From: tgpedersen
Message: 46350
Date: 2006-10-11
>Yes, I know that's your analysis. Still, here's mine, for the
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > There are two theories to account for the origin of the Germanic
> > weak verb
> > 1) an univerbation of a periphrastic tense involving the perfect
> > of *dHeh1- "put"
> > 2) some derivation from the ppp in *-tó-
> > ( cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_weak_verb)
> >
> > I like the first one, but something's got to give.
> > Therefore I propose that the the 2sg, 3sg Hittite hi-conj. pret.
> > *-ta and do. Slavic aorist *-tU is from the PIE *dHoh1-,
> > the perfect of *dHeh1-.
>
> I think the answer is in a combination: The past participle in *-to-
> + the preterite of 'do'. Gothic satida 'er setzte', PGm. *satide:,
> is then from *satida-dide: 'made set, machte gesetzt', and 3pl
> satide:dun is from *satida-de:dun 'they made set, sie machten
> gesetzt'. The phonetics involves a touch of haplology in the
> interior, in that short vowels are lost and multiple d's are
> simplified. Further there is loss of inflection of the participle
> which must have originally agreed with the object. Semantically the
> expression is like 'get the work done' or Latin canta:re 'sing',
> properly 'make sung', a factitive made form the participle cantus.
>
> So English loved should not be from Wikipedia's 'did love' but
> from 'did loved'.