Re: [tied] Re: Allofamy, allofams

On 2006-07-06 13:42, tgpedersen wrote:

> Really? -x in the pret. sg., -ng- in the pl.?

No, and you should know why. Class 7 has been discussed here more than
once. It's the old reduplicated class restructured in West Germanic. In
this class, the pret.sg. is _always_ levelled out with the pret.pl., and
being secondary provides no information relevant to Verner's Law. The
forms that _are_ independent and can be used as evidence are the present
stem (reflecting *xaNx-), the pret.pl. he:ngon (in Class 7, the vowel is
a WGmc. innovation, but the medial cluster is original) and the p.p.
hangen (reflecting *xang-). Verner's Law appears where it's expected.

>> And 'hang' at least
>> has impeccable cognates abroad, including Hitt. ka:nki/kankanzi
>
> Could be from *gank-.
>
>> and Skt. s'aNkate.
>
> Impeccable? What's that /k/ doing there?

Doing its regular job. I fail to see anything problematic about *k^onk-

> Skt. s'aNk-.

>> Incidentally, there was no *x (*h) or *f in pre-Germanic, so
>> *fanx- can't have been borrowed in this form.
>
> That's what was meant by my "before Grimm, obviously".

I still don't quite see what you mean. What was borrowed before Grimm,
and what did it look like in the language into which it was borrowed?

Piotr