From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36678
Date: 2005-03-08
>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:40:01 +0000, elmeras2000biotame:s
><jer@...> wrote:
>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't it obvious? haita haitis haitiþ vs. hait, haist,
>>> hait. OS, OHG io (not iu) confirms this.
>>
>>No, not to me. Is Gothic taken to have *added* reduplication?
>
>Did I say that?
>
>>Is the
>>reflex of a putative pre-Gmc. *-ei- taken to be something which
>>never appears as the reflex of *-ei- in present stems?
>
>Yes.
>
>The equivalent Umlaut in the *eu-present is still seen in
>OHG (everywhere else the eo ~ iu alternation was levelled):
>
>inf. biotan
>1 biutu
>2 biutis
>3 biutit
>1 biotume:s
>2 biotetI forgot to mention that this is confirmed by what we find
>3 biotant
>
>(we have *eu > iu before u, i, j, *eu > *eo > io before a,
>in the same way that we have *ei > ii before i/j/u, and *ei
>> *ee before a; the rule of course follows automatically
>from the Umlaut of PIE *e > e/i, *i > e/u and *u > o/u under
>the same circumstances).
>
>For *ei-verbs, we would expect an original distribution with
>Gmc. *e:2 in the inf., 1 and 3pl., but *i: elsewhere. This
>was levelled to *i: everywhere (sti:gan).
>
>In the preterite, we would expect *ei > *e:2 in the singular
>(*-h2a, *-tha), and we have levelling from there (he2:t).