Re: Re[6]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50280
Date: 2007-10-13

> In short, your example doesn't support your claim.


It is obvious these forms are one only verb.

You gave Past forms
and you invented Gothic Past participle
which is not attested.

Your arguments are a bit too short
to support refutation.

Could you also give Present ancient forms too ?

You carefully avoided providing Present forms.
So I suppose these forms are a problem
for your claim.
Otherwise I do not doubt you would have cited them.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "fournet.arnaud" <>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 8:13 AM
Subject: Re[6]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

> At 3:53:26 AM on Sunday, September 30, 2007, fournet.arnaud
> wrote:
> [I had written:]
>>> Early attestations of OE, ON, OSax, and OHG are far too
>>> similar to be the result of some three millennia of
>>> divergence; the suggestion can't be taken seriously.
> [...]
>> I don't think these languages are that much similar. I(ch)
>> stand means present in English : past : I got up in
>> German.
> The modern German preterite <stand> is altogether
> irrelevant: it's a 17th century innovation, and I was
> talking about the early Gmc. dialects. The relevant data
> for this verb are as follows:
> Pret. Pret. Past
> Inf. Sing. Plur. Part.
> ---------------------------------------
> Goth. standan sto:þ sto:þum *staþans
> OE standan sto:d sto:don standen
> OSax standan sto:d sto:dun standan
> stuond
> OHG stantan stuont stuontun gistantan
> (stuot)
> ON standa stóð stóðu staðinn
> The vowels match perfectly. All have the n-infix in the
> present. In OE, OSax, and OHG it was extended to the past
> part. as well, and in OHG and OSax it infiltrated the pret.
> as well, though OHG <stuot> appears sporadically as late as
> the 12th century. These minor differences in the extent to
> which the nasal infix spread from the present to the rest of
> the paradigm do almost nothing to obscure the obvious
> identity of these verbs.
> In short, your example doesn't support your claim.
> [...]
> Brian
> Yahoo! Groups Links