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

On 2007-07-09 00:09, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>> 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'
>
> The haplololology,

Just try saying "frawarðiða ðeðe:". Haplology is more or less to be
expected in such cases, cf. Lat. diligenter < *diligentiter.

> and the fact that in Germanic (and in the lesser
> Iranian languages, by some odd coincidence) the weak preterite and ppp
> stems are related;

Given that many of the weak verbs were causatives, a periphrastic past
tense with an auxiliry verb expressing causativity (e.g. 'he made it
destroyed') is hardly odd.

> a loss of two syllables should leave a bigger mark
> on the preterite.

??? Please explain. The loss of offending syllables may have been
gradual -- one by one rather than two at a time. OE has -don for Goth
-de:dun, which shows that the process didn't stop in PGmc. but was
continued in the daughter languages.

> I think it's
> *frawarði- ðða: > *frawarðiðe: (Goth. frawardida)
> *frawarði- ðe:ðun > *frawarðiðe:ðun (Goth. frawardide:dun)
>
> *wurx- ðða: > *wurxte: (Goth. waúrhta)
> *wurx- ðe:ðun > *wurxte:dun (Goth. waúrhte:dun)
>
> Note Sabellic 3sg prúfatted "probavit" with -tt-.

Why not a "Iuppiter rule" treatment of *-a:t- > -att-?

> -i- is a prop vowel
> also found in Latin -id- 'participles'.

> PIE perf.middle 3sg *-to is from (somehow!) *-dho < *-dhdho.

Curiouser and curiouser ;-)

Piotr