From: tgpedersen
Message: 46445
Date: 2006-10-22
> Here's something I thought of saving for later, but anyway:Oettinger (§242)
> Hittite version of PIE *dHeh1- "put, place"
> present (hi-conj.)
> 1sg te-e-ih-hé OH; te-e-ih-hi OH
> 2sg da-it-ti OH+, MH+; ta-it-ti OH+
> 3sg da-a-i OH, OH+, MH+; da-i MH
> 1pl (ti-ya-u-e-ni NH)
> 2pl
> 3pl ti-an-zi OH, OH+, MH+; ti-an-ti OH; ti-ya-an-zi OH+
>
> preterite
> 1sg te-ih-hu-un OH+, MH
> 2sg [da-]is^[-ta] MH
> 3sg da-is^ OH, OH+, MH; da-a-is^ OH+, MH+; ta-i-is^ MH
> 1pl da-i-ú-en MH(often); da-a-a-i-ú-en MH
> 2pl da-is^-te-en OH
> 3pl da-ir OH; da-a-ir MH; da-i-ir OH+, MH;
> da-i-e-ir MH, MH+; ti-i-e-ir OH+
>
> imperative
> 2sg da-i OH
> 2pl da-a-is^-te-en MH+
> 3pl ti-an-du MH+
>
> ske-verb
> zi-ik-ki; zi-ik-ki-e OH
>
> Abbr.:
> OH: Old Hittite, MH: Middle Hittite, XX+: copy later tha XX
>
> I believe the received wisdom is that PIE *dh, *d, *t > Hittite t.
> This doesn't look like that at all.
>
> Now it's known that PIE *o > Hittite a and that PIE *dh,* d, *t >
> Hittite z before *e, *i (note the ske-verb *deh1-sk^- > zikk-).
> Therefore all those forms that have da- must come from *dhoh1-
> (o-grade) and those in ti-, te- must come from *dHh1- (zero-grade)
> where the laryngeal protects the dental from affricatization.
>
> I think Hittite added an -i- to the verb stem (this is a classic
> PIE long-vowel verb in CV:(i)-).
>
> My interpretation
> Hittite version of PIE *dHeh1- "put, place"
> present (hi-conj.)
> 1sg dHh1-i-xi
> 2sg dHoh1-i-ti
> 3sg dHoh1-i
> 1pl dHh1-i-n,Weni
> 2pl
> 3pl dHh1-i-ánti
>
> preterite
> 1sg dHh1-i-x-n,W
> 2sg dHoh1-i-s^[-ta]
> 3sg dHoh1-i-s^
> 1pl dHoh1-i-n,Wan
> 2pl dHoh1-i-s^-tan
> 3pl dHoh1-i-er
>
> imperative
> 2sg dHoh1-i OH
> 2pl dHoh1-i-s-tan
> 3pl dHh1-i-antu
>
> ske-verb
> dhe-ske
>
> I can't understand why neither Oettinger nor Jasanoff has
> something to say about this distribution of root initials
> (Oettinger has a chapter on it which makes no sense to me).
> If my analysis is true, we should give up the idea taken
> from Sanskrit that present sigular has gun.a, pl. zero-grade
> of the root and instead posit the root vowel like this (but this
> is the hi-, not the mi-conjugation):
>
> 1sg zero
> 2sg -o-
> 3sg -o-
> 1pl zero
> 2pl -o-(?)
> 3pl zero
>
> cf u-HI/au-HI//aus^-MI "see"
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46222
>
> So, this is why there are no PIE roots in *tei-.
>
> And what is more: the initial root-consonant alternated
> (here d/t/z) with the ablaut. Now I have all the way believed
> that this must be the case; as soon as ablaut alternation was
> there, it must have started eating away at the preceding consonant,
> causing confusing alternation, which made people generalize one
> consonant or the other, thus creating what to us now looks like
> a consonant shift, as in kentum/satem, or, in this case,
> decem/taihun.
>