On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:12:04 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<
alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
>Origin of the Germanic Weak Preterite (part-2)
>
>I. Reduplication, as in important mechanism in relation with the verb
>morphology, was largely spread in Proto-Germanic (see reduplication
>in Gothic, see the Origin of the West Germanic Seventh Class Verbs)
>
>II.a The Germanic weak preterite was developed by Proto-Germanic
>based on several -dHeh1- 'verbal construction' that existed in Proto-
>Germanic (some of them originated directly from PIE)
>
>II.b Proto-Germanic weak preterit was constructed having mixed
>endings => similar (but of course not identical) with today French
>Subjonctive (->that has Pres. Endings in sg. + Imperfect Endings in
>Plural)
>
>Proto-Germanic weak preterit has
>In Sg. non reduplicated PIE endings
>like :
> PIE *-dHo:m/*-dHe:m -> Gothic -da
> PIE *-dHe:s -> Gothic -de:s
> PIE *-dHe:t -> Gothic -da
>
>[I say 'like the above ones' because these endings needs to include
>the attested ON -dai too.]
>
>
>In Pl. from reduplicated PIE endings that were preserved in Gothic as:
> -> Gothic -de:dum
> -> Gothic -de:duþ
> -> Gothic -de:dun
>
>
>3.a The Reduplication Verbal System crashed in West Germanic => the
>verb conjugations using this mechanism were completely reshaped in
>West Germanic (see WGermanic Seventh Class Verbs as an argument for)
>
>3.b -> The Reduplication System was still preserved in EastGermanic
>(see Gothic, in Roman Times)
>
>
>This model explains well the overall situation without to propose
>"a_haplology_that_happened_in_sg_but_not_happened_i n_pl" ...
I don't really see what "this model" is supposed to explain.
Yes, we know that there was reduplication in PIE (and, to
lesser degree, in Proto-Germanic). And yes, it's possible
that some of the constructions with *-dheh1- "to put; to
make" were already present in the proto-language. Maybe I
missed it, but given that none of these compounds with
*dheh1- have any kind of preterite meaning, how do you
explain the reason why "the Germanic weak preterite was
developed by Proto-Germanic based on several -dHeh1- 'verbal
construction' that existed in Proto-Germanic (some of them
originated directly from PIE)".
In trying to explain the origin of the Germanic weak
preterite, there are three fundamental questions that any
theory has to answer:
1) what form of the verbal root are the dental endings added
to?
2) what is the origin of the endings of the weak preterite?
3) how does the combination of {base form of the verb} +
{dental endings} explain the usage as a preterite?
Of the theories discussed here up to now, Jasanoff gives the
following answers:
1) the stative in *-eh1-
2) the middle perfect of *dheh1- (1/3sg. *dedai-, pl. *ded-)
3) The meaning was "I became X".
Kortlandt's theory:
1) the past passive ptc. in *-tos
2) the aorist of *dheh1- (*de:-n/s/þ, pl. (analogical)
de:d-um/ude/unþ)
3) The meaning was "I did X".
Rasmussen's theory (as presented by Piotr)
1) the past passive ptc. in *-tos
2) the imperfect of *dheh1- (*dide:-, with haplology in the
singular)
3) The meaning was "I was doing X".
(Since the correct answer to question (1) is surely "the
past ptc. in *-tos", Jasanoff's theory must be incorrect.)
In your account above, I see no clear answer to any of the
three questions. What form of the verb are the dental
endings added to? What _exactly_ are those endings, and
where do they come from? What explanation do you have for
the preterite meaning?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...