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

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

> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:22:36 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
> <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:40:01 +0000, elmeras2000
> ><jer@...> wrote:
> >
> >>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >>>
> >>> Isn't it obvious? haita haitis haitiþ vs. hait, haist,
> >>> hait. OS, OHG io (not iu) confirms this.
> >>
> >>No, not to me. Is Gothic taken to have *added* reduplication?
> >
> >Did I say that?

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

But I now notice you wrote in a recent message:

> 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:-).

That makes me shake my head completely. Now you do accept that
reduplication can be simply lost. Then why not have it be lost in
the strong preterite type staig, naut, band, bar, gaf ? That rids
you of the problems right away.

It seems to me you are jettisoning normal standards of rigor by
allowing all conceivable leeway to fanciful interpretations of
insignificant points and none to the solid-looking evidence that
things are unsurprising. If the reduplicated forms were a new
discovery your theory, which may then have had a stronger basis,
would die on the spot.

Jens