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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-01-27 10:36, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Also, in those stems where the initial consonant C1 was subject

to

> > Grimm, the reduplicated forms C1eC1C2- the second occurence of

C1

> > would be subject to Verner, which made the stem unrecognizable.

Then

> > better leave it out altogether, with compensatory lengthening of

the

> > vowel (perhaps via a diphthong).
>
> But the de-reduplication of most verb classes must have happened

before

> Verner's Law; otherwise VL (where applicable) would have affected

the

> initial consonant of the preterite singular, e.g. *se-sókW-e >

*sezaxW >

> *zax(w).

As Sihler remarks, a form like *se-sokW-e has three full grade
vowels. That can't be original. That's one reason I think
reduplication in the perfect singular is mostly created by analogy
with the plural. The other reason is that, as Miguel notes
reduplication is mostly to represent the action done several times,
ie either by several subjects (plural) or by one subject several
times (iterative) (actually M. believes that PIE perfect was
ergative and that congruence was with the object; therefore
reduplication in the sg. of the perfect is no problem for him. I
think my solution is simpler). So there was (almost) no de-
reduplication in the singular.

>This is actually what some relict forms show in Class VII with
> reduplication still preserved, e.g. Goth. sai-zle:p 'slept',

OIcel.

> se-ra 'sowed'.

The latter is a nice example of 'implicit multiplicity of action',
even in the singular.

>In most cases Gothic solved the problem by cancelling
> Verner's Law through paradigmatic levelling (--> sai-sle:p-),

while the

> NW Germanic languages either "recycled" the restructured

reduplication,

> generalising the same allomorph for both numbers in the preterite,

or in

> fact abandoned reduplication altogether in favour of a long vowel.

The

> first option (as in Angl. heht, hehton) was extremely rare because

in

> such cases the conjugation became practically suppletive. Some of

the

> original reduplications are so rare and so odd that their isolated
> occurrences have often been dismissed as scribal errors, e.g. the

OE

> hapax <blefla>, the pret. of <bla:wan> -- a beautiful reflex of
> *b(l)e-blo:w (with the first /l/ analogically restored in the
> reduplication syllable)
>

I couldn't figure out whether you agreed with me or not?


Torsten