--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-26 14:50, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > With all my respect for Jens, I think that there is no -t or -nt
> > *dHi-dHéh1-t/*dHé-dH(h1)-n.t
> >
> > See Jassanof:
> >
> > "
> > 1) On the Germanic side, the discovery in 1963 of the Runic 3 sg.
> > talgidai (Nøvling, c. 200), which rules out the traditional
> > reconstruction of the 3 sg. ending as PGmc. *-de: < *-de:t < PIE
*-
> > dheh1-t;
> > "
>
> Jasanoff is so badly in want of some attestation of perfect
passives
> that he eagerly interprets a Runic hapax (otherwise completely
unknown)
> as one, thought the spelling, which is normally <-ide> and only
> sporadically <-ida(i)>, may be explained in various other ways,
e.g. as
> an ad hoc attempt to represent Proto-Norse unstressed *-æ:, for
which no
> special rune existed. Jasanoff's reconstruction of the weak
preterite
> also involves reduplicated forms of *dHeh1-, but he uses a
hypothetical
> middle perfect (*ðeðai < *dHe-dHh1-ói 'factus est' = Ved. dadHé)
rather
> than an imperfect (*ðiðe: < *ðiðe:ð < *dHi-dHéh1-t). Why he insists
that
> clearly dialectal constructions are "PIE" is beyond me.
>
> Piotr
I do not agree.
First, the quoted inscription is not "otherwise completely unknown"
I) you can find it 'on internet'
http://www.nordic-life.org/nmh/runic.htm
more exactly at:
http://www.nordic-life.org/nmh/Krause2.htm
I will quote it for you:
"69. Novling Fibula (around 200)
bidawarijaR talgidai
bida = `to demand', `desire' (Antonsen: 'oath'); warijaR = `the one
who protects'; talgidai = `I have carved'; bidawarijaR can be
interpreted as the name, Bidar, or by keeping the meaning:
`The one who protects desires has carved (these runes)'.
Moltke provides the same runes, but gives `Bidar has carved' as the
translation. He states that the verb used, talgian, refers rather to
working with wood.
"
I.a) Elmer H. Antonsen in a "A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic
Inscriptions" (1975) -> is that one that perform this interpretation
and gave the translation
I.b) Also Moltke (as you can read above) provided the same text.
"bidawarijaR talgidai"
with a different interpretation regarding the translation
These are people that have worked on the runic texts with no
intention to gave some PIE interpretations of Germanic dental preterit
based on them
II) Kortlandt (-> that is not Jassanof) takes also seriously into
acount Antonsen interpretations in 'THE GERMANIC WEAK PRETERIT'
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art109e.pdf
"The attested older Runic endings are the following (cf. Antonsen
1975):"
[...]
"3rd sg. -ai: Novling clasp (Jutland, 200 AD), Vimose chape (Fyn, 250-
300 AD), Darum bracteate 3 (Jutland, 450-550 AD)."
So -ai appears in three different places
"Thus, I reconstruct Proto-Norse 1st sg. *-dau, 3rd sg. *-dai for the
weak preterit indicative. It is clear that these endings cannot
account for the West Germanic material."
So Kortlandt asserts *-dai (as Jassanof) BUT only for Proto-Norse
III) Next regarding your (and Jens?) supposition:
>What seems to occur in the dental preterite is the old reduplicated
>imperfect of *dHeh1-, namely *dHi-dHéh1-t/*dHé-dH(h1)-n.t > Gmc.
>*ðiðe:(ð)/*ðe:ðun(ð):
Kortlandt objections are the following:
"It has been proposed that the weak preterit represents the imperfect
rather than the aorist of the verb `to do' (e.g., Bech 1963, Lühr
1984). This hypothesis explains neither the absence of reduplication
in Gothic -da, nor the long vowel of 3rd pl. -dēdun, OHG. tātun."
What is your argumentation against Kortlandt?
Marius
Marius