Talk:๐บ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐พ๐ฐ๐ฝ
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Mnemosientje in topic Past Participle
Past Participle
edit@Mnemosientje It seems that the Past Participle of this verb possess the -i- while lacking it in the past Indicative and subjunctive; compare ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ด๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฝ (kaupastฤdun) and ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ด๐ณ๐น (kaupastฤdi) with ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐น๐ณ๐ฐ๐น (kaupatidai). Other class 1 weak irregular verbs don't display such alteration. Do have any idea why? ๐ท๐ป๐ฟ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ ๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐น๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea, honestly. My best guess would be that the irregularity of these -atjan verbs threw scribes off, either in Wulfila's time already or in the time of the Ostrogothic scribes to whom we owe our manuscripts, causing them to reform the participle as if it were a regular weak verb in this one case. But that is just a guess, and it does not explain why they didn't do the same with other past tense forms. I am also not sure whether this irregularity existed in other -atjan verbs as well (presumably it did, if this is indeed not just a scribal mistake), in which case the conjugation table at lauhatjan and the PGmc conjugation tables for the -atjanan verbs also need to be adjusted. (It really is a pity we don't have other attested past participles for -atjan verbs...) As far as I can google however there has not been an explanation. โ Mnemosientje (t ยท c) 12:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje: I went ahead to try to see if I could find any more -atjan verbs. I only came across ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐พ๐ฐ๐ฝ (swลgatjan), but that one doesn't have the past participle attested. I also visisted Bosworth-Toller to see the past participle of Old English blฤซccettan (which comes from *blikkatjanฤ ), and they gave it as blฤซcetted; so I guess it's possible that the -atjanฤ carried the -i- in the past participle; if Old English -ettan verbs hadn't merged with class 1 verbs.
- On an unrelated note; I've seen Gothic verbs prefixed with various preposition without really changing the meaning that much. For example, there is ๐ผ๐น๐ธ๐ฐ๐๐ฑ๐ฐ๐น๐ณ๐พ๐ฐ๐ฝ (miรพarbaidjan) that was created from ๐ฐ๐๐ฑ๐ฐ๐น๐ณ๐พ๐ฐ๐ฝ (arbaidjan) but the meaning hasnโt really changed that much; or am I missing something? So couldnโt โ,niรพais รพos รพozei miรพarbaididedun mis in aiwaggeljon miรพ Klaimaintau...โ have been โ,niรพais รพos รพozei arbaididedun miรพ mis in aiwaggeljon miรพ Klaimaintau...โ? I also seen Ancient Greek, Latin and Old High German act in a similar way. My question is in regards to what rules are prepositions prefixed to verbs in Gothic; and do other Indo-European languages function under the same rules? ๐ท๐ป๐ฟ๐ณ๐ฐ๐
๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐น๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Often the meaning only shifts a little, yes, following the meaning of the prefix or preposition that is added. In the case of miรพarbaididedun, the miรพ- part can be explained easily when considering the Ancient Greek text on which the Gothic is based, which has a corresponding prefix ฯฯ ฮฝ- in ฯฯ ฮฝฮฎฮธฮปฮทฯฮฌฮฝ in the same place. โ Mnemosientje (t ยท c) 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also I wouldn't be comfortable using OE as an indication, given how much time separates it from PGmc there's a very good chance morphological levelling took away any peculiarities of these -atjan verbs without us knowing about it. โ Mnemosientje (t ยท c) 16:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje: I just recently fixed the conjugation table of this verb so now the past participle is ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐น๐ธ๐ (kaupatiรพs). I've also changed conjugation table at ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ท๐ฐ๐๐พ๐ฐ๐ฝ (lauhatjan) although I don't know if should add the * to the past participle. What is your opinion on the matter? ๐ท๐ป๐ฟ๐ณ๐ฐ๐
๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐น๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Holodwig21 I have added a disclaimer to the three -atjan entries we have. โ Mnemosientje (t ยท c) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje: I just recently fixed the conjugation table of this verb so now the past participle is ๐บ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐น๐ธ๐ (kaupatiรพs). I've also changed conjugation table at ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ท๐ฐ๐๐พ๐ฐ๐ฝ (lauhatjan) although I don't know if should add the * to the past participle. What is your opinion on the matter? ๐ท๐ป๐ฟ๐ณ๐ฐ๐
๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ป๐ฐ๐๐ด๐น๐บ๐น๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)