--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
No there is no misunderstanding on my part. I know what Kortlandt
claimed.
I said that: that /ai/ is /ai/ (doesn't matter what kind of endings
we have, for preterite or for something else).
I said that we are talking first of all about Letters there:
You have put in doubt the corectness of -ai on that inscriptions
and I came back with other references that's all...
> > 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.
'Their Greater Resistence'? (Are we in France during the WW-II? :))
A concept of 'Their Greater Resistence' in Lingvistic to explain a
supposed ad-hoc appearence of Haplology?
Sound likes a Mythology. (...till you will come back with some
concrete examples from a well attested language ...)
'Frequency of use' to trigger or not the Haplology, is another
story :
1. First, who should count, in our case?
2. Next, where the threshold is? :)
> How do you
> explain the _presence_ of reduplication?
Being initially a PIE distinct word (dHeh1-) (and only next a
particle in a verbal construction -dHeh1-) => the usage of
reduplication (as a usual PIE verbal phenomenon) => can obviously
appear in relation with a Plurality
> > 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?
Can you see that you remain inside your Model when assert this?
Once inside Your Model, I agree that there is no other workaround for
you but this one. But nobody forced you to sustain that Model...
> > 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.
One is enough if Many Scholars agreed on the text of the inscription
The text 'talks' first about 'letters' not about 'weak
preterite'...so -dai is not a Hapax, we 'are talking' about Letters
there...and these Letters appeared in other words too.
Next the Runic Text in -dai wasn't published "by the proponents of
the "perfect middle solution"
Are you really convince regarding what you real propose as an
Alternative? : you say more or less that is better to ignore this
inscription (-> "as an proponent of the "imperfect solution"? ,to
use your own expression)
I can tell you: that anybody 'free to choose' will not ignore this
inscription:
I quoted for you: Antonsen that provided the text,
I quoted for you: Moltke that provided the Same Text,
next:
I quoted for you: Jassanof that takes it as a fact,
I quoted for you: Kortlandt that takes it as a fact,
even you can well see that each of them finally proposed a
Different Model, none of them ignore Facts
Are all of them, idiots?
Why to arrive to propose to ignore this?
Sound for me like something personal...
Marius
P.S.: This remember me the Hungarians that arrived to denny their
Own Chronicle and their Own Anonymous Writer only because he told
about Gelou Dux Blachorum in Transylvania before the Hungarians
arrival in that area...but at least here the reason is visible...