From: tgpedersen
Message: 46929
Date: 2007-01-12
>Gothic faran belongs to class VI. I've proposed the *bher-
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > If we assume a similar pattern for PIE, we could explain why some
> > > Germanic verbs follow the *< o, o:, o:, o> and some follow the
> > > *< e, o, zero, zero> pattern. Note BTW that eg in Russian there
> > > are verbs that stress the prefix in some forms but not in others,
> > > eg.
> > > prodát', prodám etc, but
> > > pródal, prodalá etc
> > > pródan, prodaná etc
> > > A verb type like that in PIE would explain the isolated *o
> > > of the pret.sg. of the *< e, o, zero, zero> inflection.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe there's an insight hiding somewhere in the fact that those
> > forms of that Russian verb which stress the preverb are adjectival
> > in nature, as are the forms of the PIE verb which have o-grade
> > (perf.sg., tómos/tomós, base of the iterative causative verbal
> > derivative). There's also a tendency, at least in the Germanic
> > verbs, for the adjectival forms of prefixed verbs to stay united
> > (ausgesetzt, Aussetzung etc) more than the finite form (setzt aus
> > etc).
>
> Often presents are durative, preterites punctual. Does the fact that
> the perfect doesn't have *e, thus no stress, come not from the fact
> that it had a reduplication prefix, but that it had a reduplication
> prefix *or* a preverb (eg. Latin) and that the reduplication prefix
> was so to speak a phonological 'place-holder' for a preverb? That
> would mean that preverbs made simple verbs punctual, ie. perfective,
> as is the case in Slavic (and Latvian, preverb po-), so that that
> Slavic specialty goes back to PIE (still, the perfective of c^itat
> is proc^ital, not **c^ic^ital or the like).
>
> So, preverbs would explain the *o of the preterite of Germanic
> *< e, o, zero, zero> verbs and of the present and ppp of Class
> VI *< o, o:, o:, o> verbs. But why do the latter have *o:,
> lengthened o-grade in both sg and pl of the preterite? If one
> goes for an explanation by stress alone, it means they must
> have had the same position relative to the stressed syllable,
> unlike what is the case in the 'normal', generally-unprefixed-
> except-for-preterite case *< e, o, zero,zero>, and that position
> can't have been the stressed syllable, which has *e, or the
> one immediately after, which has *o; those bases are covered.
> So how about the second syllable after the stress; let's
> assume these preverb'ed verbs had reduplicaton too, in other
> words *<preverb>´-<reduplication prefix>-Co:C, with stressed
> preverb?
>
> I've looked around to find out under what circumstances one
> would expect lengthened o-grade, *o:, in PIE. The example
> that occurs in most explanations on the net is Greek
> éu-pato:r nom., éu-patora acc. which seems to fit, at
> least for the first example.