Re: Grimm shift as starting point of "Germanic"

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

>
> 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).

I think I must have expressed myself in as way that is unclear. I will
rephrase:
I assumed that you wanted to solve the problem of the accompanying
'n-infixed' verb (duck-dunk) with the same n-suffix too; it seems to
me you agree.

Germanic doesn't have infixed verbs otherwise AFAIK, apart from
'standan', so that part seems OK: geminates could be the missing
n-infixed verbs. But that's not what you or Kluge are saying, you want
to derive the from the n-suffix. How come then, that the n-suffix
survives as n-suffix, without gemination in the Gothic 4th weak class?
Wasn't it supposed to geminate and then go away? Doesn't that require
an explanation?

> >> >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.

But many of these aren't umlauted, so they can't be je-verbs.

> >> >> > >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).

Of course we would. That language of geminates substrate is defined by
geography, it is a language of NWEurope, it's not a substrate of just
one language. And languages other than Germanic don't allow gemination, so
they would never be rendered with gemination in those languages.

> 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).

But those stems show a preference for NWEurope (although they are
found occasionally in IIr), and similar stems are found in Baltic
Finnic (cf. Estonian
tõu/ge, -ke n. "push", tõu/kama, -gata v. "push",
tõk/e, -ke n. "blockage", tõkesta/ma -da v. "block"
tugev, -a "strong", tugi, toe n. "support",
tungiv, "pushy; urgent";

tups, -u "tuft of hair")

Torsten