Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

On 2008-02-26 23:07, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> The others two reflects only -ai not -dai => but you have put in
> doubt the correct recognition of -ai NOT of -d-

A misunderstanding on your part. Koretland claims that there are three
examples of weak preterites in <-ai>. Of course the actual ending is
<-dai>. That's how a preterite must end in order to be weak.

> It seems that you made acopy/paste exactly from Wikipedia:

Of course I didn't. It isn't my fault if the explanation given in the
Wikipedia is the one that enjoys wide acceptance. Don Ringe proposes a
detailed scenario along the same lines in _From PIE to PGmc._

> To resume your point: '"you" have generalized' the duplication first
> and next you have solved the singularities by :
> 1. reducing the duplication via haplology

Reduplication is preserved in plural forms. Their greater resistance to
haplology may reflect differences in the frequency of use. How do you
explain the _presence_ of reduplication?

> 2. and explaining 'analogically' the short/long vowel mismatch

Not 'analogically'. Just analogically. Again: have _you_ got a
convincing explanation of <teta/ta:tun> etc.? One that doesn't involve
analgy? Really?

> In addition:
> 3. for the attested Proto-Norse -dai you have invoked an
> incorrect interpretation of the Runic Texts

Just one (1) word in one Runic text (the Nøvling fibula). The Vimose
sword-chape inscription doesn't seem to count and I doubt if the other
alleged example is secure (or it would be quoted by proponents of the
"perfect middle solution"). A hapax legomenon is not enough to build a
grand theory on.

Piotr