Re: Octha or Ohta?
> As for <magan>, LIV (Zehnder) reconstructs a PIE root present *magH-Ah, yes.
> with invariable vocalism and treats plural forms like OHG, OS, OFris.
> mugun as late and analogical. This verb is one mighty can of worms :)
Thread starting in
Thread starting in
In Russian texts I find 'mana kartam' like constructions, eg. here
'Ð Ð°ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¿ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¸, ÐºÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÑÐµ Ð¿ÑÐ¾Ð²ÐµÐ» ... ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾, Ð¾ÑÐºÑÑÂÑÐ¾ 52 Ð¿Ð¾Ð³ÑÐµÐ±ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ... .'
"By the excavations, which were carried out by ... Kukharenko, were opened 52 burials ..."
As far as I know, the instrumental 'ÑÐ°ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¿ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¸' used in the instrumental sense, could also by used for the logical subject, like this:
ÐÑÑ Ð°ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾Ð¼ Ð¾ÑÐºÑÑÂÑÐ¾ 52 Ð¿Ð¾Ð³ÑÐµÐ±ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ
"By Kukharenko was opened 52 burials" (note, not "were opened")
This looks exactly like a mana kartam construction. And look at the nice -t-o ppp.
We could set up a whole preterite paradigm that way (I'll use pseudo-Russian)
"by me was-opened" etc meaning "I opened" etc; note, no copula
Now impersonal constructions like that 'me thinks' etc have a tendency to become personal, 'I think' etc, thus something like
I think that's where the Germanic regular preterite -(i)Ã°a comes from. Or rather from a stressed -t-Ã³, stressed like the Russian ppp. in the feminine is, -tÃ¡, which makes me suspect Slavic fem. -a and neuter -o are the same suffix (*-aN).
Now the above uninflected (for person and number) new preterite together with an inflected present will create some tension in the verb system (but eg. Estonian is doing fine with inflected positive present sentences and non-inflected negative presents (ma jooksen, sa jooksed, ta jookseb "I run" etc vs. ma ei jookse, ta ei jookse, ta ei jookse (I don't run" etc), so people will tend to resolve it depending on temperament:
The higher classes (and southern Germans and Icelanders) want order so they begin to inflect the new preterite for person and number like the present is, by adding the present suffixes for person and numbers outside the 3sg.
The lower classes (and Anglos and Scandinavians) don't care, so they stop inflecting the present, like the new preterite isn't.
That only leaves the reduplication of the preterite ending in Gothic to be explained.
The same method of analogy would then have applied to *mag-, originally meaning something like Russian moÅ¾no "it is possible, it is permitted"
So much for *-to, *-so could have been the origin for Germanic verbs with an -r- preterite.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>I don't see any need for it to be old. It's prob. a new analogical word in Latin or late PIt.
> --- In email@example.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> > W dniu 2012-02-08 19:19, stlatos pisze:
> > > Gmc.
> > > *xaizda- = hair
> > > vs.
> > > *xaizda- = flax fiber / etc.
> > >
> > > Exactly the same meaning range, but *kays- differs from *kas- in having
> > > an entire phoneme added WITHIN the word, not just a possible k vs kY
> > > (considering all the apparently irregular changes among them in families
> > > that differentiate them).
> > Except that the Gmc. word is actually *xazDa-/*xezDa(n)- in both
> > meanings (ON haddr 'long hair', OE pl. heordan 'hards of flax', etc.).
> > Cf. *xe:ra- 'hair', which in my opinion reflects *kes-ró-:
> > http://hdl.handle.net/10593/1990
> According to Buck (OUG sec. 118), the change *sr > *fr (whence Latin fr-, -br- as in <fri:gus>, <fu:nebris>, etc.) "belongs doubtless to the Italic period". This makes it difficult to derive Lat. <vernus> from a protoform *wesri-no-. One would expect *wesrino- > Proto-Italic *wefrino- > Proto-Latin *webrino- > *webr.no- > *weberno- > Lat. *vebernus.
> I propose instead that Proto-Italic, like Proto-Slavic, had *wesni-no- 'springy' formed as a deadverbial adjective from the inherited loc. sg. *wesni 'in spring'.