[tied] Re: English 2s. -t (was: Slavic *-os (*-om))

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> wrote:
> > At 6:10:40 AM on Friday, July 9, 2004, tgpedersen wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> > > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> >
> > >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > >> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > >>> ... and the '-t' of Englsh 2nd sg. 'art', 'wast',
> > >>> 'wert', which are supposed to be documented late in the
> > >>> history of that language (thus coming from 'below'?).
> >
> > >> 'Late' = when? All the preterite-presents in my Old
> > >> English grammar have -t or -st for the 2s.
> >
> > > Unfortunately I forgot again where I read that (Skeat?).
> > > BTW 'art', 'wast', 'wert' are not preterite-presents, and
> > > 'art' were never even a preterite.
> >
> > But <art> goes back to OE <eart>; that <-t> is ancient.
> > It's only <wast> and <wert> that are ME (or later)
> > innovations. Mossé says that <wast> is East Midlands ME; it
> > appears to be modelled on the preterite-presents. <Wert> is
> > later, I believe.
> >
>
> You're right. I checked; it _was_ Skeat, and he says as you do.
> But to go back to my original thought: 2nd sg. -t in 'art' (and
> ON 'ert' and 18th century Danish 'est') is strange in a present
> inflection.
>

And further, if one accepts Kuhn's thought that late appearance may
have to do with writing becoming more widespread and therefore many
substrate words that were kept in the lower strata and in the
relevant occupied provinces will be documented late, then the fact
that the forms appear late in the East Midlands could even be
interpreted as speaking for them being of substrate provenance.

Torsten