Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit and Baltic d- verbs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>

> Now on my side:
>
> 1. - 'I'm against' the generalization of the reduplication

based

> on what I have tried to show above
>
> 2. - I think that Proto-Norse -dai should be taken seriously in
> account => this rejects the imperfect theory completely (Jassanof

is

> right here)
>
> 3. - next I think, (viewing that -dh(e)h1- is used too, to form
> nouns and adjectives in PIE) that dh(e)h1- was originary (in PIE
> times) used as a particle (initially a distinct word) with a

specific

> meaning like 'placing, keeping':
> cf. *mn.s-dHeh1 (Skt. medha': 'wisdom'),
> *mis-dH-(eh1) (Gk. mistho's 'salary' )
> *mihes-dHeh1 (Skt. miy'edha- 'sacrificial oblation').
>
> => so Germanic dental preterit is a Germanic innovation that

arrived

> to generalized the usage of this particle for a whole 'verbal
> construction'. As result there is no need to identify other

Germanic

> verbals forms as source of it.
>
> 4. as I know there are d- verbal formations in Baltic too
>
> Marius

For Baltic d- verbs I can quote

baidy'ti (variant baidinti) 'to scare' < *bHoi-dHh1-

versus

bijo'ti 'to be afraid' < *bhiH-eh2-tei


This is a clear example that dH(e)h1- participated to verbal
formations starting already from PIE times

So the Germanic innovation is not in relation with the usage of dH(e)
h1- in some verbal construction (that visible happened already in PIE
times) but the innovation consists in the generalization made by
Proto-Germanic that 'used' these formation to construct a complete
verbal category: the dental-preterite.


Marius