stem  plus the neuter nominative singular ending, which is a zero morpheme (no ending). Here, the -s is part of the stem and therefore appears in all forms. —CodeCat 21:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)