From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 45901
Date: 2006-08-30
> You got that right. I'm trying to explain an ablaut variant andI'm doing nothing like that. I'm just referring to Jens's theory that
> you are declaring there is nothing to explain.
>> What I mean is: there's no accent retraction in the *tomh1-ó-sHow does that explain the final accent, or the non-reduction of
>> and *tomh1-á-h2 types,
>
> Because they are derived from an athematic *tom-s, *tom-ós
>> or in *-éje/o- causatives.The effect of the laryngeal would be visible in this context.
>
> Two separate words. *mon éjeti. Or *monéh1 jeti, with
> instrumental case?
> But that is no what ablaut is about. One of the vowels wouldReduplication itself is a kind of special circumstance. Originally, both
> have to be zero grade, unless there were special circumstances.
> Bang-bang means two bangs, whether done by one person or several.That's iterativity again, not plurality.
>
>
>> As a matter of
>> fact, I don't know _any_ examples of IE reduplication expressing
>> plurality, in verbs or in nouns.
>>
>
> Except for the plural of perf. or iteratives (OHG bebo:n =
> contract muscles in fear several times).
>> The only sure case of anReasons like the fact that the perf. part. of 'know' is not
>> unreduplicated perfect (both in the singular and in the plural) is
>> *woid-/*wid-,
>> and there are reasons to believe that it represents an
>> exceptionally early case of de-reduplication (due perhaps to its
>> frequency of use).
>
> What reasons? Semantics provides a good reason: Knowing is not
> countable. Neither is being able to or willing to.