--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-03-04 01:10, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2008-03-04 00:47, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > > ems that you have problems to remember well what I said
> > > >
> > > > I said that: ORIGINARY THERE WERE SPECIFIC VERBAL <VERB>-
DHEH1
> > > > FORMATIONS IN PIE
> > > >
> > > > And that the number of such PIE formation arrived to be
relevant
> > > > because some daughter languages (Germanic, Baltic, etc...)
arrived
> > to
> > > > generalized this formations and to use them as an
Morphological-
> > > > Pattern in order to construct new Verbal-Aspects.
> > >
> > > Ah, so you do believe that the Germanic weak preterite goes
back to a
> > > PIE formation. I deny that, so we do disagree about
something :)
> > >
> > > Piotr
> >
> >
> > Not to a specific one -> you like to quote me with what I never
said :)
> > Is the third time that you try to do this...
> >
> > => it is a Germanic innovation that has generalized in a Verbal-
Aspects
> > some existing PIE dHeh1-verbs...
>
> But that's precisely what I disagree with. The Germanic weak
preterite
> does not continue _any_ PIE pattern, least of all any kind of
> Verb-*dHeh1- compound.
Do you agree that the <verb>-dHeh1 = <verb> existed in PIE?
I hope that after you wonder yourself yersterday about the huge
number od dH- formations in Lithuanian the answer will be 'Yes'
So despite this Fact: Based on what you are saying, the Germanic
made an ad-hoc choice when decided to choose the verb -dHeh1 in the
weak preterite constructions.
Next, Skt. did the same in s'rad-dadha:ti etc...
Next, Baltic did the same in bayditi and in the other 500 dH- verbs
and also when Baltic constructed aspects in -dava and in -damas
Next, Latin did the same for some verbs
etc...
And viweing all this : you come here now and assert that this was
based on a pure coincidence in all these Languages? Do you imagine
what is the probability for these events to appear accidentaly
without any link, as 'completely independent events'?
You need to be aware also that nothing appeared without a cause.
So the main issue of your supposition is the following one: based
on what you are saying the semantism of the dental preterite
remains 'In Air'...
> So the first part of the
> construction is not a bare verb stem but a PIE verbal adjective
> (functioning as the past participle).
Seems that you have problems to understand the process that took
place: :)
I will try to explain like this:
'You usually 'take a shower' in the nearby river' => and 'one day
you think: how good will be to contruct a bathroom'
Now of course that 'the bathroom' is not 'the river' in any
aspects
=> and you have try to tell us this in different ways this:
-> initially saying exactly that 'the bathroom' is not 'the
river' and after several trials arriving to tell us that:
-> the 'architecture of the bathroom' is not the same with
the 'river configuration') => and of course that it isn't .
But the fact that finally 'you take a shower' is quite the same.
So finally: after you told us in different way that 'the
bathroom' is not 'a river' : you arrive here again and assert that
different bathrooms in different country represents independent
evolutions regarding the initial action that took place in the rivers
waters because these bathrooms look differently in relation with the
river borders and also among them: indian bathrooms are not quite
germanic ones ...
Now after I made clear for anybody what you point is:
I can come to the topic:
=> of course that the Germanic Verbal-Aspect is a new
construction
=> of course that a new morphological pattern was used for it
(but a new morphological pattern as a derivation of the general one)
=> In addition (as I'm aware today): PIE didn't used dHeh1- to
construct verbal aspects: it used dHeh1 to construct other words from
some existing one.
<X-dHeh1> meaning 'to perpetuate X' in all possible aspects
where X can have any value here
BUT the pattern "<X-dHeh1> 'to perpetuate X' where X can have
any value here" was a well Known One by the Germanic, Baltic etc...So
Well Known that they arrived to build New Aspectual General Patterns
based on it: using different X-s and different 'aspects of dHeh1-'
I hope this clarify.
Marius
Marius