From: elmeras2000
Message: 36679
Date: 2005-03-08
> If we assume that the dichotomy between mi- andNo, I just asked you now: What is the first part of forms like
> hi-conjugation in Hittite was inherited from the
> proto-language, that allows an elegant solution to the
> distribution of Germanic strong preterites.
>
> Mi-verbs generally had e-grade of the root in the present
> singular, zero grade in the plural (mobile stress).
> Hi-verbs generally had o-grade in the singular, e-grade in
> the plural (acrostatic stress).
>
> In Germanic, we have two categories of strong verbs: verbs
> with e-grade of the root, and verbs with a-grade (<
> *o-grade). Long vowel verbs pattern with the e-verbs (*i:?,
> *u:) or with a-verbs (*e:, *o:). Germanic e-verbs behave as
> if heirs to the mi-conjugation, a-verbs behave as if heirs
> to the hi-conjugation.
>
> It is customary to split the e- and a-verbs up into five
> classes, according to the root vocalism:
>
> e1 *ei (*i:) a1 *ai (*e:)
> e2 *eu (*u:) a2 *au (*o:)
> e3 *eRC a3 *aRC
> e4 *eR a4 *aR
> e5 *eC a5 *aC
>
> The imperfect and aorist were lost as preterite tenses in
> Germanic, leaving the perfect and the Germanic dental
> preterite ("weak preterite").
>
> Strong e-grade verbs make their preterite (prefect) by
> changing the generalized (bacause thematic or thematized)
> e-vocalism of the present into sg. /o/ > /a/, pl. zero, so
> the verbal forms are:
>
> I. *ei *oi *i *i
> sti:ga - staig - stigum - stigans
> II. *eu *ou *u *u
> biuda - bauþ - budum - budans
> III. *eNC *oNC *N.C *N.C
> binda - band - bundum - bundans
>
> Classes IV and V are special:
> IV. *eR *oR *e:R *R.
> nima - nam - ne:mum - numans
> V. *eC *oC *e:C *eC
> giba - gaf - ge:bum - gibans
>
> In Gothic, the a-verbs go as follows:
>
> I. *oi
> haita - hehait - hehaitum - haitans
> II. *ou
> auka - eauk - eaukum - aukans
> III. *oNC
> falþa - fefalþ - fefalþum - falþans
>
> Again, classes a-IV and a-V (= class VI) are special:
>
> IV. *oR *o:R *o:R *oR
> fara - fo:r - fo:rum - farans
> V. *oC *o:C *o:C *oC
> slaha - slo:h - slo:hum - slahans
>
> The e:- and o:-verbs:
>
> e:(1) sle:pa sesle:p sesle:pum sle:pans
> e:(2) le:ta lelo:t lelo:tum le:tans
> [The difference is between original *e: (originally
> ablauting with zero, as in Angl. leorton < *le-lt-), and
> *-eh1-, originally a normal e-verb with Ablaut *e ~ *o,
> later incorporated into the reduplicating group.]
>
> o: flo:kan feflo:k feflo:kum flo:kans
>
> As can be seen, Ablaut plays a minor role, and the
> difference between present stem and preterite stem is mainly
> expressed by reduplication.
>
> In the other Germanic languages, the a-verbs follow a
> different pattern:
>
> I. *oi/*e: *ei
> haitan - he:2t - he2:tum - gihaitan
> slæ:pa - sle:2p - sle:2pum - gislæ:pan
> (læ:ta - le:2t - le:2tum - gilæ:tan)
> (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]).
>
> II. *ou/*o: *eu
> hlaupan - hleop - hleopum - gihlaupan
> flo:kan - fleok - fleokum - giflo:kan
>
> III. *oNC *eNC
> falþan - felþ - felþum - gifalþan
>
> IV. *oR *o:R
> faran - fo:r - fo:rum - gifaran
>
> V. *oC *o:C
> slahan - slo:h - slo:hum - gislahan
>
> 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.
>
> Diachronically, the mi-conjugation verbs have all become
> thematic, with e-grade of the root in the present (sg. and
> pl.). The preterite is based on the perfect (i.e. the
> hi-conjugation present), with Ablaut *o ~ *0 and apparently
> no reduplication.
>
> The hi-conjugation verbs split into two groups: the
> "praeterito-praesentia", which have perfect endings in the
> present (*oi: wait "I know"; *ou: daug "it's OK"; *oRC: kann
> "I know"; *OR skal: "I must", mag "I can"; *o:: o:g "I
> fear"), with or without Ablaut (*o ~ 0) in the plural
> (witum, kunnum, skulum / magum, o:gum), and making a weak
> preterite.
>
> The larger group became thematic (presumably because of 3sg.
> *-e), and have persistent o-grade (> -a-) in the present.
> The hi-preterite had o-grade in the sg., e-grade in the
> plural, with the former generalized in Gothic, the latter in
> North and West Germanic.
> optional, generalized as a preterite marker in Gothic (where
> the Ablaut of present and preterite didn't differ), and lost
> in N. and W. Germanic (except for isolated cases like ON
> sera < *se-so:-).
>
> That leaves the problem of -e:- in the preterite pl. of
> e-verbs of the structure *-eC- (*-eR-), and -o:- in the
> whole preterite of o-verbs of the same structure.
> The -e:- or -o:- do not appear in praeterito-presents
> (skulum, magum), so we may assume it's a thing peculiar to
> the preterite. As I suggested earlier, roots of the
> structure *-eC- (*-eR-) were prone to retain the aoristic
> 3rd. person marker *-s (Hitt. gane:szi, Vedic verbs in -a:,
> -aC), which led to a category of "s-aorists" based on (1)
> active aorists (*g^ne:h3-s-) or on (2) hi-conjugation
> aorists (the classical s-aorist). If such categories also
> existed in pre-Germanic, the lengthened vocalism caused by
> *-s might have been retained in the preterite of verbs
> ending in a single consonant (although the s-forms
> themselves were apparently lost). Mi-conjugation aorists
> had generalized e:-grade to the plural (ne:mum, etc.).
> Hi-conjugation verbs must have had -o:- in the singular
> (*-oC-s > *-o:C-s), -e:- in the plural. Germanic
> generalized o: (faran, fo:r, fo:rum), while elsewhere we
> generally find -e:- (OCS 1.sg. nêsU).
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...