--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
> Patrick, "the haplology' to explain the Germanic weak preterite
> (with all his issues "in sg. happened in pl. not happened": like a
> hocus-pocus) is a much much better idea than the 'locative-one'
>
> 1. Why you don't ask him directly if k^red-dHeh1 is a noun like
*mn.s-
> dHeh1 or not?
>
> 2. Why you don't ask him directly why 'we don't have a locative'
in
> *mn.s-dHeh1 too (sic!)
>
> 3. However I cannot imagine that he can say that *bai- in
Lithuanian
> can be from from an unexisting bHhi-
>
> Marius
Not to forget the main topic:
For our main topic 'origin of Germanic weak preterite' is important
only to assert if there was already in PIE or not:
<Verb>+dHeh1- constructions that gave Verbs
For this:
1. => I identified Lithuanian baidyti as a good candidate
*bHoih-dHh1-
2. => I asserted that k^red-dHeh1 'heartset' (a <Noun>+dHeh1-
construction) was originary, as a whole, a Noun (as Noun, as a whole,
is mn.s-dHeh1 'mindset' too)
=> so is not a relevant example for our topic
3. s'rad-dadha:ti is still a verbal construction in Sanskrit => so
is good as Jassanof showed to indicate the existance of such
periphrastic verbal formation in dHeh1-
In relation with the Germanic weak preterite: Is a very good
example of a periphrastic verbal formation using re-duplication.
But even supposing it as already a verb, being a <Noun>+dHeh1-
construction is not relevant for our topic where we need <Verb>+dHeh1-
constructions (if any)
Marius