Re: German "ge-" before participe perfect

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

> 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
>
>

Look up nonsense you mean? Where does that come from? Why detour over
*b? PIE *p > PGmc *b > ON, OE f, changing two features in the last
change, when you could go PIE *p > PGmc *f > Verner PGmc *v > ON, OE -
*f? At least ON -f was pronounced -v, and the Scandinavian languages
now write -v- for ON (and older Da, Sw) -f-. I suspect that idea
comes from a German, but German is the odd one out here with *b.

Torsten