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

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

> What I object
> to, with Jasanoff, is the completely arbitrary and
> rigour-less way in which reduplication or lack of it is
> handled in "standard theory". The Hittite hi-conjugation is
> seen as a dereduplicated perfect, in spite of the fact that
> reduplication is not otherwise lost in Hittite, even in
> forms clearly associated with the perfect, like wewakta.

I do not think there is any particular lack of rigour in the
conservative theory. wewak- is every bit as much of a loner as beben
is in German and ded-/da:d- are in Balto-Slavic. One can say without
any appalling degree of latitude that reduplication was lost in
particular categories which invite identification with the perfect.
In Germanic it was then lost wherever it was dispendable, which it
was in staig, naut, band, bar, gaf, while it was transformed in
fo:r, strategies which could not work phonetically in haihald,
haihait which then retained it. The Hittite thing is even easier,
for the claim is not that the hi-conjugation continues the perfect
directly; the claim is that verbs with o-vocalism (or vocalisms that
were identified with o-vocalism) used the endings of the perfect in
their preterite, the product being the root-form of the underlying
verb followed by the endings of the perfect. It would be like Latin
spondeo spopondi, adjusted to pf. *spondi. I can't for the life of
me see what is terrible with this scenario. For the Balto-Slavic
facts I have even added rigor by advocating a conservative
derivation from reduplicated intensive structures like *ml-mólH-
/*mél-mlH-, which I have supported by the evidence of the accent:
the action of Hirt's law demands an asyllabic laryngeal, which can
only be supplied in *molH- if this was earlier reduplicated.

I also see dereduplication in the Hitt. sk-verbs which are
iterative; I can understand an iterative function on the basis of
earlier reduplication, but not so well from the sk-form itself which
was inchoative. I can then also understand the lack of syllabic
reflex of the laryngeal in zikizzi from *dhH1-sk^é- if this is from
earlier *dhi-dhH1-sk^e-. Most verbs that are reduplicated in Hittite
do not have transparent IE pedigrees and may then well belong to a
later stage which is not relevant here.

> The same goes for Tocharian: class III preterites and class
> V subjunctives are treated as dereduplicated perfects,
> despite the fact that Tocharian maintains the reduplicated
> aorist, and has reduplication in the perfect participle
> (kaknu/kekenu, etc.).

So? Sbj. V shows general initial accent in B and so has apparently
retained the reduplication. Can't reduplication be retained in the
perfect participle and be lost in the finite forms of the perfect
that invaded the s-aorist?

> In LIV, Hitt. paddai, Lat. fodio and
> Slavic bodoN, bosti are derived, contrary to fact, from
> reduplicated *bhe-bhodhh2-, while the Slavic form is
> separated from its Baltic cognate Lith. bedù (besti)
> (supposedly from PIE *bhedhh2-e-). The same nonsense, but
> in reverse, is seen in the root "to grind", where Hitt.
> malli, Goth. malan and Lith. malù (málti) are derived from
> *me-molh2-, while Slavic meljoN, melti is derived from
> *melh2-. If we stick to the facts instead of preconceived
> notions, it should be obvious that neither *bhodhh2- nor
> *molh2- shows any reduplication anywhere, and that the
> alternation of o- and e-vocalism seen in Balto-Slavic is
> best explained as deriving it from the Ablaut o/e (sg.
> *bhodhh2- ~ pl. *bhedhh2-; sg. *molh2-, pl. *melh2-) which
> is in fact _attested_ in Hittite in this very same category
> of verbs.

I do not feel responsible for LIV.

One of the main reasons I cannot accept an original o/e ablaut in
ther verb is that I cannot just copy it from the noun because I have
an explanation for it in the noun, and the verb does not offer the
conditions for that explanation. This is of course no problem to
those who have no explanation for the o/e ablaut anywhere, but that
cannot really be put down as lack of rigour on my part. The o/e
ablaut seen in the hi-conjugation is in my opinion well enough
explained from a reduced form of the intensive: *bhedh-bhódhH-
/*bhédh-bhdhH- -> *bhódhH-/*bhédhH-. The evidence for the exact
shape of the PIE intensive is not overwhelming, so if a squashed
variant *mélH- (reduced from *mél-mlH-) of PIE age helps I cannot
see it could not be accepted.

> What this means for the relationship between the perfect and
> e.g. the hi-conjugation in Hittite is not entirely clear.
>
> Jasanoff sticks to the notion of the perfect as a
> reduplicated category (albeit originally with *o ~ *e
> Ablaut), which implies that the hi-conjugation is thus not
> simply derivable from the perfect. In fact, the perfect is
> derived according to Jasanoff from a certain hi-conjugation
> formation (the "stative-intransitive aorist") by
> reduplication. Apart from the fact that I find it
> impossible to explain Jasanoff's theory in one paragraph
> (it's much too complicated for that), it also fails to
> answer some of the obvious questions: what happened to the
> perfect in Hittite? Why do we not find reduplication in
> Germanic in formations that should be derived from the
> "classic" perfect (praeterito-presents, preterites from
> e-verbs), and why *do* we find reduplication in forms where,
> I think, we wouldn't expect it within the framework of
> Jasanoff's theory (the preterite of o-verbs, with o~e
> Ablaut)?

I agree on most points. I would find it very strange to assume that
Germanic man 'I remember' is not the same form as the synonymous
Lat. memini, Gk. mémona. For staig : haihait I think I have found
the answer (Osthoff excluding -o:-). You get close to a fine -o-/-e-
ablaut in OE ha:tan heht if you count the vowel of the reduplication.

> The alternative would be to let go of reduplication as a
> necessary component of the PIE perfect, which is what I'm
> currently contemplating. I have no idea as yet whether
> that's a viable hypothesis and, if so, where it leads to.
> We'll just have to wait and see. Or shake one's head,
> whatever.

I think we need original reduplication in the perfect; I actually
believe the reduplication is the cause of its o/zero ablaut.

Jens