Re: *-t-, put

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Jens wants the stem extensions -t-, -(e)n-, -(e)nt- and -r (of
> > which -t- is part of the ppp suffix -tó-) to be phonetic variants
> > of a single morpheme.
> >
> >
> > I want them to be variants of the verbal root PIE *dhe:-
> > (elsewhere known as *dheh1-), from PPIE *dhegh- "put, make"
> > (inflected *gdhó:mi, *de:i, *de:i; from the 3sg is reconstructed
> > the root PIE *dheigh-).
> >
>
> What gave you such a strange desire?

They seem to compete in various linguistic analyses, eg. Germanic weak
pret. (traditionally from *dhe:-) and ppp. (traditionally from -t-),
where it is a problem since the two forms are obviously related. If
one believes in a 'mana kartam' type origin for the pret., as I do,
they are both from -t-, but then the obviously verbal reduplication of
the Gothic pret.pl. becomes a problem.

Wrt. semantics, I have no problem accepting some kind of relatedness
between 'lay, put' and 'that one'. Nor with between es- "is" and 2sg
-s for that matter.


Torsten