Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Regarding the unexpected circumflex in Lith. <baidýti>
> > >
> > > "This accounts for the peculiar loss of laryngeals in compounds
> and o-
> > > grade formations, where the final laryngeal was lost before the
> > initial
> > > consonant of the second component
> > > (cf. Hirt 1921: 185-187)."
> > >
> > > Marius
> >
> > After the loss of laryngeal is explained there is no argument to
> doubt
> > it's verbal formation.
> >
> > Miguel?
> >
> > Marius
>
>
> Miguel, with the argumentation regarding why the laryngeal was lost
> in *bHoih-dHh1- (-> as a final-laryngeal in the first member of a
> compound), can we close here the story of 'denomination' in baidyti?

I haven't seen any arguments why the laryngeal was lost in *bhoih2-dh
(h1)-. The fact is that the laryngeal was _not_ lost in either
Latvian or Lithuanian (báime: < *bhoih2-dh-men-).

I suppose the Kortlandt quote above has to do with Saussure's law,
which explains the loss of laryngeals in certain cases at the PIE
level, so it doesn't apply at the Lithuanian level.