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

On 2006-01-27 16:12, tgpedersen wrote:

> As Sihler remarks, a form like *se-sokW-e has three full grade
> vowels. That can't be original.

The last full vowel is desinential, and perhaps originally clitic. As
for the *e..o pattern in the perfect singular, there's much room for
speculation: it can go back to *e:..ó (length from original full
reduplication, *sekW- > *se:-?) or to *é..o(:) (from a nominal formation
related to the perf. act. part.).

> 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.

Gradual dereduplication in Germanic is directly attested in Class VII,
and since the definition of that class is based solely on phonological
criteria, not e.g. on some shared semantic features, it seems that
dereduplication generally proceeded depending on the phonetic
environment and the ablaut pattern of the verbs in question, leaving
untouched the root vocalism of *CeRT- verbs and inducing some changes in
the weak-grade forms of *CeR- and *CeT- ones, while roots of the shape
CoC- were affected later, and the CoRT- and Ceh1T- ones retained
reduplication down to historical times.

Piotr