Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

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

>
> --- 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

2.a Even supposing that *k^red-dHeh1 would be demonstrated to be a
verb, if it 'will remain' a <Noun>+dHeh1- construction is not
relevant for our topic
But if somebody will demonstrate that there is no 'heart' inside
it then it will become interesting for our topic

Marius