Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

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

>
> 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@...
>

1. Irrelevant? I thought that this was one of the topic here...to
clarify all the accentual aspects of this word.

2. By the way, you can well see there too (even is implicitly
asserted by Derksen) that baidyti is NOT AT ALL DENOMINAL formation.

3. I remember also that you have derived here yesterday the Latvian
form from one PIE form and the Lithuanian one from another one :) We
are faraway from there isn't it?

Marius