Re: Grimm shift as starting point of "Germanic"

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:12:02 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:03:48 -0000, "tgpedersen"
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >But plenty of the 'n-infixed' stems of the language of geminates
>> >group are transitive?
>>
>> Plenty of n-infix verbs in PIE are transitive (although most
>> are intransitive).
>
>You proposed to solve the mystery of the gemination with n-suffix and
>Kluge's law. I assumed that you wanted to solve the problem of the
>accompanying 'n-infixed' verb (duck-dunk) with an n-suffix too, but
>apparently you don't.

What gave you that idea? I'm not a Germanist, but in
Balto-Slavic the two formations are equivalent, Baltic
having the n-infix, Slavic the -ne/no-suffix (with traces of
n-infix).

>> >j-stems should umlaut. But some of the language of geminates verbs
>> >do:
>> >German tünchen, Da. dykke, some don't: Engl. dunk, duck. Why?
>>
>> I don't know about "dunk", but "duck", despite the spelling,
>> has no geminate in WGmc (OE du:ce, Du. duiken, G. tauchen).
>
>Those are two different verbs. Cf. Da. dykke (weak) "dive", dukke
>(weak) "duck", Sw. dyka (strong) "dive". There is a tendency for the
>ungeminated verbs to be strong, the geminated to be weak.

If the gemination was caused by -j-, that is because
je-verbs are generally weak.

>> >> > >The whole
>> >> > >language of geminates complex?
>> >> > >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46151
>> >> > >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46163
>> >> > >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46169
>> >> > >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48657
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently, the language of geminates == Germanic.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, would you say that the occurrence of these stems in other
>> >> languages are loans?
>> >
>> >No answer?
>>
>> No. I don't understand the question.
>
>What are "these stems"
>
>The verbal stems, or roots, of the language of geminates, and if you
>want an exhaustive list, look in the archives or Schrijvers original
>article.
>
>> and what are "other languages"?
>
>Languages other that Germanic.

If the "language of geminates" was a substrate of Germanic,
we wouldn't expect "these stems" to appear in other
languages (and certainly not in ungeminated shape). If the
"language of geminates" is Germanic, we would expect "these
stems" (without the gemination) to appear in other
Indo-European languages (because inherited from PIE).

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