Re: [tied] Germanic *fánhan

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: g-tegle@...
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:48 PM
> Subject: [tied] Germanic *fánhan
>
>
> To the germanic infinitive *fánhan my etymological dictionary gives

a reduplicated imperf. sg. *fe-gánh-. It makes use of Verner's law to
explain the past participle *fanganá/*fanginá (*[h]>*[h]). But it
gives no explanation as to *[g] in the *-gánh- stem with which the
reduplicated imperfect form was made. It says however that gothic
imperf. sg. faifâh reflects a younger *fe-fanh- form. In other
germanic languages the *[g] has spread to other forms by analogy
(Ex.: 19. century german inf. fahen, later fangen).

>
> The dictionary traces the proto-germanic form back to IE *pank´

(with nasalized present stem). Where did the *[g] come from in the
first place?

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Obviously, *fe-ganx- is supposed to reflect pre-Verner *fe-xánx-,
presumably from regularly reduplicated *fe-fánx- influenced by forms
of *xanx- < PIE *k^onk- 'hang'. The original infinitives and past
participles of both verbs rhymed, so the development of parallel
preterites would not be surprising. I only wonder if there is
sufficient Germanic evidence to posit *fe-xánx- in the first place.
>
> The usual Old English forms are fôn, fêng, fêngon, -fangen (exactly
parallel to the conjugation pattern of hôn 'hang'). The infinitive
derives from contracted *fô(h)an < *fa~x-an- < *fánx-ana-n; the past
participle is the expected fangen < *fang-ana- < *fanx-aná- (Verner's
Law). The only puzzling forms are the preterites. Class VII verbs in
Old English (including residual reduplicated forms) show no contrast
between the preterite stems -- the forms in question had been
levelled out by OE times. The plural fêngon could represent older
*fegangun < *fe-xanx-'-, haplologically contracted. The hypothetical
1/3 sg. *fe-ganx-, however, would have lost the nasal and become pre-
OE *fegôx, so it's fêng that must be explained as analogical.
>
> The persistent nasal looks as if it were a root segment rather than
a present-tense infix, which means either that the *pa-n-k^- analysis
is wrong or that *pank(^)- was reanalysed as a simplex morpheme
already in pre-Proto-Germanic times.
>
> I can't say more without looking into some reference books. I'll do
that after the Easter break and let you know if there's more to it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Piotr
>
>
Swedish (older) preterite sg. fick, pl. fingo came to my mind.

And of course happy easter to you all, too (now I forgot this
voskresenie stuff?).

Torsten