Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit


> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:00:17 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
> >To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:17 AM
> >Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

<snip>

> >Thank you, Miguel, for commenting in your usual knowledgeable way.
> >
> >Your information certainly puts a crimp in my proposed reconstruction of
> >*bho:(H)i-.
> >
> >So, if I can summarize what I understand from your data, the earliest PIE
> >form could be *bheH(2)i- or *bheiH(2)-, with a considerable amount of
> >apparently meaningless variation between the two. Is that correct?
>
> Not meaningless. The variation is conditioned. Under the
> stress we have ViH-V, VHi-CV and VH-CCV/VH-C#, in unstressed
> position we have -Hi-V and Hi-C (where C is voiced) but
> -&t-. Of course a perfect paradigm like:

***

I meant semantically.

***

> *bhe-bhóih2-h2a
> *bhe-bhóih2-th2a
> *bhe-bhóh2i-e
>
> *bhe-bhh2i-mé
> *bhe-bhh2.-té (?)
> *bhe-bhh2i-ér(s) [*bhé-bhh2y-r.s?]
>
> would be prone to regularization, with singular either
> *bhoih2- (as in Slavic bojati) or *bhoh2i- (as in Skt.
> bi-bhá:y-a) throughout, and plural *bhh2i- or *bhih2-
> throughout.
>
> >And the forms pointing to *o(:) should be regarded as perfects being used
> >as
> >presents.
> >
> >In the case of Lithuanian <baidý-ti>, the main form under discussion, it
> >appears the perfect is evidenced in the first of the two alternating
> >forms:
> >*bho:(H)i-dhe:(H)-, which, in reduced grade, would yield *bhoi-dhé:-, the
> >form I suggested albeit gotten by a different route.
> >
> >I guess the big question I have, Miguel, do you believe we have *bhoi-
> >(from
> >**bho:í-) because it is the postulated endingless locative, or should we
> >not
> >have expected *bh&i- (zero-grade) if it is not a locative?
>
> Baltic baidýti ~ bai~dît "to scare (away)" is a standard
> causative-iterative in -i:ti. These can be made from a verb
> or from a noun. In this case, at least in Lithuanian, there
> is no verb <baid->, I think, but there is a noun <bai~das>
> "scarecrow, bugaboo". Fraenkel at www.indoeuropean.nl is
> down, so I can't check there.
>
> The endingless locative applies only to old consonant stems
> like *k^é:rd.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...

***

I would be inclined to consider *bh-H-y as a consonant stem.


Patrick

***