Re: [tied] I'm back with a few questions

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:12:43 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> On 2006-01-27 10:36, tgpedersen wrote:
>>
>> > Also, in those stems where the initial consonant C1 was subject
>to
>> > Grimm, the reduplicated forms C1eC1C2- the second occurence of
>C1
>> > would be subject to Verner, which made the stem unrecognizable.
>Then
>> > better leave it out altogether, with compensatory lengthening of
>the
>> > vowel (perhaps via a diphthong).
>>
>> But the de-reduplication of most verb classes must have happened
>before
>> Verner's Law; otherwise VL (where applicable) would have affected
>the
>> initial consonant of the preterite singular, e.g. *se-sókW-e >
>*sezaxW >
>> *zax(w).
>
>
>As Sihler remarks, a form like *se-sokW-e has three full grade
>vowels. That can't be original. That's one reason I think
>reduplication in the perfect singular is mostly created by analogy
>with the plural. The other reason is that, as Miguel notes
>reduplication is mostly to represent the action done several times,
>ie either by several subjects (plural)

Reduplication most commonly denotes plurality of the
transitive object or intransitive subject. It rarely
denotes plurality of the transitive subject, for which other
more explicit plural markers are usually available.

E.g. Basque *da "to be", reduplicated form *di-da > *(d)ira,
used for intransitive plural subject:

*na-da (iza) > naiz "I am"
*ka-da (iza) > haiz "you are"
*0-da > da "he is"
*ga-di-da > gara, gera "we are"
*sa-di-da > zara, zera "you are"
*0-di-da > dira "they are"

versus *du "to have", red. *di-du

*na-da-du > nau he has me
*ka-da-du > hau he has you
*da-du > du he has it
*ga-da-di-du > gaitu (*gaaiddu) he has us
*sa-da-di-du > zaitu (*zaaiddu) he has you
*0-da-di-du > ditu (*daiddu) he has them

>or by one subject several
>times (iterative) (actually M. believes that PIE perfect was
>ergative and that congruence was with the object; therefore
>reduplication in the sg. of the perfect is no problem for him. I
>think my solution is simpler). So there was (almost) no de-
>reduplication in the singular.

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