On 2007-07-05 01:14, stlatos wrote:
>> These are different formations: caus./iter. *loig^H-éje/o- vs.
>
> Where does the -o:- come from? Why j>0? Looking at my notes again
> this may be even more complicated than I thought, including mixing
> among forms and analogy which could complicate the ev.
A good question. The actual attestation of the verb in Gothic consists
of a single occurrence of the 3pl. pret. bilaigo:de:dun, hence the
reconstructed Class II infinitive bilaigo:n*. On the face of it it looks
like a typical denominative in *-o:(-ja)- (as if from a lost noun like
*loig^H-ah2), but since Germanic has several Class II deverbals with
o-grade roots and iterative/intensive semantics (like OE wla:tian, Goth.
wlaito:n 'look round' vs. OE wli:tan 'look', or OE hwearfian, OSax.
hwarbo:n, OHG warbo:n, ON hvarfa, Goth. hWarbo:n < *xWarBo:(ja)- 'go to
and fro' in addition to OE hwyrfan [caus. & iter.], ON hwerfa [caus.] <
*xWarBija- vs. the strong verb 'turn [intrans.], depart' reflected by OE
hweorfan, OHG (bi)werban, ON hverfa, Goth. hWaírban), it's likely that
some originally Class I iteratives (of the type *DraiB-ija- > OE dræ:fan
'drive') were shifted to Class II already in PGmc., perhaps because
denominatives of the same structure were equally common and productive
in both classes.
Piotr