Re: [tied] Re: *-t-, put

On 2007-07-09 17:20, tgpedersen wrote:

> Second weak conjugation: Gothic salbo:-da < PIE *salbax-dho:; where
> -ax is the individuating suffix. Look, Ma, no *-tó-!

The past participle is Goth. salboþs < *salBo:-ða-z < *solpah2-tó-s, the
normal deverbal adjective (cf. Lat. -a:tus) associated with
*solpah2-jé/ó- 'anoint', a denominative verb from the _noun_ *solpáh2
'ointment' with cognates in several branches, e.g. Skt. sarpí- 'ghee'.
(Far from being an 'individuating suffix', *-ah2 has its more usual
collective significance here.) In order to form a periphrastic
preterite, the Proto-Germani took the participle and added the imperfect
of 'to do/make/put': *salBo:ða- ðiðe: '(he) made (it) anointed'. Then
the auxiliary was _almost_ dropped, leaving only a symbolic trace of its
presence (with more substance in the plural than in the singular) but
retaining the personal ending. You would have to try really hard to come
up with a more logical story.

>>> I think it's *frawarði- ðða: > *frawarðiðe: (Goth. frawardida)
>>> *frawarði- ðe:ðun > *frawarðiðe:ðun (Goth. frawardide:dun)
>>>
>>> *wurx- ðða: > *wurxte: (Goth. waúrhta) *wurx- ðe:ðun >
>>> *wurxte:dun (Goth. waúrhte:dun)
>>>
>>> Note Sabellic 3sg prúfatted "probavit" with -tt-.
>> Why not a "Iuppiter rule" treatment of *-a:t- > -att-?
>
> Buck has no Iuppiter rule for Oscan afa I could tell and calls its
> perfect -tt- 'a mystery'.

Well, Helmut Rix blames it on the Iuppiter rule, and believes it
operated optionally already in Proto-Italic.

Piotr