The Origin of the Germanic Dental Preterit

Abstract

The weak preterit presents one of the most difficult problems in Germanic linguistics.* Many investigators have applied themselves to the solution of the problem, and the number of publications occupied with this question is so great that a perspective can hardly be gained. The varied attempts at a solution, many quite recent, are proof that the much-discussed question has lost none of its appeal. The problem offers a recurring challenge to research, since it cannot yet be considered finally solved. We need not occupy ourselves with the older literature; the bibliographical references in the monograph of H. Collitz' afford a complete summary of the literature extant at the time of its publication. It is, however, necessary to refer briefly to the results of more recent research. Previous investigations belong to two opposing camps, representing fundamentally divergent views: on the one hand the so-called composition theory, which finds the origin of the weak preterit in a periphrastic construction consisting of the word stem in combination with the IE root *dhj'make, do'; on the other hand the view that the class-sign of the weak preterit contains an IE element -t-, upon which the entire construction in Germanic is based. The first hypothesis is the older; it originated with D. v. Stade in 1710, was supported by Fr. Bopp,2 and found a zealous protagonist in R. Loewe.3 In his view, the weak preterit is descended from a periphrastic tense whose component parts, the verb stem and the verb 'to do', were originally independent. In the course of the development into one word, the short reduplication syllable of the second component, e.g. PGmc. *-dedt5 (1st sg.), was lost by haplology. H. Hirt4 has touched upon this problem in several of his works. He, too, holds fast to the theory of composition. It is worthy of note that he regards the first component as an indefinite case form (casus indefinitus). J. Sverdrup5 rendered particular service to the cause of the composition theory. He was convinced that no theory would succeed which took its point of departure from the primary dental preterits and attempted to explain the whole weak preterit on this basis. The correct approach, according to him, would be to separate the secondary verbs (denominative and causative), which had originally only present forms and whose preterit forms were descended from the periphrastic construction, from the primary verbs, whose dental in the preterit