Re: [tied] Re: PNS

On 2006-09-20 09:31, tgpedersen wrote:

>> *si.tjan > *sit.tjan (OSax. sittian) > OE sittan
>
> *seNdjan > *seHtjan > *siHtjan > *sittjan >
> (by anlogy with pret.) *sittan

Do you mean that PIE *Nd became Gmc. *-Ht- and that this is what led to
the WGmc. pre-j gemination of _all_ consonants (except *r) in _all_
parts of speech practically without exception? I'm afraid you have
already let your new idée fixe carry you too far.

>> *sa.ljan (cf. Goth. saljan, ON selja) > *sal.ljan > OE sellan
>> (the loss of *j was later than i/j-umlaut in pre-English,
>> cf. OSax. sellian)
> *saljan > *seljan > *sellan by analogy with pret.

I beg your pardon? What analogy? The preterite stem is seald- < *sal-d-.
There is no gemination either in forms with vocalised *j, such as 2sg.
selest and 3sg. seleþ (as opposed to 1sg. selle, pl. sellaþ, where the
*j remained consonantal). The whole beauty of the pattern consists in
the fact that it was _not_ affected by analogy and all the expected
alternations can still be seen in OE.

>> *li.Gjan > *lig.gjan > OE licg(e)an
> *leghjan > *legjan > *ligjan >
> (by analogy with pret.) > *liggan

Same as above (pret. *laG/*læ:Gun > OE læg/læ:gon). Pleeeease! do some
reading before you write, especially if you intend to rewrite Germanic
historical phonology from scratch.

Then, what about nouns like *kunja- > OE cynn, *aGjo: > OE ecg (OHG
ecka, OSax. eggja, OFris. egg). The gemination is 100% regular and
doesn't depend on the pattern of inflection.

>> *su.njo: > *sun.nju > OE synn
> Da. søn, sønner
> Sw. son, söner
> Da. by analogy with pl., most agree, aided by many ODa. surnames
> in unstressed -son > -s&n

There must have been some misunderstanding. OE synn means 'sin' (PGmc.
*sunjo:) not 'son' (PGmc. *sunuz).

Piotr