Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 5:09 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit



> >Once more: False division of (*bheidh-ti ->) *bheitti creates a new
> >root *bhei- of the same meaning. Now PIE (or some descendant) has two
> >roots for the same: *bheidh- and *bhei-. Derive ad libitum.
>
> But there is no *bheih2dh- anywhere, nor are verbs ending in
> *-dh in the habit of spawning verbs without *-dh.
>

If I could find some way of explaining the Anatolian x'es, there might
be a *bhe(i)dh-. I think the possibility should be pursued of many of
verbal socalled extensions being actually part of the original root,
the supposed root being the result of loss of auslauting consonant (=
the 'extension'), eg. in 2,3sg secondary endings. We might just not
have noticed the habit.


Torsten

***

I see you are again having problems with one of the most elementary facts of
PIE:

roots have the form *CV or *CVC-.

There are _no_ *CVCC- roots; these are _only_ examples of root + root
extension.

"Auslauting consonants" do not go lost - only simple principals like the one
mentioned above.


Patrick