From: tgpedersen
Message: 54454
Date: 2008-03-02
>I read your answer as saying that we have no other case of PIE *-e: >
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:52:29 -0000, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >> But if the endings are a mix of aorist/imperfect, added to
> >> 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!
> >
> >Now Jens did it too! And I didn't get an answer first time: Why
> >PIE e: > Gothic a?
>
> Because that's what it gives. What else could it give? Acute
> long vowels are shortened in Gothic, so the choices are
> limited to -a, -i or -u. We have -o: > -a, -e: > -a, -i: >
> -i (I'm not aware of any cases of -u:, but if there were, I
> suppose -u: > -u).