Re: [tied] I'm back with a few questions

On 2006-01-24 23:13, andrew jarrette wrote:

> I know of this change (e.g. /homo/), but why would *wemo: be
> generalized across the paradigm? What's the likelihood of someone
> saying "I'm vomiting" (isn't this physically impossible) or "I
> vomit" (all the time)?

Use Google. You'll get some 57,400 hits for "I vomit" plus 27,500 for
"they vomit", plus more than 600 for each of the corresponding present
continuous variants.

> Isn't it more likely that the form of this
> verb would be based on the 3rd person sg. form *wemHeti (or
> *wemHti)? Wouldn't this become Latin /vemit/? Or perhaps /vomere/
> is based on a perfect or aorist form.

There's also <vomunt> 'they vomit' and of course the Lat. perf. forms
<vomui:>, <vomuit> etc., in all of which the /o/ is regular. It's surely
comon to say "I/he threw up". There's levelling out in the opposite
direction in the case of <venus>, where the vocalism of the allomorph
<vener-> has been generalised. The original distribution is preserved in
<bonus> vs. <bene> (both from *dwen-).

>
> But what is the explanation of /tonere/? Is it influenced by the
> noun /tonus/ or the denominative verb /tonare/?


> By the way, I noticed that no one offered an explanation of Germanic
> class VI and VII verbs. I imagine it's already been talked about in
> this forum. Can someone let me know whether I should (bother to)
> search the archives or not? Also, are there essays or other works
> on this subject that anyone knows of?

Yes, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow. I have to run now.

Piotr