Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
wrote:

>
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:06:04 -0000, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Against an imperfect argues the fact that there is no
> >> overlap (and no difference in meaning) between strong and
> >> weak preterites in attested Gmc. Strong verbs of course
> >> don't have a ptc. in *-to- (they have it in *-eno-), but the
> >> question then is: what happened to the imperfect in *-ena
> >> ðeðe:?
> >
> >But strong verbs have a passive in Gothic (and since it's PIE,
> >presumably PGerm. did too): 3sg bairaða.
>
> Don't weak verbs have a passive too?

Oops, so they do, says Sayce.

1st conj. nasida nasjada
2nd conj. salbo:da salbo:da
3rd conj. habaida habada
4th conj. all intr.

I always assumed the pret. act. and pass. would be too similar for
weak verbs.

But wouldn't my 'mana kartam' solution solve that riddle?


Torsten