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

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.