Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

On 2008-02-27 01:00, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Being initially a PIE distinct word (dHeh1-) (and only next a
> particle in a verbal construction -dHeh1-) => the usage of
> reduplication (as a usual PIE verbal phenomenon) => can obviously
> appear in relation with a Plurality

Obviously?? Only if you ignore all real-world evidence. Can you show me
a single independent case where reduplication expresses plurality in IE
or Germanic? In the case of an aorist verb root *dHeh1-, reduplication
expresses the "present/imperfect" aspect.

> > Again: have _you_ got a
> > convincing explanation of <teta/ta:tun> etc.? One that doesn't
> involve
> > analogy? Really?
>
> Can you see that you remain inside your Model when assert this?
> Once inside Your Model, I agree that there is no other workaround for
> you but this one. But nobody forced you to sustain that Model...

What are you saying? <teta/ta:tun> are actual forms, as are the Gothic
endings <-da/-de:dun>. Can you explain the long vowel in the plural or not?

> Next the Runic Text in -dai wasn't published "by the proponents of
> the "perfect middle solution"
>
> Are you really convince regarding what you real propose as an
> Alternative? : you say more or less that is better to ignore this
> inscription (-> "as an proponent of the "imperfect solution"? ,to
> use your own expression)
>
> I can tell you: that anybody 'free to choose' will not ignore this
> inscription:
> I quoted for you: Antonsen that provided the text,
> I quoted for you: Moltke that provided the Same Text,
> next:
> I quoted for you: Jassanof that takes it as a fact,
> I quoted for you: Kortlandt that takes it as a fact,
> even you can well see that each of them finally proposed a
> Different Model, none of them ignore Facts
> Are all of them, idiots?
>
> Why to arrive to propose to ignore this?
> Sound for me like something personal...

I neither deny (or have denied) the reality of the inscription nor
ignore its existence. I merely point out that it's an isolated case of
<-idai> in all of Germanic, and so Jasanoff's suggestion that the weak
preterite contains a Germanic reflex of the perfect middle *dHe-dHh1-ói
is based on next to nothing. A SINGLE aberrant spelling is surely not
enough to rule out the identification of the endings of the dental
preterite with the imperfect of 'to do', also visible in the
<teta/ta:tun> preterite.

Piotr