Re: [tied] Re: *-t-, put

On 2007-07-08 19:43, tgpedersen wrote:

> They seem to compete in various linguistic analyses, eg. Germanic weak
> pret. (traditionally from *dhe:-) and ppp. (traditionally from -t-),
> where it is a problem since the two forms are obviously related. If
> one believes in a 'mana kartam' type origin for the pret., as I do,
> they are both from -t-, but then the obviously verbal reduplication of
> the Gothic pret.pl. becomes a problem.

What's wrong with the orthodox account of the relationship:

*frawarðiða- ðeðe: > *frawarðiðe: (Goth. frawardida) by haplology
*frawarðiða- ðe:ðun > *frawarðiðe:ðun (Goth. frawardide:dun)

*wurxta- ðeðe: > *wurxte: (Goth. waúrhta)
*wurxta- ðe:ðun > *wurxte:dun (Goth. waúrhte:dun)

(where *ðeðe:/*ðe:ðun is the old imperfect of *dHeh1, and the original
meaning of the univerbated phrase was 'made V-ed'