[tied] Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:57:09 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> >On 05-03-10 06:56, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >
> >> A further Web search turned up "Reduplication and the Old
> >> English strong verbs [of?] class VII , Studia Anglica
> >> Posnaniensia: international review of English Studies;
> >> Author: Adamczyk, Elz.bieta", but in order to read it, you
> >> have to give your credit card number to some people called
> >> "High Beam Research", which I don't want to do.
> >>
> >> The logical person to ask whether the article contains any
> >> relevant material (or is interesting otherwise) would be
> >> Piotr. No?]
> >
> >I was the supervisor of Ela Adamczyk's PhD dissertation (on the

fate of

> >Verner's Law in Old and Middle English conjugations), so how

could I

> >call the stuff she writes uninteresting? If she has kept an

electronic

> >copy of her SAP article and is eager to share it, it can be done

easily.

> >I'll probably see her later today.
>
> My thanks to Piotr and Elz.bieta Adamczyk. The article
> contains the reference I was after (Brugmann/Wood 1895),
> unfortunately no summary of what Brugmann's "ablaut theory"
> of the Germanic Class VII verbs is about.
>
> One of the phenomena commented on by Adamczyk is the effect
> of Verner's law on the Germanic reduplicated forms. O.N.
> sera, the other "r-preterites", and even Gothic sezle:p (~
> sesle:p) point to Verner in the second (root) syllable, on
> the pattern of *p&2té:r > *fádar : *seslé:p > *sézle:p.
>
> But if you think about it, it is far from evident that this
> should be so. One might equally have expected the
> reduplication syllable to be treated in the way unstressed
> pre-verbs such as *k(o)m- or *po- were treated. The
> reduplication would then be sle:pan => *zesle:p, haldan =>
> *gehald, or, if ablauting verbs originally also
> reduplicated, faran => *befo:r. What if this was indeed the
> way reduplication worked originally in Germanic, with only
> later a shift to the "monomorphemic" *fadar-type? And might
> that in part explain the curious NW Gmc. prefixation of past
> participles with ge- or be- or *uz- (> or-, er-, der-) [the
> latter perhaps confused with *ze- or even *de- of
> reduplication syllables]?
>

Gamkrelidze & Ivanov identify Italic-Celtic 'kom-', Germanic 'ga-'
with the Hittite '-kan' which occurs in the final slot of the
initial particle-"sausage". If we change the Hittite sentence
structure (still according to G&I) to include the finite verb in
second position in that first component (the one with the particles)
then in cases where the non-finite verb (here ppp) stands alone in
the second component, it will have an unstressed '-kan-' > -ga right
before it (and if we change word-order in the second component to
verb-first, it will in all cases).


Torsten