Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2008-02-27 01:00, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > Obviously?? Only if you ignore all real-world evidence. Can you
> show me
> > a single independent case where reduplication expresses plurality
> in IE
> > or Germanic? In the case of an aorist verb root *dHeh1-,
> reduplication
> > expresses the "present/imperfect" aspect.
>
> 1. I said Plurarity not Plural.
>
> 2. Do we have Plurarity in kW(e)-KW-l-o- or Intensity as the Main
> Feature of this word formation?
> I will bet that we have Plurarity : 'Many rotations'/'Many

circles'

> Of course Intensity is there -> but is a derivation of the main
> features
>
>
> 3. Regarding the verbal aspect in general and is link with the

notion

> of Plurarity
>
> http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pies04.html
>
> "4.1.7. Aspects.
> If we use the term aspect for semantic features, disregarding their
> manner of expression in a given language, we may posit two basic
> categories: Imperf. and Perf. (or -Perf. and +Perf.). Use of Perf.
> indicates that the action is assumed to be completed. As a
> consequence, Imperf. commonly indicates incomplete action; yet it

is

> more precise to state that, with an Imperf. expression, there is no
> implication that the action is completed. As Wolfgang Dressler

noted

> in his capable monograph (1968:43), imperfective forms are
> predominant in negative sentences.
>
> The contrast in aspect is accompanied by other connotations, which
> have been extensively discussed. Thus Perf. also carries the
> connotation of punctual action, or even totality (ganzheitlich).

And

> Imperf. carries the connotation of linear, continuative, or

durative

> action and lack of totality (nicht ganzheitlich).
>
> Moreover, Giacomo Devoto has pointed out the QUANTITATIVE

connotation

> of aspect (1958:396-398). It is this connotation which Dressler has
> explored in his monograph on PLURALITY. For continuative aspect may
> be associated with distributive or iterative meaning; it may also

be

> related to intensive aspect, which in turn may imply emphatic

aspect.

> "
>
> This I quote only in general to link Plurarity with a Verbal Aspect
>
>
>
> 4. Now reagrding our topic: -dheh1- (reduplicated or not) was a
> marker (initially a distinct word)
>
> ( => I saw that you didn't said anything about the Baltic

reference

> that I posted => that clearly show us (together with the Germanic
> forms of course) the existence in PIE times of PIE verbal formation
> in -dH(e)h1-)
>
> so -dheh1- was expressed somehow Originary : using his Own

Internal

> Constructions, not that ones of the word that preceeded it in the
> syntax -> -dheh1- wasn't used there originary as an ending of

plural

> or as of imperfect etc...it was a distinct word
>
> So the reduplication appeared normally (-> internally in this

word)

> as a standalone form => see the standalone reduplications of the
> verb -dHeh1- in different languages => and that standalone
> reduplicatied form (but also the non-reduplicated ones) was used
> Later as verbal markers for different verbal constructions

I. PIE Similar Cosntructions (part one)
=========================================
And to give you a concrete example regarding this Model please ttake
a look below for the Sanskrit formation (I quoted from):

http://www.english.uga.edu/~mathelie/mathiii3.html#dental

"
If one looks elsewhere in Indo-European there are clues. In Sanskrit,
perfects to secondary formations are made by using periphrastic
constructions having the derivative noun stem (in long a, in the
accusative) prefixed to the perfect of an auxiliary verb: as 'be',
kr 'make', or bhu 'be'. Thus, for the root sad 'sit' and its
derivative sadayati 'causes to sit' the perfects would be formed as
follows:

aux. verb 3rd sing. perf. act. ind
as asa
kr cakara
bhu babhuva
sad sasada
sadayati sadayam-asa
sadayam-asa
sadayam-cakara
sadayam-babhuva (Whitney)

Similar constructions (in that they do not go back to PIE perfects)
are found in Latin. (It should be noted that sadayati< *sod-eye-
Ending.)
"

Can you see how similar these constructions are in relation with
(dHeh1-) of the Germanic dental preterit?
Clearly indicate a Common Pattern (so a PIE one)




II. Germanic innovation
============================

> Only (very) Later => the Germanic 'preferred' to coagulate this
> markers (based on dHeh1-) and to build a complete verbal aspect

using

> them: for this, Germanic 'choosed' to use a reduplicated form in

the

> 3rd pl. and non-reduplicated forms for other persons
>
> Now 'to imagine' that for the Pl. III Person, Germanic

coagulated

> a 'reduplicated marker' due to the 'Plurarity of the Agents that
> performs that action(s)' is very probable: is a reasonable thinking
>
> Do you have a better Idea to explain why 'a reduplicated form'

(that

> is there) was used? And why there and not there? Or why everywhere,
> if everywhere?
>

I will add to my argumentation the following quotation:

"Suffice it to say that the weak verbs of Gothic correspond in many
ways to derived verbs in other Indo-European languages.

A look at the preterite paradigm of nasjan reveals an interesting
pattern:


sg. 1 nasida
2 nasidas
3 nasida
pl. 1 nasidedum
2 nasidedu[th]
3 nasidedun

In the plural, there seems to be a reduplicated formant attached to
the "root".
"

So 'a reduplicated formant' in the PLURAL...


III. PIE similar cosntructions (part two)
=========================================

"This fits in very nicely with the Sanskrit data because in Gothic
there is a group of secondary verbs sitting there which form pasts
through periphrasis with a 'do' verb (cf. Skt. sadayam-cakara).

When Germanic lost its aspect system, perhaps the *dheH1 was re-
analyzed and ceased to be viewed as a separate lexical item. The
chronology of these events is unclear.
"


And I will add again that we have exactly: -dHh1- verbal formation
in Baltic



IV. Regarding your Haplology Main ISSUE:
========================================
"The singular forms of the weak preterite are somewhat odd in that
they do no have reduplicated forms. Here it may be appropriate to
invoke haplology at some early stage and say that for some unclear
reason, it occurred in the singular, but much later in Gothic in the
plural forms."


And I quoted the above text only to highlight again 'your' Main ISSUE
regarding the supposed Haplology (because your explanations were
spreaded somehow on many sub-topics):

"for some Unclear Reason, it occurred in the singular, but much later
in Gothic in the plural forms" (SIC!)


Marius