From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36744
Date: 2005-03-15
>One of the phenomena commented on by Adamczyk is the effectNot to mention the loss of reduplication itself (befo:r
>of Verner's law on the Germanic reduplicated forms. O.N.
>sera, the other "r-preterites", and even Gothic sezle:p (~
>sesle:p) point to Verner in the second (root) syllable, on
>the pattern of *p&2té:r > *fádar : *seslé:p > *sézle:p.
>
>But if you think about it, it is far from evident that this
>should be so. One might equally have expected the
>reduplication syllable to be treated in the way unstressed
>pre-verbs such as *k(o)m- or *po- were treated. The
>reduplication would then be sle:pan => *zesle:p, haldan =>
>*gehald, or, if ablauting verbs originally also
>reduplicated, faran => *befo:r. What if this was indeed the
>way reduplication worked originally in Germanic, with only
>later a shift to the "monomorphemic" *fadar-type? And might
>that in part explain the curious NW Gmc. prefixation of past
>participles with ge- or be- or *uz- (> or-, er-, der-) [the
>latter perhaps confused with *ze- or even *de- of
>reduplication syllables]?