Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

uncouth thane

Expand Messages
  • dgkilday57
    One would expect Greek _phílos_ beloved , as a zero-grade passive adjective, to be oxytone. The simplest explanation of its recessive accent is that it was
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 23, 2013

       

      One would expect Greek _phílos_ 'beloved', as a zero-grade passive adjective, to be oxytone.  The simplest explanation of its recessive accent is that it was commonly used as a form of address and very frequently occurred in the vocative.  On the basis of Vedic usage, one can infer that PIE vocatives had no accent unless they began an utterance, in which case their accent was recessive.  Classical Greek does not preserve this rule, but it is highly plausible that Proto-Greek had nom. sg. masc. *philós, fem. *philá: against voc. sg. masc. *phíle, fem. *phíla (cf. _númpha_, the fossilized voc. sg. of _númphe:_).  When the recessive-vocative rule was lost, most oxytone thematic nouns adjusted their voc. sg. to fit the nom. sg. and other cases, but 'beloved' was so commonly used in the vocative that the other cases were adjusted to it.

       

      Similar considerations apply to _téknon_ 'child', in origin a passive adjective 'begotten' parallel in formation to _semnós_ 'awful, holy, solemn' from PIE *tjegW-nó- 'revered'.  That is, PIE *tek-nó- 'begotten' should have yielded Proto-Greek nom. sg. masc. *teknós, fem. *tekná: against voc. sg. masc. *tékne, fem. *tékna 'offspring, child'.  Again, when the recessive-vocative rule was lost for thematics, the high frequency of the vocative would result in new nom. sgs. *téknos, *tékna: with matching accent.  Later in Proto-Greek, when terms of endearment became neuter (like English _sweet thing_ and Terence's _Glycerium_, non-speaking heroine of the Andria, based on a comedy by Menander), _téknon_ 'child' displaced the old masc. and fem. forms, with the voc. sg. taking the same form as the nom./acc. sg.  The dying Caesar is reported to have uttered "kaì sú, téknon" to Brutus (quoting from another play by Menander).

       

      I do not understand A.L. Sihler's insistence that PIE *g^neh3- 'to know' had no zero grade, and substituted full grade for it in the /tó/-deverbative and /sk^/-present (New Comp. Gr. of Grk. & Lat., New York/Oxford 1995, §52.3, p. 49).  Greek _gno:tós_ 'recognizable, known' and _gignó:sko:_ (Epirote _gnó:sko:_) 'I (come to) know' are compatible with zero grade, provided one assumes that PIE *-n.h3- regularly yielded Grk. -no:-, in parallel with the other word-internal sequences of syllabic resonants plus *h3, to wit:  PIE *str.h3-tó- 'scattered, spread'

      > Grk. _stro:tós_, PIE *ml.h3-sk^oh2 'I come' > Grk. _bló:sko:_, PIE
      *sm.-h3nogWH- 'single-hooved' > Homeric nom. pl. _mó:nukhes_ (NCG §§106-7, pp. 103-5).  Celtic *gna:to- 'known' (Old Irish _gna:th_, Gaulish _-gna:tos_) is also compatible with zero grade, while Lithuanian _pa-z^ìntas_ 'known' demands it.  Sanskrit _jña:tá-_ 'known' need not reflect inherited full grade, but can represent zero-grade *ja:tá- with new anlaut imported from full-grade forms of _ja:ná:ti_ 'knows':  pass. _jña:yáte_, opt. _jña:ya:t_, perf. _jajñá:u_, etc., thus avoiding homophony with _ja:tá-_ 'born'.  Latin _(g)no:tus_ 'known' and _(g)no:sco:_ 'I come to know' could easily have acquired -o:- from the full-grade stative _(g)no:vi:_ 'I know', thus also avoiding homophony with _(g)na:tus_ 'born' and _(g)na:scor_ 'I am born' from the zero grade of *g^enh1- 'to beget'.

       

      In Germanic one would expect PIE *g^n.h3-tó- to yield *kunDa- by Grimm's Law, prevocalization of the syllabic resonant, loss of the following laryngeal in this position, and Verner's Law.  Instead Gmc. *kunþa- 'known' is indicated by Gothic _kunþs_, Old English _cu:þ_, and Old High German _kund_.  As with _phílos_ and _téknon_, the simplest explanation is a high-frequency vocative, commonly occurring in utterance-initial position when members of the same community addressed each other.  I presume that the inputs of this word to Verner's Law were oxytone in all cases but the vocative, and that the vowel-mergers *o > *a, *a: > *o: occurred at a later stage of Proto-Germanic than Verner's Law.

       

      Thus, immediately before Verner's Law, Proto-Gmc. 'known' had nom. sg. masc. *kunþós, fem. *kunþá:, nom. pl. masc. *kunþó:s, fem. *kunþá:s against voc. sg. masc. *kúnþe, fem. *kúnþa, voc. pl. masc. *kúnþo:s, fem. *kúnþa:s.  Immediately after Verner's Law, the nom. forms were *kunDós, *kunDás, *kunDó:s, *kunDá:s against voc. *kúnþe, *kúnþa, *kúnþo:s, *kúnþa:s.  Later the PGmc accent became fixed on the root, leading to a paradigm with a vocative stem *kunþ- against *kunD- used in the other cases.  With most originally oxytone nouns and adjectives subject to Verner's alternation, the seldom-used vocative stem was replaced by the other stem.  But the voc. stem *kunþ- not only had a relatively high frequency; it also had a tradition of respect in formal address.  It would have been UNCOUTH to address one's kinsman as *kunDe rather than *kunþe.  As a result the voc. stem *kunþ- prevailed over *kunD-, not the other way round.

       

      The parallel PIE deverbative *g^n.h1-tó- yielded the expected Gmc. *kunDa- 'begotten, born, child' reflected in Go. _himina-kunds_ 'heaven-born', OE _heofon-kund_ 'id.', and Old Norse _kundr_ 'son'.  But ON _a:s-kunnr_ 'descended from the Asen' requires Gmc. *kunþa-, which I believe is to be explained somewhat like the accent of Grk. _téknon_.  Immediately after Verner's Law, the various forms of the simplex 'born' were homophonous with the corresponding forms of 'known', with context indicating which was meant.  The voc. *kúnþe 'O known one, kinsman' was used in polite address to adults of equal status, while *kúnþe 'O begotten one, son' was used in familiar address to children or, figuratively, to adults of lesser status.  After the voc. stem *kunþ- had ousted *kunD- from the paradigm of 'known', *kunD- had the upper hand in 'begotten, born' since it involved no ambiguity whatever.  Yet the vocs. *kúnþe, *kúnþa 'O child' persisted long enough in familiar settings to produce an alternate paradigm *kunþa- 'child, descendant', and this is what is preserved in ON _a:s-kunnr_.

       

      Grk. _téknon_ cannot plausibly be separated from Gmc. *þeGna- 'vassal, warrior, freeman, thane'.  It will not do to invent a new PIE root *teg(^)H- attested only in Gmc., for this would violate a root restriction and it is too short for *-g(^)H- to be a root extension.  This creates difficulty for the usual view of Kluge's Law occurring during the Gmc. Lautverschiebung.  From PIE *teknó- one would expect Gmc. *þekka-, and from vocatives in *tékn- only Gmc. *þexn-.  The simplest solution is to backdate Kluge's Law to a stage before the Lautverschiebung, presuming that the geminated tenues produced by the former were unaffected by the latter.

       

      Apart from Kluge's Law, this presumption about geminated tenues surviving the Lautverschiebung provides a plausible etymology of Go. _attekan_ 'to touch' (st. VII, pret. 1/3sg. _attaitok_).  Most scholars take the simplex _tekan_ as primary, but forms of _attekan_ are thrice as numerous as those of _tekan_ in the remnants of the Gothic Bible.  Assuming that Gothic inherited the simplex from Gmc. *te:kanaN has led to bizarre results.  D. Ringe proposes a "post-PIE *deh1g- ~ *dh1g- 'touch'" (apparently "post-PIE" is free of root restrictions) from which he derives both Go. _tekan_ and ON _taka_ 'to take' (From PIE to PGmc, Oxford/New York 2006, p. 80).  F. Kortlandt proposes no new root, but a unique series of ad-hoc developments in order to get _tekan_ and _taka_ from PIE *teh2g-, which is reflected in Grk. _tetagó:n_ 'having seized', and according to him also in Latin _tetigi:_ 'I have touched' (Old Norse _taka_, Gothic _tekan_, Greek _tetagó:n_, NOWELE 36:59-65, 2000).  Starting with the reduplicated "aorist" stem *teth2g-, he loses the laryngeal to get *tetg-, assimilates it to *tedg-, and then back-assimilates the reduplication to *dedg-.  Then he invokes his preglottalic theory of PIE plain mediae to write the stem as ['de'd'g-].  This is then simplified by loss of dental articulation in the cluster, yielding ['de''g-] (which he does not explicitly write, avoiding the explanation of how one is supposed to articulate a geminated glottal stop).  Finally, assuming that *h1 was still a glottal stop, he rewrites the stem as *deh1g-, which of course becomes *de:g-, and then *te:k- by the Lautverschiebung.  This PGmc "aorist" stem is then supposed to have been altered in North Gmc. to *to:k- in order to conform to Class VI, thus yielding ON _tók_ 'took' and contaminating *þakanaN to *takanaN (ON _taka_) with its anlaut.  Gothic on the other hand allegedly created a new present by adding present endings to the "aorist" stem *te:k-, and formed a new reduplicated "perfect" stem *teto:k-, putting the verb into Class VII.  On the third hand West Gmc. supposedly created sundry weak verbs from *tak-, the stem resulting from contamination of the regular zero grade *þak- (reflecting PIE *th2g-) with the "aorist" stem *te:k-, the latter conveniently vanishing before it could be attested in WGmc.

       

      I find Kortlandt's algebraic manipulation of phones and morphological sleight of hand overwhelmingly unconvincing.  Too many ad-hoc phenomena must go exactly right at exactly the right time.  Moreover, both his and Ringe's derivations suffer from the highly implausible semantic development 'touch' > 'seize, take' without affixation or intensive formation.  But if one assumes that Gothic inherited the PREFIXED stem *atte:k-, continuing pre-Grimm's Law *atte:g-, and this reflecting *ad- (PIE *h2ed-) plus *te:g- (PIE *teh1g-) 'to touch' with trivial sandhi, neither a new root nor a convoluted mess of ad-hoc machinations is necessary.  Go. _attekan_ in this view is cognate with its semantic match, Lat. _tango:_ (generalized zero-grade nasal pres. *th1-n-g-), _tetigi:_ (gen. zero-grade perf. *te-th1g-).  Go. _attaitok_ continues the gen. /o/-grade perf. *te-tóh1g- with analogical -t- replacing the *-d- expected by Verner's Law (as in _saiso_ 'sowed' for *sezo:, ON _sera_) after Gmc. reanalysis of the stem as *at-te:k-.  This reanalysis led to extraction of the Go. simplex forms.  OE _þaccian_ and Old Low German _thak(k)olo:n_ 'to touch lightly, pat, stroke' are probably based on a Gmc. fem. abstract *þakko: 'touch', PIE *th1g-néh2.  But the prefixed verb would have produced its own Gmc. abstract *attakko:, with reanalysis yielding *takko: 'touch'.  This alternative noun is probably the base of Middle LG _tacken_ 'to touch'.

       

      Grk. _tetagó:n_ requires a different PIE root *teh2g- 'to seize', and ON _taka_ in my opinion is best explained through the /w/-extension (attested in several IE branches) of *deh3-, originally 'to take' (as in Hittite), not 'to give' as generally elsewhere in IE, where the semantic shift 'take' > 'take (for someone else)' > 'give (to someone else)' occurred.  Development of Gmc. *-k(W)- from PIE *-h3w- was probably pretonic only, that is pre-Grimm's Law *-h3w-´ > *-gW-´, but *´-h3w- > *´-w-.  Thus 'living' involved PIE masc. sg. nom. *gWih3wós, voc. *gWíh3we > pre-GL nom. *gWigWós, voc. *gWíwe > post-GL nom. *kWikWós, voc. *kWíwe.  East Gmc. created a new paradigm from the vocative stem *kWiwo- > *kWiwa- > Go. masc. sg. nom. _qius_, acc. _qiwana_, etc.  West and North Gmc. used the other stem *kWikWo- > *kWikWa-.

       

      This digression on _attekan_ justifies placing Kluge's Law before Grimm's.  Now if 'begotten, child' underwent Kluge's assimilation, the masc. sg. nom. *teknós and voc. *tékne would become nom. *tekkós and voc. *tékne.  After the episode of assimilation passed into history, the seldom-used vocative of most words with such a contrast would be analogically levelled to agree with the other cases.  But as in Proto-Greek, I hypothesize that the frequently-used vocative influenced the other cases of this particular word.  This time the accentual pattern was not affected, but the consonantism of the vocative was levelled to the other cases, restoring nom. *teknós beside voc. *tékne.  Thus the high-frequency vocative allowed this word to make an end run around Kluge's Law, so to speak.  Grimm's Law produced nom. *þexnós and voc. *þéxne, and Verner's Law gave nom. *þeGnós against voc. *þéxne.  But by now the noun was no longer used primarily in its original sense 'child, offspring'.  Its principal use had passed, perhaps through 'son of a nobleman', into its historical significance of 'vassal, warrior, freeman, thane'.  It was no longer a term of endearment of parents toward children, and had presumably been replaced as such by *kunDós, *kúnþe (from *g^enh1-, not *g^neh3-).  Thus the vocative *þéxne occurred far less frequently than it had formerly, and it was levelled into *þéGne after the other cases.  When the PGmc accent was later generalized to the root, the only stem in use was *þeGna-.

       

      Douglas G. Kilday

       

    • dgkilday57
      ... [...] Grk. _tetagó:n_ requires a different PIE root *teh2g- to seize , and ON _taka_ in my opinion is best explained through the /w/-extension (attested
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 10, 2013




        ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

        [...]

         

        Grk. _tetagó:n_ requires a different PIE root *teh2g- 'to seize', and ON _taka_ in my opinion is best explained through the /w/-extension (attested in several IE branches) of *deh3-, originally 'to take' (as in Hittite), not 'to give' as generally elsewhere in IE, where the semantic shift 'take' > 'take (for someone else)' > 'give (to someone else)' occurred.  Development of Gmc. *-k(W)- from PIE *-h3w- was probably pretonic only, that is pre-Grimm's Law *-h3w-´ > *-gW-´, but *´-h3w- > *´-w-.  Thus 'living' involved PIE masc. sg. nom. *gWih3wós, voc. *gWíh3we > pre-GL nom. *gWigWós, voc. *gWíwe > post-GL nom. *kWikWós, voc. *kWíwe.  East Gmc. created a new paradigm from the vocative stem *kWiwo- > *kWiwa- > Go. masc. sg. nom. _qius_, acc. _qiwana_, etc.  West and North Gmc. used the other stem *kWikWo- > *kWikWa-.

         

         *****


        This accentual explanation works better in reverse.  What has become known as Dybo's Law in Germanic, Celtic, and Italic (involving a situation parallel to the one addressed by the original Slavic DL) deletes a nonsyllabic laryngeal immediately preceding a nonsyllabic resonant in a pretonic syllable.  Thus PIE *wiXró- 'man' yields Skt. _vi:rá-_, Av. _vi:ra-_, Lith. _výras_, Latv. _wîrs_, but Lat. _vir_, OIr _fer_, OE _wer_, etc.  Now, since /w/ is a nonsyllabic resonant, we expect PIE *gWih3wó- 'living' to be reduced to *gWiwó- in Old Western IE, yielding Celtic *bivo- (OIr _biu_, etc.) and Gmc. *kWiwa-, which is what we find in Gothic _qius_.  Latin _vi:vus_, however, does not show /h3/-deletion and must have been generalized from the vocative, masc. sg. *gWíh3we, etc.  The same goes for NWGmc *kWikWa-, in which *h3 either merged with following *w before Grimm's Law to yield *gW, or after it to yield *kW, in a purely Proto-Germanic affair.  'The living' were likely addressed in funerary and other ritual speeches, providing a high enough frequency for the vocative to split the paradigm of 'living'.

         

        Ringe (From PIE to PGmc 68-70) calls this fortition of *h3 before *w "Cowgill's Law", and suggests that Gothic _qiwa-_ underwent ad-hoc dissimilatory loss of the second *k.  Since there is already a Cowgill's Law involving Greek /u/, I think this Germanic law should be named after Austin instead.  When Dybo's Law is taken into account, no ad-hoc dissimilation is required in Gothic, since DL bleeds the input to Austin's Law with oxytones.  This whole business raises three more issues, each worthy of its own post:

         

        1.  Ringe suggests that *h2 was fortited in the same environment as *h3, but gives only one dubious example of a pronoun.  Better examples are given by Lehmann (PIE Phonology ch. 5).  It further appears from Lehmann's compilation that *h4 was fortited by following *w to PGmc *g.  I am tempted to generalize that the strong laryngeals *h2 and *h3 had merged into one phoneme, *X2, in Early PGmc, while the weak laryngeals *h1 and *h4 had merged into *X1.  But testing such speculation will require a revision of Lehmann's presentation to take Dybo's Law into account and eliminate the obsolete "reduced grade".

         

        2.  Kroonen treats Dybo's Law like Osthoff's, operating independently late in the history of PGmc soundlaws.

        www.fachtagung.dk/presentations/175.pdf

        On the matter of Holtzmann's Verschärfung, Kroonen rejects Lehmann's laryngeal-based approach and advocates a return to Kluge's accentual explanation, which Lehmann had already found defective.  'Egg' is central to the Verschärfung problem and its connection with Dybo's and Austin's Laws.  Someone will end up with it on his face.

         

        3.  If Dybo's Law also operated before aspirated mediae (whatever they actually were) or their reflexes in Early PGmc before loss of the PIE accent, and these consonants were geminated by merger with a preceding laryngeal, it becomes possible to explain the bothersome alternation between simple and geminated mediae in certain Gmc. lexical items.  For example, the multiple stems of 'crab' and 'knave' can be put on a secure Indo-European etymological footing, eliminating the supposed need for Kuiper's European substrate A2.  "Substrata non sunt multiplicanda sine ratione!"

         

        Douglas G. Kilday


      • dgkilday57
        ... [...] In Germanic one would expect PIE *g^n.h3-tó- to yield *kunDa- by Grimm s Law, prevocalization of the syllabic resonant, loss of the following
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 7, 2014




          ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

           

          [...]

           

          In Germanic one would expect PIE *g^n.h3-tó- to yield *kunDa- by Grimm's Law, prevocalization of the syllabic resonant, loss of the following laryngeal in this position, and Verner's Law.  Instead Gmc. *kunþa- 'known' is indicated by Gothic _kunþs_, Old English _cu:þ_, and Old High German _kund_.  As with _phílos_ and _téknon_, the simplest explanation is a high-frequency vocative, commonly occurring in utterance-initial position when members of the same community addressed each other.  I presume that the inputs of this word to Verner's Law were oxytone in all cases but the vocative, and that the vowel-mergers *o > *a, *a: > *o: occurred at a later stage of Proto-Germanic than Verner's Law.

           

          Thus, immediately before Verner's Law, Proto-Gmc. 'known' had nom. sg. masc. *kunþós, fem. *kunþá:, nom. pl. masc. *kunþó:s, fem. *kunþá:s against voc. sg. masc. *kúnþe, fem. *kúnþa, voc. pl. masc. *kúnþo:s, fem. *kúnþa:s.  Immediately after Verner's Law, the nom. forms were *kunDós, *kunDás, *kunDó:s, *kunDá:s against voc. *kúnþe, *kúnþa, *kúnþo:s, *kúnþa:s.  Later the PGmc accent became fixed on the root, leading to a paradigm with a vocative stem *kunþ- against *kunD- used in the other cases.  With most originally oxytone nouns and adjectives subject to Verner's alternation, the seldom-used vocative stem was replaced by the other stem.  But the voc. stem *kunþ- not only had a relatively high frequency; it also had a tradition of respect in formal address.  It would have been UNCOUTH to address one's kinsman as *kunDe rather than *kunþe.  As a result the voc. stem *kunþ- prevailed over *kunD-, not the other way round.

           

          The parallel PIE deverbative *g^n.h1-tó- yielded the expected Gmc. *kunDa- 'begotten, born, child' reflected in Go. _himina-kunds_ 'heaven-born', OE _heofon-kund_ 'id.', and Old Norse _kundr_ 'son'.  But ON _a:s-kunnr_ 'descended from the Asen' requires Gmc. *kunþa-, which I believe is to be explained somewhat like the accent of Grk. _téknon_.  Immediately after Verner's Law, the various forms of the simplex 'born' were homophonous with the corresponding forms of 'known', with context indicating which was meant.  The voc. *kúnþe 'O known one, kinsman' was used in polite address to adults of equal status, while *kúnþe 'O begotten one, son' was used in familiar address to children or, figuratively, to adults of lesser status.  After the voc. stem *kunþ- had ousted *kunD- from the paradigm of 'known', *kunD- had the upper hand in 'begotten, born' since it involved no ambiguity whatever.  Yet the vocs. *kúnþe, *kúnþa 'O child' persisted long enough in familiar settings to produce an alternate paradigm *kunþa- 'child, descendant', and this is what is preserved in ON _a:s-kunnr_.

           

          [...]

           

           

          This accent-based proposal cannot plausibly be extended to explain certain weak preterits with underlying *-nþ-, namely Go. _kunþa_, OE _cu:ðe_, ON _kunna_ 'knew (how), could', OE _u:ðe_, ON _unna_ 'granted', and Northern English _begouth_ (1375), _beguld_ (1535), _begude_ (1657), etc. 'began'.

           

          (Middle English _couth(e)_ was apparently not felt to be properly marked as a preterit.  One finds also _couthde_ and later on _coud(e)_, which prevailed.  According to the OED, the unetymological -l- began to be used in spelling around 1525 in mechanical imitation of _should_ and _would_, whose etymological -l- had become silent.  The same thing explains _beguld_ and the more common recent spelling _begould_ beside _could_.)

           

          For three centuries, the most popular way of explaining the weak preterit has been to assume composition of the stem with a form of the verb 'do', which reflects PIE *dHeh1-.  That is, the dental is supposed to continue PIE *dH.  Most of the handbooks and textbooks claim that the weak preterit of preteritive-present verbs like 'can' is a recent innovation within Germanic, the adaptation of the dental preterit from ordinary weak verbs to PP verbs.  Thus, most weak-preterit theorists simply ignore issues involving the preterit of PP verbs.  However, Hermann Möller observed that the preterits mentioned above cannot continue PIE *dH, but only PIE *t.  The dental of the weak preterit typically appears as Gmc. *d not because it reflects PIE *dH, but because the dental suffix was stressed and PIE *t became Gmc. *d by Verner's Law.

           

          One must now explain why Verner's Law did not shift the *þ in the preterits mentioned to *d.  Unlike the situation with vocatives, Vedic accentuation offers no clue.  The principal verb in a Vedic sentence generally has no accent unless it begins the sentence or immediately follows a vocative which begins the sentence.  When this happens, the accent is the same as what the verb would have if it stood in a subordinate clause, generally agreeing with the Early Proto-Germanic accent deduced by Verner from grammatical change in North and West Germanic verbs.  There is no mechanism for producing original recessive accent in the preterits mentioned above.  Some other way of maintaining *þ in these preterits is required, preferably one which will also account for it in the adjective 'couth', since theoretical economy is always desirable.

           

          Elmar Seebold argued that the geminates appearing in the PP verbs in question, OE _cunnan_ 'know (how), be able' and _unnan_ 'grant', resulted from root-final laryngeals (Die Geminata bei gm. _kann_, _ann_ und anderen starken Verben, KZ 80:273-83, 1966).  The singular stem *kann- thus reflects the /o/-grade *g^onh3-, the plural stem *kunn- the zero-grade *g^n.h3-, of the PIE root *g^neh3- 'know'.  OE _unnan_ is brought together with Greek _oníne:mi_ 'I profit, benefit, help' whose /e:/ reflects earlier /a:/ (cf. Doric 3sg. fut. act. _onaseî_, 1sg. aor. pass. _o:náthe:n_, both Theoc.).  Thus the PIE root is identified as *h3neh2-; Gmc. *ann- and *unn- continue *h3onh2- and *h3n.h2-.  Seebold began his paper by carefully picking apart the possibility that the -nn- in both verbs originated from nasal presents.

           

          Nevertheless, Alfred Bammesberger rejected Seebold's analysis in favor of nasal-present genesis (The Paradigm of Germanic *aih/aig-u- and Notes on Some Preterite-Present Verbs, NOWELE 26:57-66, 1995).  In footnote 21 he scoffed that "the sound-law [i.e. *-n@- > *-nn-] seems by no means certain, and the pre-form *g^on@- would not have occurred in the perfect paradigm *g^e-g^no:-".  No, but it could have occurred in an archaic unreduplicated paradigm parallel to *woid-/wid- (Gmc. *wait-/wit- 'know').  In footnote 5 A.B. noted that "Szemerényi maintains that originally all perfect paradigms had reduplication, so that we would reconstruct *we-woyd-, which, at an early stage, was reduced to *woyd- because of its high frequency (Einf. in die vgl. Sprachwissenschaft, 3. Aufl., 1989, p. 314)".  This stands reasoning on its head.  The archaic UNREDUPLICATED perfect of this root survived into several branches of IE due to its high frequency.  In Germanic, where reduplication never became a highly productive method of stem-marking, the archaic perfect survived and prospered.

           

          Now, in Hittite the laryngeals *h2 and *h3 in certain positions functioned as consonants and are attested as such in the writing, but *h1 and *h4 in the same positions have disappeared.  This suggests that *h2 and *h3 were the strong laryngeals, *h1 and *h4 the weak ones.  W.P. Lehmann supposed that consonantal laryngeals in Proto-Germanic had fallen together into two phonemes *X1 and *X2.  Tentatively I will assign *X1 to the weak post-laryngeal resulting from *h1 or *h4, *X2 to the strong one from *h2 or *h3.  I will further assume, provisionally of course, that *X1 merely disappeared from the Early PGmc cluster *-nX1þ-, but *X2 was strong enough in this position to merge with the fricative and geminate it, producing *-nþþ-.  This resulted in a distinction of the /to/-participles from PIE *g^enh1- 'bear young' and *g^neh3- 'know' being maintained, to wit:

           

          *g^n.h1-tó- > *kunX1þó- > *kunþó- > *kunDa- > *kunda-

          *g^n.h3-tó- > *kunX2þó- > *kunþþó- > *kunþþa- > *kunþa-

           

          Verner's Law did not act on the geminated fricative in 'couth', which was later simplified in post-heavy position.  This new mechanism renders my old explanation of 'couth', in the first two paragraphs reproduced above from my old post, superfluous.  However, an accent-based mechanism is still required to explain ON _a:s-kunnr_, as outlined in the third paragraph.  The familiar vocatives *kúnþe, *kúnþa 'O child' were not modified by Verner's Law due to their recessive accent, and they survived long enough to create an alternate paradigm *kunþa- 'child' beside the more usual *kunDa-.  Indeed, since Upper German shows evidence of retention of other post-heavy geminates until the second Lautverschiebung had run its course, it is likely that the latest Proto-Germanic still had *kunþþa- 'known, couth, kinsman', with which *kunþa- 'child' would not have been confused.

           

          On the weak preterit, I differ from the mainstream in two principal ways.  First, I regard the dental suffix as continuing a PIE durative *-téh1- originally attached to zero-grade and preserved in Latin _lateo:_ 'I lie hidden, escape (the) notice (of)', _pateo:_ 'I lie open, stretch out, extend', and _niteo:_ 'I shine, glitter, radiate', and a handful of Greek verbs.  Second, I regard the weak preterit of PP verbs as ancient, inherited from PIE, not cobbled together recently on the model of ordinary weak verbs.  Thus PIE *wid-téh1- regularly produced PGmc *wisse:-, OE _wisse_ 'knew' (later also _wiste_ after _dohte_, _þorfte_, _dorste_, etc. whose -te was regular); PIE *mn.-téh1 gave Gmc. *munde:-, OE _munde_ 'remembered'; PIE *g^n.h3-téh1- gave *kunX2þé:-, later *kunþþé:-, Late PGmc *kunþþe:-, Low West Gmc. *kunþe-, OE _cu:ðe_ 'knew (how), was able'; PIE *h3n.h2-téh1- gave *unX2þé:-, similarly leading to OE _u:ðe_ 'granted'.

           

          In previous posts I argued that PIE *g^Hen- 'pick up, take up, elevate' vel sim. was the root of Latin _hono:s_, later _honor_, and Gmc. *-ginnanaN 'to begin' (found with several prefixes; perhaps the simplex was a PP verb in PGmc).  I supposed that the Gmc. *-nn- was due to an /n/-present or a /w/-present.  It now seems more likely that the root was *g^Henh2/3-, with the *þ underlying _begouth_ arising the same way as in _cu:ðe_ and _u:ðe_.  R.S.P. Beekes regards _hono:s_ as an /s/-stem in which *-o:s from the nom. sg. has been extended to all the (Old) Latin cases (Comp. I-E Ling., 1995, p. 180).  This does not permit distinguishing *h2 from *h3 in this position, assuming that the other analysis to this point is correct.

           

          Douglas G. Kilday


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.