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

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:16:40 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

>> 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.
>
>No, I just asked you now: What is the first part of forms like
>Gothic haihald, haihait, etc.?

Reduplication. As I said:

>> Reduplication was apparently
>> 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:-).

All I can add right now is that in Gothic we have
reduplication in (part of) the o-verbs (the heirs to the
hi-conjugation) and not in the e-verbs. That is strange.

If the classical PIE reduplicated perfect denoted a state or
was on its way to become a general preterite that could just
as well be formed from mi-verbs, then we'd expect
reduplication in the Germanic praeterito-presents and in the
preterite of "e-verbs", which is exactly where we never find
it. But where we *do* find o ~ zero Ablaut.

In the past of the Germanic o-verbs, if they're parallel to
the Hittite hi-past, we would expect o ~ e Ablaut (and I
believe that *is* what we find: o in Gothic, e in NW Gmc.)
and _no_ reduplication. But there it is.

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