From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 54420
Date: 2008-03-01
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer VidalGermanic has lost the reduplication in perfects of verbs
><miguelc@...> wrote:
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>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)
>III.I'm sorry, but not to me. Your semantism sounds more like a
>> 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.
>IV.Well, I kind of biased that answer out of you ("Since the
>> 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
>--------------------------------------------------------------------But if the endings are a mix of aorist/imperfect, added to
>
>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.,An imperfect makes sense, given that PGmc. already had a
>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)