Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> How on earth did it get there if it's from *-dHh1-? It's quite
> intriguing how productive the type is (there are scores of examples).

Very productive. A quick perusal of DLKZ^ shows that there are one or
two hundreds of them.

Is

> there a corresponding formation in Latvian?

Yes.

>
> I've been having a look at the examples of "dH-presents" in the LIV.

The

> most convincing examples include *we/olh1-dH-e/o- 'rule, wield, be
> mighty' (e-grade only in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic show *wolh1-dH-),
> pleh1-dH-e/o- 'fill up, become full', perhaps also *kWelh1-dH-e/o- (but
> it's attested only in Greek as teletHo: 'come into being'). Roots with
> *-h1 seem to be overrepreseted here. Are "*dH-presents" variants of
> "t-presents"
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/53707
>
> with the "Olsen aspiration" of the extension?
>
> We also have Lith. klóti 'extend' vs. Slavic *kladoN/*klasti 'lay' (as
> if < *klah2-dH-) and Germanic *xlaþ-/*xlað- 'load' (as if from

*klah2-t-

> with an analogical short-vowel grade -- or an unrelated root? or a very
> old borrowing? any ideas?). In root verbs, the extra *-dH- may come

from

> the athematic imperative (the *k^lu-dHi type). Quite certainly *h1i-dHi
> accounts for the *d of Slavic *id- 'go'), but I can't see how it could
> work for the Lithuanian causatives, which can't reflect any

athematic type.


But why a formation with *-dHh1- is excluded? Not a dH-present per se,
but a composition of a verbal root (stem) with the zero grade of *dHeh1?

Sergei