Reconstruction talk:Proto-Finnic/teetädäk
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The past tense[edit]
Is the past tense *teetei correct? In Finnish it's tiesi. Wouldn't that suggest *teeci? --88.114.41.216 12:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Tropylium Can you weigh in on this? —CodeCat 13:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- IP is correct. It has been sometimes presumed that unstressed *ä+i > Proto-Finnic *ei generally, and > *i only late in Finnish, so that a form like tieti would be regular, tiesi analogical. Similar alternation appears in many imperfect forms in Finnish, e.g. soutaa : souti or sousi. On the other hand, a recent proposal is that after closed syllable,s *ä+i > *əi > *i already in Proto-Finnic, so this verb would indeed have the PF past stem *teeci-. Likewise e.g. kunta has a somewhat scarcely attested oblique plural stem kunsi- < Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. --Tropylium (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Short initial syllable verbs don't seem to change (vetää : veti, pitää : piti, itää : iti). Is it a regular sound law or analogy? --88.114.41.216 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- IP is correct. It has been sometimes presumed that unstressed *ä+i > Proto-Finnic *ei generally, and > *i only late in Finnish, so that a form like tieti would be regular, tiesi analogical. Similar alternation appears in many imperfect forms in Finnish, e.g. soutaa : souti or sousi. On the other hand, a recent proposal is that after closed syllable,s *ä+i > *əi > *i already in Proto-Finnic, so this verb would indeed have the PF past stem *teeci-. Likewise e.g. kunta has a somewhat scarcely attested oblique plural stem kunsi- < Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. --Tropylium (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Original meaning[edit]
The verb must have originally meant "to know the way". Why? Would it be possible that the original meaning was to show the way? --Liedes (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Transitivity considerations mainly: the base root Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. is a nominal, and applied to these, Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. creates intransitive verbs. Deriving a transitive verb such as "to show (the way)" would take either an intransitive verb base, or a "heavier" verb suffix such as Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. It would also be unusual for a transitive verb to then develop into an intransitive verb without a new detransitivizing suffix being applied. --Tropylium (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)