Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

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

>
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:03:03 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> ><miguelc@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I only said that baidýti in Lithuanian was probably
> >> denominal (as was confirmed by Sergejus).
> >
> > 1. "<baidýti> is not so clear" said Sergejus if your translation

is

> >"probably denominal" than OK.
>
> I quote Sergejus:
>
> Regarding the unexpected circumflex in Lith. <baidýti> (3d
> pers. pres. <bai~do>) 'frighten' (and its nest): I guess the
> Lith. verb is derived from or its pitch accent is influenced
> by some noun which undergone a metatony, e. g. <bai~das>
> 'bugaboo'. The old acute survived in the now etymologically
> opaque derivative <báime:> 'fear', which in view of the
> interjection <báimenia> (expressing astonishment) must be
> derived from *bHoih2-dH-men- (*dm > m is regular in
> Lithuanian).
>
> [Sergejus: are there any other examples of *-men-words
> giving -me: instead of -muo?]

Sergejus wrote LATER:
"<baidýti> is not so clear"

> > 2. For Dersken is not Denominal (because whenever is the case he
> >made a clear reference (see the book that I indicated to you)

Nothing to say here? Check the next chapter where he indicates that
the construction are denominals

> > 3. Fraenkel didn't say anything related to this => so for him

is

> >not Denominal either because he also makes clear references

whenever

> >is the case (Did you consulted him yesterday, as you said?)
>
> I did. Fraenkel doesn't say anything about the matter.

Is what I already said.

But I have added:

=> so for him is not Denominal either because he also makes clear
references whenever is the case

Marius