--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
See below.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I.> Yes, we know that there was reduplication in PIE (and, to
> lesser degree, in Proto-Germanic).
And to a higher degree in Proto-Germanic (or at least similar)
--------------------------------------------------------------
II.
> And yes, it's possible
> that some of the constructions with *-dheh1- "to put; to
> make" were already present in the proto-language.
Is 'sure' not 'possible'.
we have
<Verb>+*-dheh1- constructions in PIE
<Adj.>+*-dheh1- constructions in PIE
<Noun>+*-dheh1- constructions in PIE
we have even
*swe+*-dheh1- construction in PIE
-------------------------------------------------------------
III.
> 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)".
The weak-preterite is for sure a Germanic construction not a PIE
one.
Now to answer to your question:
The evolution was due to the semantism of dHeh1-compounds in PIE
=> like 'mindset', 'heartset', 'ownset' -> self-possesion
The main meaning of an <X-dHeh1> compound was not only : 'to
locate, to place X' but in addition 'to continue to preserve/to
ensure the preservation/to keep X where it was initially
placed/located" (<X-dHeh1> was an 'emphatic' compound)
=> this semantism was generalized by Germanic to a special verbal
aspect where the action (that initially generated already a state so
is not an imperfect in relation with this) continue in order to
preserve/to ensure/to keep unchanged/or-even-to-intensify the result
of that action or the action in itself
So I think that the semantic evolution is quite clear.
Note: I didn't see the answer to this question to Piotr (I'm quite
curios what a 'parallel innovation theory' could answer to this
question) or in Kortlandt article
Unfortunately, I have only the abstract of Jassanof's article
and I don't have anything related to this topic written by Jens
-------------------------------------------------------------
IV.
> 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@...
Note:
I wouldn't minize (as you did) any intention that has tried to
present an evolution in time of a phenomenon and to link it
organically with some aspects (as the disolution of reduplication in
West Germanic ) => even the overall result could be sometimes a false
one, it opens the space for relevant questions
Now to answer to your question:
Q1) what form of the verbal root are the dental endings added
to?
A1) - the past passive ptc. in *-tos
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2) what is the origin of the endings of the weak preterite?
A2) I have said above that they have 'a mixed origin'
=> and I have indicated the French Subjonctive as a Live Example (for
that ones that could have a doubt that something like this is
possible)
2.a) For Sg. aorist of *dheh1-
------------------------------
I have already indicated the aorist of *dheh1- (*de:-n/s/þ)
see below:
> > PIE *-dHo:m/*-dHe:m -> Gothic -da
> > PIE *-dHe:s -> Gothic -de:s
> > PIE *-dHe:t -> Gothic -da
With the reserve:
-> that this proposal didn't include the ON attested *-dai
(see also that Gothic final -a could be originated from an -ai too)
that I think that should be included in this equation (Jassanof is
right here)
So if I could find a phonetical match of all the endings of
different Germanic Forms I would propose another solution immediately
that could account for -dai (III.sg.)
Currently I'm not able to do this.
2.b) For Pl. imperfect of *dheh1-
----------------------------------
I have already said that the imperfect endings for Pl. fit better
(for this reason I didn't repeat the PIE imperfect forms of -dHeh1
already posted by Piotr)
Note: Mainly, I (only) refuted the supposed haplology in Sg.,
haplology that didn't happened in Pl. (<Jens) and vice-versa the
supposed analogy in pl., pl. that doesnt't fit the sg (<Kortlandt)
(and I will add against the 'imperfect theory' that the weak-preterit
is not quite 'an imperfect' -> see below)
3) If you ask me how I will translate into English I will write
'I was doing' too...but only because I don't know an equivalent
However the result of the action is accomplished from the
beginning (so we don't have to deal with an imperfect here regarding
this aspect : we have an 'I did', till here...
I would say that: the meaning is closed to that one of the Greek
k-perfect (but there the semantism is different)
On the other hand the described action <continues/needs-to-
continue> in order <to ensure/to preserve/to-keep/or-even-to-
intensify> the result of that action or to ensure the re-iteration of
the action in itself (so in this direction the meaning is 'I was
doing' [...to preserve/to keep (< *dHeh1)])
Marius