Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 54575
Date: 2008-03-03

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:56:03 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
><miguelc@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:43:56 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
>> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>>
>> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
>> ><S.Tarasovas@> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1. acute
>> >
>> > Lettish counterparts has no acute accent.
>>
>> Yes it has (-ît). And so has Slavic (-i"ti).
>>
>
>Miguel, better to read here I think:
>
>http://books.google.com/books?
>id=qNa73ncPKUAC&pg=PA345&dq=Latvian+causative+iterative+d-
>&sig=uAics3R5nKIzQ6HpKWd2ltg9MLc#PPA349,M1

Interesting, but completely irrelevant. Here Derksen
discusses alternations of broken vs. sustained tone (both of
which are acute accents) in the _root_ of
causative-iteratives in -ît (e.g. bai~dît vs. baîdît). He
concludes that the broken accent in Latvian is old, as
indeed it should be: the IE causative/iterative suffix
*-éi(h1)-e- was stressed (and so was the suffix *-th2áj
which gives the Balto-Slavic infinitive).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...