Re: [tied] On do/tun

--- In cybalist@..., "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

> >the vocalism in Germanic [do/tun] (why *-o: or *-a: instead of

*e:?).

>
> Ouch. I hate it when people ask sensible questions I should have

thought

> of.
>
> Is the -e- vocalism found in "deed", Gothic ga-de:ths? Pokorny

suggests

> it is also found in the ending of the weak preterite (Gothic albo-

de:dun

> etc). I take it he means in the dual and plural.
>
> We can imagine an IE aorist *dhe:m, *dhe:s, *dhe:t. Can we imagine

an -o-

> vocalism for the first person (as elsewhere in IE verbs) giving

*dho:m,

> *dhe:s, *dhe:t? This would explain the Gothic forms -da, -de:s -

da which

> form weak preterite endings, and would also suggest an origin for

the -o-

> vocalism in the present.
>
> Streitberg "Urgermanishce Grammatik" offers for verbs in -e:
> full grade: e:/o: long grade e:/o: zero grade:
> Schwa/null
> which isn't very helpful. However, he does put into the same

category:

> Gothic te:kan preterite to:kan to touch
> Gothic gre:tan preterite gaigro:t to cry
> Gothic saian preterite saiso: to sow
> and J Wright "Grammar of the Gothic Language" adds a few more, all

with this

> pattern of -e:- (or -ai) present, -o:- preterite.
>
> It is not impossible that there was interference from the preterite

onto the

> vocalism of the present as we know happened elsewhere.
>
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
> To: <cybalist@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] On do/tun
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:26:10 -0000, "P&G" <petegray@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Can anyone help me out in finding about the remote origins of

the

> > >> english/german verbs do/tun?.
> > >
> > >It's a very wide-spread Indo-European root, *dheh1. It appears

with

> > >reduplication in Sanskrit (dadha:mi) and Greek (tithe:mi) and in

both

> > >languages also in forms without the reduplication. In Latin the

initial

> > >#dh- appears by a regular sound change as an f-, so the root is

hidden in

> > >the word facio (no firm explanation for the -c-) and it also

appears in

> > >compounds as -do, as in credo, abdo, condo, perdo, but there

could well

> be
> > >contamination from the "give" root *deh3.
> > >
> > >It is also attested in Armenian, Phrygian, Messapic, OCS,

Hittite,

> > >Tocharian and Lycian
> > >
> > >It is very productive, with various noun and adjective forms.
> > >
> > >Hope that gives you enough information.
> >
> > That explains most of it, except the vocalism in Germanic (why *-

o: or

> > *-a: instead of *e:?). Unfortunately, I don't know. Shame on me.

So

> > why?
> >
> >
> > =======================
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > mcv@...
> >
> >
> >Thank you Peter, Miguel, Piotr. You set me up in the proper IE

framework and gave me the grasp I didn't have.
Still my question was also aimed at a much foggier target,namely the
do/tun pre-IE links.
I, myself, know of the basque suffix -du/tu, the most important one
in that language. I've also come across du/tu in a series of iberian
lead tablets, embeded in the text, on 7 occasions and it could well
be related with the above mentioned basque suffix..
Since you say the do/tun roots may be traced back to anatolian and
caucasian tongues there seems to be little chance that occidental pre-
IE had affected IE to the point of having widespread do/tun forewords
stemming from old pre-IE..Unless these pre-IE dialects were common in
Europe, from East to West.
I, personnally, don't favor the caucasian origins of the basque
language -too far away and not enough mass of population envolved to
convey hte tonge.
May I have your comments on all this?
May be some other people too have something to say on this slippery
grounds. As there are so few firm grips on this matters I encourage
the members to give their honnest views on it.

> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> >
> >