--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> Now this would explain why the Germanic weak preterite has present
> endings *except* for the 3sg. How would you explain that fact with
> your and/or the traditional model?
Hold it, this is not a correct point of departure. I don't see the
primary endings in the other persons. The 1.2.3.sg are generally
reconstructed as *-do:m, *-de:s (or *-do:s), *-de:, i.e. all with
secondary endings; and the 1.2.3.pl have -dum, -duT, -dun just like
the strong preterite. Therefore, your elaborate original structures
seem to have been designed to explain something that isn't there. Also
the o-forms point to a preterital basis, for 1sg *-do:m has replaced *-
de:m on the analogy of the thematic aorist (or imperfect) in *-o-m as
opposed to 3sg *-e-t. The 2sg variant *-do:s will be due to secondary
influence from the 1sg. I do not see how any of this could be based on
old presents.
Jens