Re: [tied] More Jasanoff

On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:24:18 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>But yes, the behaviour of reduplicated verbs do play a major role in
>what controversy remains between Jasanoff and myself.

That can't be the only thing. I'm afraid I'm mainly with
Jasanoff on the reduplication (or lack of). But surely, his
treatment of "i-presents" (Ch. 4) would have looked much
better if he had recognized (by reading you) that the -i is
no "extension", and that there are soundlaws governing the
behaviour of -eHi- clusters (although in the end he gets
more or less the correct result with his AHIHA-rule). His
treatment of the 3rd. pl. forms would have profited from
recognizing that there's a soundlaw -n > -r, and he also
doesn't seem to be aware of the voiced/voiceless rule for
the quality of the thematic vowel (which means 1sg. them.
*-oh2 cannot possibly work in that shape).

>> >I have no
>> >problem accepting it even for a time preceding the split-off of
>> >Anatolian, so if there is too much <te-> in 'say' in Hittite,
>>
>> That's the opposite phenomenon: e-grade in the 3pl. (and
>> 2pl., rarely 1pl.) mi-conjugation preterite where one would
>> expect zero-grade (appwen/epten/eppir, esuwen/esten/esir).
>
>Hitt. <te-> has no zero-grade alternants if <tar-> is a different
>root; therefore there is no interesting distribution of vowel grades
>in this particular Hittite verb.

Then I don't understand why you brought it up (and I
maintain that the most likely possibility is that te- and
tar- are the same root, like har- and hark-).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...