Re: On do/tun

> According to Wright's OHG Primer
> http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/etc/aa_texts.html
> the preterite of 'tuon' is inflected like a preterite of class V,
> except 1,3sg is reduplicated (in WGerm. 2sg goes with the pl.)
>
> Class V is the <e, a, a:, e> class, eg
> geban, gab, ga:bum, geben,
> PIE *<e, o, e:, e>,
> ghebh-, ghobh-, ghe:bh-, ghebh-
> modified from the standard
> PIE *<e, o, zero, zero>
> ghebh-, gheghobh-, gheghbh-, ghbh-
> by leaving out the second occurrence of the root initials in the
> difficultly analyzable 3rd form and reinserting an -e- in the fourth.
>
> Let's assume that verb was originally *dhegh- (cf Proto-Uralic *teke-
> "do", *toGe- "bring")
>
> It would have been inflected
> dhégh-, dhédhogh-, dhedhgh´-, dhgh´-
> then, metathesis (cf. dhghóm -> ghdhóm)
> dhégh-, dhédhogh-, dheghdh´-, ghdh´-
> now, the same fix in the third form as before, but no de-duplication
> in the second
> dhégh-, dhédhow-, dhe:dh´-, dhVgh-
> with some vowel inserted in the fourth form

Slip-up wrt. the fourth form, I forgot the metathesis.
dhégh-, dhédhow-, dhe:dh´-, ghdh-én-

Interestingly, with a preverb, which would have taken the stress, the
fourth form would become *´-ghodh-n.- -> *´-ga-dun, and with
reinsertion of vowel (different in in German/Dutch and English) with
secondary stress *´-ga-dá:n- and ´*-ga-dó:n-. This might have set a
pattern for other PGerm ppp forms. Thus, the Germanic ppp. prefix *ga-
might not be from *k^on- after all.


Torsten