Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

On 2008-03-02 09:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> I agree only (of course) that there are different derivations of the
> original form, with thematicization for some (e.g. Gk. e:tHos),

Gk. e:tHos is _not_ thematic. It's a neuter -es-stem

> but
> this is something else and this didn't put in question in anyway the
> original form.

"The original form" may not exist at all as a lexical unit in some of
the cases. English <mind-boggling> and <heartfelt> do not derive from
+<to mind-boggle> and +<heart-feel> but directly echo the _phrases_ <to
boggle the mind> and <to feel in one's heart>.

> All of them are usually analysed as originary -dHeh1 Nouns (see
> Lubotsky, etc...I can quote at list another five names here, but I
> will not insist anymore).

What are "ordinary *-dHeh1 nouns?" I haven't heard of such a category.
If such a description means anything at all, it might refer to nomina
agentis with *-dheh1- (a root noun) as the second member, similar to the
Skt. vr.tra-han- type. Abstracts and nomina actionis just don't look
like that in PIE.

See the recent discussion of the whole set by Michael Meier-Brügger
("Zur uridg. Sekundärwurzel *swedH(h1)-/*swe:dH(h1)-", in
Clackson--Olsen, 2000, Indo-European Word Formation).

Piotr