Re: [tied] Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:04:07 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>
>> (As van Coetsem has shown, *e:2 reflects PIE *ei with
>> a-Umlaut: PIE *ei, *eu split into *ee > *e:2, *eo [a-umlaut]
>> vs. *ii > *i:, *iu [i-umlaut]).
>
>
>> If we depart from a PIE paradigm with *o ~ *e Ablaut in the
>> hi-conjugation past, it is clear that the North-West
>> Germanic forms in the preterite (A1..A3) have generalized
>> the hi-conjugation plural (and, in NW Gmc. also the 2sg.)
>> with *e-grade of the root.
>
>The vocalism of strong class VII preterites in North and West
>Germanic is *-e:2-, not *-e-.

No, that's the point. It's *e, as in Old Saxon:

*oi => *ei > *e:2

hêtan he:t, he:tum gihêtan
*e:-verbs analogical to that: slâpan, sle:p, sle:pum,
gislâpan

*ou => *eu > io

hlôpan, hliop, hliopum, gihlôpan
*o:-verbs analogical to that: hro:pan hriop hriopum
gihro:pan

*oNC => eNC

haldan held heldum gihaldan

Likewise in ON, OE.

The <ie> in German hielt, Du. hield (MDu. still <held>) is
not original.

>I do not think van Coetsem has "shown"
>anything, but even if he is completely right, the e:2 vocalism is
>only explained for diphthong verbs, and the alleged choice of i-
>umlat form in the present would demand an explanation on top of
>that

Isn't it obvious? haita haitis haitiþ vs. hait, haist,
hait. OS, OHG io (not iu) confirms this.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...