--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > If the Hittites chose /da/ over /ta/ purely for writing
> > convenience, why did they write /ta/ not /da/ for the pret.
> > 2sg,3sg suffix? How does one explain da-a-is^-ta with both
> > /da/ and /ta/?
>
> Good point. Still, the imperative ends in -du more often than -tu,
> even after -s-, and <tu> is a much more complicated sign than <du>,
> so complexity seems to be a factor. Is perhaps <da> excluded if no
> full vowel is meant?
Or d/t was neutralized in that context, cf Danish. If they had
spoken Danish, I think scribes would have made the choice between
*da-an-es-ka and *da-an-es-ga to write 'dansk' based on convenience.
According to Oettinger
MH ta-ma-as^-zi, ta-ma-a-as^-zi, da-ma-as^-zi
NH da-ma-as^-zi (oft), ta-ma-as^-zi(oft), dam-me-es^-zi
"bedrücken, bedrängen"
ie damás-, tamás-, so the first /a/ is short
"dammes^ha 'Gewalttat' zeigt stets DAM"
da-as^-s^e-es^-ta, da-as^-s^i-is^-du
presumably short before double s^, but of course might
be understood as a double vowel in da-as^-
on the other hand
ta-na-at-te-es^-zi,
ta-an-na-at-te-es^-zi,
dan-na-at-te-es^-zi
seems to avoid DA to indicate short /a/
(if it is actually short?)
also
OH ta-e 3sg pres. "gives" (once)
OH ta-i-ti 2sg pres. "you give"
Otherwise your observation seems to hold.
Torsten