Re: [tied] 'Can' as Past Tense (was: Bader's article on *-os(y)o)

Glen to Jens:
The *o-grade is not an inflection in all cases. That would be like
saying that because we have English "sing" and inflected "sang", we
must think of "can" as the past tense. Why are YOU assuming such a
funny thing?

Richard:
Because it works? In Germanic morphology, "can" is a present-
preterite, i.e. a past tense form with present meaning.

Glen:
Now explain "to lack", "to rack" and "to map". You know what I
mean. English "a" in verbs is not purely dependent on morphology.

Richard:
It may not be a living process, but the effects of ablaut are still
there in English. 'To map' is clearly a deverbal noun, but 'map'
comes from Latin _mappa_, so I won't claim this is an o-grade.
The 'p' marks it as foreign! :) However, 'lack' and 'rack' are not
foreign enough, though they are probabably Low German loans. They
are o-grades!

The forms from *lek- generally relate to the meaning 'leak'. I
don't know whether English _leach_ belongs here - I think the long
vowel precludes a derivation from this root.

English _rack_ derives through Low German from Germanic
*rakjan 'stretch', from PIE *h3reg 'right, make right etc.' The
native development would be *rakjan > OE _reccan_ 'stretch' >
English _retch_, but Onions derives _retch_ as a variant of _reach_
< OE _ræ:can_ 'stretch' < W. Germanic *raikjan 'stretch', which
Pokorny refers to PIE *reig^.

Richard.