On 2006-07-27 13:26, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen wrote:
> I am myself the author of this theory, which had been adopted by
> others, most notably Hill, while I had come to seriously doubt the
> validity of the idea. Now I can turn around.
I've arrived at the same conclusion semi-independently, trying to make
sense of the evolution of the thematic verb system and having
experimented with alternative solutions. I'm still in two minds about
vrddhi in reduplicated stems, but Hill's taking of the Ved. dádHat(i)
type at face value looks suspect to me, since it would leave
reduplicated thematic presents of the *si-sd-e-ti type as an
inexplicable mystery. If Miguel is right about the iconic value of
subjunctive vrddhi, it could be expected to occur in complementary
distribution with reduplication, whose original function must have been
the same or similar.
Piotr