Re: [tied] o/e or reduplication
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> I still fail to understand why the reduplicated desiderative
> is not *<cicitsat>. Why is that?
Do I have to know that? Even if ci-kit- of the desiderative is by
dissimilation or is analogical on ci-kit- of the perfect which is then in
turn analogical on the full-grade ci-ket-a, that does not make jan-ghan-ti
of the intensive either dissimilated or analogical. The preferred
hypothesis would be that it is original. Why would the full-grade variants
that appear in the strong forms of the intensive not be original, if those
that appear under the same circumstances in the perfect or the
reduplicated present are? And if they are analogical what difference does
it make anyway if that is an analogy that occurred before the splitting-up
of PIE? You seem to be clutching at the weakest of straws, I don't see you
being objective here at all.