01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Ѹˤưβʬ˷ -ed "dental suffix" ȤƤФ졤ղäϥޥͭηֲǤʡ#182. ޥɤħ ([2009-10-26-1]) ȡˡˤäƥޥϡ촴첻ѲƲ췿ζѲưԵ§Ѳưˤȡ dental suffix ղäѲưʵ§ѲưˤȤ2ʬ뤳ȤˤʤäԤϡֵ§Ūפʤ˸¿ưعäƤѸưˤ礭ʱƶڤܤƤʡ#178. ưε§Ѳά ([2009-10-22-1])#764. ѸưѤ3Ĥʬˡ ([2011-05-31-1]) ȡˡ
Ѹ -ed Υޥˤ뵯ˤĤƤϽ⤢ꡤ夬ĤƤʤͭϤˤȡư do ƱǤϤʤȤdo ΤưṲ̄ȤȤǧˤ衤ʬˤΰ̣ɤФƤΤϼǤϤʤƱˤȡޥˤ do 촴Τʣ (reduplication) ȤŤֲäƤˡƱҲ2ٸ *dēd- ʤɤη֤Ȥʤä䤬첻üλҲ蘆äƽŻҲȤʤäæŻҲơɤΤȤ *d- ˼ޤäĤޤꡤ-ed λҲϡdo θ촴ҲбƱˡ줬Τ˽ʣƱҲˤб뤳Ȥˤʤ롥
Ǥϡϲ餫ʸˤٻΤȸ˾嵭ηֲ碌㤬ĤȤLass (164)
The origin of the weak preterite is a perennial source of controversy. The main problem is that it is a uniquely Germanic invention, which is difficult to connect firmly with any single IE antecedent. Observing the old dictum ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing is made out of nothing), scholars have proposed numerous sources, none of which is without its difficulties. The main problem is that there are at least three consonantisms: /d/ (Go nasida 'I saved', inf. nasjan), /t/ (Go baúhta 'I bought', inf. bugjan), and /s/ (Go wissa 'I knew', inf *witan).
But even given this complexity, the most likely primary source seems to be compounding of an original verbal noun of some sort with the verb */dhe:-/ 'put, place, do' (OHG tuon, OE dōn, OCS dějati 'do', Skr dádhati 'he places', L fēci 'I made, did').
This leads to a useful analysis of a Gothic pret 3 ppl like nasidēdun 'they saved':
(7.18) nas - i -dē - d - un
SAVE-theme-reduplication-DO-3 pl
I.e. a verbal root followed by a thematic connective followed by the reduplicated perfect plural of 'do'. This gives a periphrastic construction with a sense like 'did V-ing'; with, significantly, Object-Verb order . . ., i.e. (7.18) has the form of an OV clause 'NP-pl sav(ing) did'. An extended form also existed, in which a nominalizing suffix */-ti/ or */-tu/ was intercalated between the root and the 'do' form, e.g. in Go faúrhtidēdun 'they feared', which can be analysed as {faúrh-ti-dē-d-un}. This suffix was in many cases later weakened; first the vowel dropped, so that */-ti-d-/ > */-td-/; this led to assimilation */-tt-/, and then eventual reinterpretation of the /t/-initial portion as a suffix itself, and loss of the 'do' part from verbs of this type . . . . The problematic /s(s)/ forms may go back to a different (earlier) development also involving */-ti/, in which the sequence */tt/ > /s(s)/ . . . but this is not clear.
פˡ-ed ղäθϼ̤ޤư촴̾첽ܤư̾Τ褦ʤΤ롥ľˡdo β did Τ褦ʤΤ֤ơΤȤơ֡ưˤưԤʤäפȤ롥Τ褦ˤȤȤOVαŪ칽¤ȤƻϤޤä䤬ΤĤŤޤäʣΤ褦ʤΤȤƤȤ館褦ˤʤꡤŪʲؤȰܹԤʳ˻äơ-ed ʬϡŪǤȤʤ«ǤȲᤵ줿ʸˡ (grammaticalisation) ȤߤƤ褤
ΰѤ Lass Go wissa ˸ڤȤȤˡǸ /s(s)/ ˸ڤǤ뤬бűѸˤư wāt βȤ wiste/wisse ꡤŪꤲƤ롥ˤĤƤϡ#2231. ưβ˸ -st- ([2015-06-06-1]) Ȥ줿
Lass, Roger. Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion. Cambridge: CUP, 1994.
2026 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2025 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
ǽ: 2026-06-26 03:46
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow