Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

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

>
> --- 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
>

So the meaning is from PIE to Germanic:
'I did and I continue to do ...in order to preserve/to keep/to
reiterate/to intensify...what I'm doing"

Marius