Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:09:35 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mcarrasquer" <miguelc@...> 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)."

>> >> After the loss of laryngeal is explained there is no argument
>> >> to doubt it's verbal formation.
>> > >
>> > > Miguel?
>> > >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> I haven't seen any arguments why the laryngeal was lost in *bhoih2-
>dh
>> (h1)-.
>
>Miguel, how is possible not to be aware abou the lost of laryngeal in
>compounds ?

Tell me about it, I'm interested.

>------------------------------------------------------------------
>The fact is that the laryngeal was _not_ lost in either
>> Latvian or Lithuanian (báime: < *bhoih2-dh-men-).
>
>báime: IS DIRECTLY *bHoih2-m- (sic!) => no compound, laryngeal =>
>righ accent position in Lithuanian.
>
>'My friend' Derksen 'thinks similar':
>"Proto-Indo-European reconstruction: bhoiH-m-"

I like Sergejus' derivation better.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>III.
>> 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.
>
>'Certain cases' (quite vague...I would say)

Well, Saussure's law about the loss of laryngeals in o-grade
formations is still a big mistery to me. Sometimes it seems
to work, sometimes it doesn't. It does not affect perfects,
for instance, which definitely have o-grade.
If you have some new insights into this highly interesting
and complex matter, I'd like to hear about it...

>'PIE Level' and 'Lithuanian level'
>
>A new thoeery: 'The theory of levels?'
>Who told you that we are allowed to make references only to
>the 'Lithuanian Level'
>
>I quoted Derksen not Kortlandt.

"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).", is a direct quote from
Kortlandt's "The Indo-Uralic Verb".

The loss of laryngeals that Kortlandt discusses there is of
PIE date (cf. also Derksen's related remarks in Baltic
Metatony 3.1.3). If the laryngeal had already been lost in
PIE, it wouldn't show up in Baltic at all, and Derksen
wouldn't reconstruct the PIE root of baidýti as
*bhoiH-(dh1-).

If I understand Sergejaus account correctly (some crucial
pages are missing from the online version of Baltic
Maetatoiny, and I don't have the book at hand), Kortlandt
thinks that the laryngeal became syllable-initial (and thus
irrelevant for tonal purposes) regularly before the vocalic
suffix *-eye- (*bhoih2-eye- > bai.?e.je., cf. Slavic boja- <
boi.?a?. < bhoih2-ah2-). Only _afterwards_ was /d/ inserted
(as a hiatus-filler for Kortlandt, as a suffix *dh(h1)- for
Derksen).

I think it more likely, in view of the other -dy-causatives
in Baltic, that *-dhh1 was added first, and then acquired
the standard causative/iterative endings. That immediately
explains the Latvian form baîdît (c.q. bai~dît), from
*bhoih2-dh(h1)-ih1-th2aj. The Lithuanian métatonie douce
can be explained as coming from the noun bai~das, as
Sergejus suggested.

If so, the formation (at least in Latvian) may be derived
from Proto-Baltic, at a time when Baltic still conserved the
full grade of the "be afraid"-verb (*bhoih2- ~ *bhih2-). As
in a number of other cases, Baltic seems to have generalized
the plural forms (in the n-verbs plural -n-, in the
*-eh1i-verbs plural -*h1i- > -i-, in "to be afraid" plural
*bhih2- > bijóti), while Slavic generalized the singular
forms (n-verbs -né-, ê/i-verbs -éih1-e- > -i- and here
<bojati>, respectively).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...