--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> A difference between the 3pl. (of reduplicated forms) and
> the 3sg. (also 1/2 pl.?) was discovered by yourself. Any
> relevance to this question?
I don't think it was any great discovery. Pairs such as
dádha:ti/dádhati, juhóti/júhvati, várvarti/várvr.tati were fully
recorded already. Perhaps there was no theory integrating them, but
even when that is added, I cannot be specific about all details.
Thus I wouldn't know what the 1st and 2nd plural would have been. I
can make them up in accordance with the theory, which makes them
come out as *dádhH1-me, *dédhH1te, so if the actual forms have final
accent they must be assumed to have normalized the interplay of the
accent. I cannot even exclude that such an analogy has operated
before the disintegration of PIE.
But yes, the behaviour of reduplicated verbs do play a major role in
what controversy remains between Jasanoff and myself.
>
> >I have no
> >problem accepting it even for a time preceding the split-off of
> >Anatolian, so if there is too much <te-> in 'say' in Hittite,
>
> That's the opposite phenomenon: e-grade in the 3pl. (and
> 2pl., rarely 1pl.) mi-conjugation preterite where one would
> expect zero-grade (appwen/epten/eppir, esuwen/esten/esir).
Hitt. <te-> has no zero-grade alternants if <tar-> is a different
root; therefore there is no interesting distribution of vowel grades
in this particular Hittite verb.
Jens