Re: Gothic ,

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@> wrote:

> > but with <d>
> > substituted for <t> for some reason (lack of stress?). Or are they
> > from IE words with *dh-?

> The former, I think.
> Note Møller's example in
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29869
> The originally 'dangling' (Vedic, Hittite) adverbial could be and was
> later understood as either postposition or preverb; Verner would have
> given different outcomes accordingly, which later might have been
> generalized.

How would that happen? Since you've gotten the correspondences for
Grimm's and Verner's Laws wrong many times in the past you may be
misinterpreting this case, too.

If so, then remember that PIE d > PGermanic t everywhere; it's PIE t
that can become d by Verner's Law.

If not, then I don't know what new rule you might be proposing.