--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-05-28 23:10, dgkilday57 wrote:
>
> > Old Norse <taka>, <to:k>, <tekinn> 'take' and Gothic <te:kan>,
> > <tai'to:k>, <te:kans> 'touch' are problematic since we don't expect PIE
> > roots of the form *deg- or *deHg-. Simple ideas occurred to me and I'd
> > like to know if they can be easily dismissed, so I don't waste time
> > pursuing faulty hypotheses.
>
> For my view, see:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/45736
Thanks. I take it you disagree with Kortlandt's explanation of the /e:/ in Goth. <te:kan> from preglottalization? How well received is K.'s idea that English and Danish dialects preserve preglottalization inherited from PIE, anyway?
Voicing assimilation (in Pre-Gmc.) *te-tg- > *tedg- > *dedg- is a clever idea but it seems to me that in order for it to work, awareness of the form as reduplicated must have been maintained. With Latin/Italic <bibo:> from *pibo: (from *pi-pH3-) we can presume archaic forms in b-, since the Foied painter uses both Faliscan <pafo> /bafo:/ and <pipafo> /bibafo:/ as the 1sg. future which may be compared with the Lat. 1sg. fut. <dabo:> against Vestinian 3sg. pres. <didet>, etc., also the Late Latin (and Old Italian) infinitive <bere>, which I consider an archaism parallel to *dere (replaced by <dare> by analogy from <dat> etc.). That is, the Italic (or Latino-Faliscan) assimilation of *pibo: to <bibo:> was motivated by forms in the paradigm containing unreduplicated *b- from *pH3-. Elsewhere Latin has discarded perfects like *fedici: and *fedivi: in favor of <fe:ci:> and <finxi:>, with <fefelli:> based on a non-IE root. It's not clear to me that Pre-Gmc. *tedg- > *dedg- would have had any similar support. If Kortlandt had any other examples from Germanic, wouldn't he have been likely to cite them?
DGK