--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-26 20:53, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > First, the quoted inscription is not "otherwise completely
unknown"
> ...
>
> I didn't mean the inscription, of course, but the form of the
preterite
> :)
No, no, no => you have put in question the correct interpretation
of the -ai in that inscription.
>. A far as I know, it's the only example of its kind, which of
course
> raises all sorts of questions.
>
> > So -ai appears in three different places
>
> I know only of 3sg. -idai on the Nøvling fibula
(<bidawarijaztalgidai>).
> I can check the others up in Antonsen (if they are real and based
on
> secure readings).
The others two reflects only -ai not -dai => but you have put in
doubt the correct recognition of -ai NOT of -d-
> > 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."
>
> Jasanoff's "perfect middle hypothesis" also requires a reduplicated
> form, so in this respect it's neither superior nor inferior to the
> "imperfect hypothesis".
I agree that Jassanof theory 'is similar' regarding the idea of
reduplication (with the difference that it accounts for Proto-Norse
-dai too). On the other hand, your above type of argumention, doesn't
make the imperfect theory: a 'better' one.
> The absence of reduplication in the singular is
> sufficiently explained via haplology.
> The lengthening of *e in *ðeðun
> has been convincingly explained as analogical. When *ðeð- was no
longer
> treated as a reduplicated form, *ðeð-un became the only preterite
with
> short *e and a root-final obstruent. The vowel was therefore
lengthened
> on the analogy of Class V strong verbs.
It seems that you made acopy/paste exactly from Wikipedia:
Issues:
"This view is not without objections. These are two often-proposed
difficulties with this explanation:
Gothic -e- in the plural is long, but PGmc is short.
Reduplication is only in the Gothic plural.
"
Answers:
"
These objections are sometimes answered as follows:
There might have been a refashioning according to cases like gēbun,
viz. *gegbun > ge:bun : *dedun → de:dun
Reduplication only in the plural can easily be explained by haplology
in Proto-Germanic (i.e., *dede- being reduced to *de-) for the
singular, with a later development of haplology for the plural in non-
East Germanic languages.
"
To resume your point: '"you" have generalized' the duplication first
and next you have solved the singularities by :
1. reducing the duplication via haplology
2. and explaining 'analogically' the short/long vowel mismatch
In addition:
3. for the attested Proto-Norse -dai you have invoked an
incorrect interpretation of the Runic Texts
To apply "your" type of reasoning for Astronomy as an example:
------------------------------------------------------------
As a fact : we saw that there are solar system with one, two or
more stars
Now your Model aseert that:
1. Every solar system needs to have initially MORE than one
star
2. But because we saw that some of them have curremtly only
one star we are supposing that the second dissapeared somehow
(=> 'eated' by the bigger one).
3. For the cases where the 2 stars has a similar mass, one of
them dissapeared 'by analogy', making the 'analogy' with the systems
that arrived to have a single star
Next as a second fact: Our telescopes has identified a single
solar system formation that clearly shows us only one star formation
in the center.
For this fact your Model assert:
4. Being an isolated case we need to interpret better what we saw
So finally I would say: 'Quite a Good Model, this one'! :)
> The "imperfect theory" accounts
> at the same time for the form of the weak preterite _and_ the
curious
> preterite *ðiðe:/*ðe:ðun (OHG teta/ta:tun), which cannot be
explained at
> all in terms of perfect or aorist forms.
> Piotr
I agree that the perfect or aorist forms are not better models.
Now on my side:
1. - 'I'm against' the generalization of the reduplication based
on what I have tried to show above
2. - I think that Proto-Norse -dai should be taken seriously in
account => this rejects the imperfect theory completely (Jassanof is
right here)
3. - next I think, (viewing that -dh(e)h1- is used too, to form
nouns and adjectives in PIE) that dh(e)h1- was originary (in PIE
times) used as a particle (initially a distinct word) with a specific
meaning like 'placing, keeping':
cf. *mn.s-dHeh1 (Skt. medha': 'wisdom'),
*mis-dH-(eh1) (Gk. mistho's 'salary' )
*mihes-dHeh1 (Skt. miy'edha- 'sacrificial oblation').
=> so Germanic dental preterit is a Germanic innovation that arrived
to generalized the usage of this particle for a whole 'verbal
construction'. As result there is no need to identify other Germanic
verbals forms as source of it.
4. as I know there are d- verbal formations in Baltic too
Marius