From: tgpedersen
Message: 54444
Date: 2008-03-01
> But if the endings are a mix of aorist/imperfect, added toNow Jens did it too! And I didn't get an answer first time: Why
> the past participle, then that immediately explains why the
> forms have preterite meaning. Like Jens says in the article
> quoted above: "A functional explanation of Goth. satida <
> Proto-Germanic *satiðe: 'he placed' that involves both the
> participle satiþs < *satiða-z 'placed' and the old form of
> _did_, PGmc. ðeðe:, does not have to go beyond the simple
> fact that such a collocation means, not 'did place', but
> 'made placed'.". Exactly!
>This is nicer: the 'me-thinks' construction:
> Jens goes on: "The participle would then be expected to have
> originally agreed with the object so that, e.g., 'he placed
> (planted) a tree' was *trewa satiða ðeðe:, and 'we planted a
> tree' was *trewa satiða ðe:ðum". The further development is
> then compared to French "j'ai écrit deux lettres" (for
> "expected *'j'ai écrites deux lettres'"), like "j'ai écrit
> une lettre" (for *'j'ai écrite une lettre').
>
> This further development in any case also requires haplology
> (sg. *satiða ðeðe: > *satiðe:, pl. *satiða ðe:ðum >
> *satiðe:ðum), even in your (or Kortlandt's) formulation
> (*satiða ðe: > *satiðe:, pl. *satiða ðe:ðum > *satiðe:ðum).
>
> > 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)
>becomes a 'I-think' construction