Re[2]: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

At 2:53:25 PM on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, alexandru_mg3
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>> On 2008-02-26 14:50, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

>>> With all my respect for Jens, I think that there is no
>>> -t or -nt *dHi-dHéh1-t/*dHé-dH(h1)-n.t

>>> See Jassanof:

>>> "
>>> 1) On the Germanic side, the discovery in 1963 of the
>>> Runic 3 sg. talgidai (Nøvling, c. 200), which rules out
>>> the traditional reconstruction of the 3 sg. ending as
>>> PGmc. *-de: < *-de:t < PIE *-dheh1-t;
>>> "

>> Jasanoff is so badly in want of some attestation of
>> perfect passives that he eagerly interprets a Runic hapax
>> (otherwise completely unknown) as one, [...]

> I do not agree.

> First, the quoted inscription is not "otherwise completely
> unknown"

Piotr didn't say that it was. He said that this particular
spelling of the word is otherwise unknown.

[...]

Brian