English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Summary  This paper intends to show that when grouping the various kinds of omissions of final - m  in Väänänen‘s study on the Vulgar Latin of Pompeian inscriptions, the subcategories in his category b) (‘ m  omis sans raison apparente’ i.e. where - m  is omitted due to a phonetic process) as “Accusatifs en -a(m) ”  like  Succesus amat ancilla(m) and ad porta(m) Romana(m)  or “Accusatifs en -e( m )” such as  qu(a)e amas Felicione(m)  and  ante aede(m)  must be rearranged in the following two subcategories: 1) cases after prepositions like  ad porta(m) Romana(m)  and  ante aede(m)  etc. where besides the phonetic interpretation a parallel morphosyntactic explanation of case confusion cannot be ruled out; and 2) cases with the objective use connected to verbs like  Succesus amat ancilla(m)  and  qu(a)e amas Felicione(m)  where, due to the preference of the phonetic interpretation, the morphosyntactic explanation seems to be less probable or even unlikely.

On the Loss of Final -m: Phonological or Morphosyntactic Change?*