On Sun, 02 May 2004 21:58:10 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
>What makes you averse to it? There does not seem to be any rule
>causing an alternation between full-grade te- + C and ter- + vowel
>and zero-grade tar-, which is what the set descriptively amounts to.
>So the easy way out is suppletion, not an unknown thing in verbs of
>speaking. The aorist of *dheH1- could still be seen in that sense in
>French il fit.
English 'put' can also be applied to speaking. That's not
the problem. Suppletion does occur in verbs of speaking
(govorit'- skazat', mówic' - powiedziec', loquor - inquam -
aio etc.), but I've never quite seen it in a distribution
like the one in Hittite, where it is bound to the Ablaut.
What comes closest is Sumerian dug4 (perfective singular) ~ e
(perfective plural and imperfective), but there are several
suppletive plural verbs in Sumerian.
To me, te-/ter- looks much more like hark-/har- (har-C ~
hark-V), where nobody AFAIK suggests suppletion. Why can't
the whole thing come from something like *tetr- (IEW *tor-
and *tet(e)r- "gackern")? In a Schallwort, it wouldn't be
surprising to see somewhat irregular (or at least unexpected)
developments like *tét(r)-m > *tem > ten(un); *(t)tr-wén >
tarwén.
>> (2)
>> On p. 32, Jasanoff says that the 1pl. pf. ending is -ma:
>> (more often than -ma) in the Rgve:da. How come -ma: isn't
>> mentioned in Macdonell?
>
>Not by any fault of Jasanoff's.
Of course.
>It is mentioned in a short paragraph in the Vedic Grammar (§68).
Macdonell's Vedic Grammar? In my copy (Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers, Delhi, 1993 (1995), 124 Rs., falling apart), §68
is about the sandhi of /m/.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...