Re: [tied] Re: German "ge-" before participe perfect

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:47:37 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:04:25 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The only objection I can imagine
>> >> to a development *kom- > ga- is why we fail to see the same
>thing
>> >> in other preverbs, such as ver- (*fer-).
>> >>
>> >
>> >But don't we? At least in Dutch, that 'v' is a voiced f, and since
>> >the Germans spell it with 'v', not 'f', it is tempting to assume
>they
>> >once pronounced it the same way (why else would they need a 'w'?).
>>
>> The voicing of initial f- > v- and s- > z- in Dutch and German
>applies to
>> any initial *f- and *s-, not just to those in preverbs.
>
>Begging the questoin. You are assuming what you set out to prove,
>namely that the 'v' in <ver-> is an /f/.

I didn't set out to prove that at all. We were talking about the lack of
stress in preverbs, which led to a development PIE *k > Gmc. *g- in the
preverb *kom- > *ga-. I was not trying to prove anything about the normal
development of initial (with stress on the initial syllable) PIE *p-, *t-
and *k-, but since you bring it up, they normally develop into Germanic f-,
T- and h- (which give German v-, d- and h-).

>> Actually, the Verner development one might have expected in the
>> preverb *per- would have resulted in PGmc. *ber-.
>
>It is with great relish that I point out to you, as Piotr has done
>several times to me, that Verner applies only to continuants. Thus
>[*k, *p] > Grimm [*x, *f] > Verner [G, v].

Why write nonsense when it's so easy to look it up?

Under Verner conditions, PIE *p, *t, *k and *s develop into PGmc. *b, *d,
*g and *z. The further development of PGmc *b is as follows:

Goth ON OE OS Dutch OHG
initial, after /m/ b- b- b- b- b- b-
between vowels -b- -f- -f- -b-/-v- -v- -b-
auslaut (not -mb) -f -f -f -f -f -b


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...