Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:34:18 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> > 1. Irrelevant? I thought that this was one of the topic

here...to

> >clarify all the accentual aspects of this word.
>
> Irrelevant to your statement: "Lettish counterparts has no
> acute accent" (of the verbal ending -ýti, -ît, -i"ti), which
> is false.

...of the verbal endings is your own add-on. Don't add what I
didn't say.

> > 2. By the way, you can well see there too (even is implicitly
> >asserted by Derksen) that baidyti is NOT AT ALL DENOMINAL

formation.

>
> What verb is it derived from then?

It's an original PIE causative-iterative with a dHh1- extension
No need to search for another *baid-

> > 3. I remember also that you have derived here yesterday the

Latvian

> >form from one PIE form and the Lithuanian one from another one :)

We

> >are faraway from there isn't it?
>
> No. The fact remains that the circumflex in Lithuanian is
> incompatible with the acute in Latvian. Derksen sees the
> acute in Latvian as secondary, but he apparently departs
> from a root *bhoi-dhh1- without laryngeal

He didn't. See Dersken on Leiden: *bHoih-d(H)h1-

> (otherwise I can't
> understand why he says the acute should be an analogical
> after bîtiês, if the words share the same root). I rather
> think that the odd form is the Lithuanian one, without the
> acute, and the only credible explanation for that was given
> by Sergejus: it is derived, or at least influenced, by the
> noun bai~das, which has undergone metatony.

The original accent is that one of the Latvian form.

Marius