Re: Re[6]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

> In short, your example doesn't support your claim.

Brian

=======
A.F

It is obvious these forms are one only verb.

You gave Past forms
and you invented Gothic Past participle
which is not attested.

Your arguments are a bit too short
to support refutation.

Could you also give Present ancient forms too ?

You carefully avoided providing Present forms.
So I suppose these forms are a problem
for your claim.
Otherwise I do not doubt you would have cited them.

==

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "fournet.arnaud" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 8:13 AM
Subject: Re[6]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian


> At 3:53:26 AM on Sunday, September 30, 2007, fournet.arnaud
> wrote:
>
> [I had written:]
>
>>> Early attestations of OE, ON, OSax, and OHG are far too
>>> similar to be the result of some three millennia of
>>> divergence; the suggestion can't be taken seriously.
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't think these languages are that much similar. I(ch)
>> stand means present in English : past : I got up in
>> German.
>
> The modern German preterite <stand> is altogether
> irrelevant: it's a 17th century innovation, and I was
> talking about the early Gmc. dialects. The relevant data
> for this verb are as follows:
>
> Pret. Pret. Past
> Inf. Sing. Plur. Part.
> ---------------------------------------
> Goth. standan sto:þ sto:þum *staþans
> OE standan sto:d sto:don standen
> OSax standan sto:d sto:dun standan
> stuond
> OHG stantan stuont stuontun gistantan
> (stuot)
> ON standa stóð stóðu staðinn
>
> The vowels match perfectly. All have the n-infix in the
> present. In OE, OSax, and OHG it was extended to the past
> part. as well, and in OHG and OSax it infiltrated the pret.
> as well, though OHG <stuot> appears sporadically as late as
> the 12th century. These minor differences in the extent to
> which the nasal infix spread from the present to the rest of
> the paradigm do almost nothing to obscure the obvious
> identity of these verbs.
>
> In short, your example doesn't support your claim.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>