the Wheel and Dating PIE or NW-IE

[petegray]

[On English as
`more archaic' than German, alleged to be a "fair statement"]

Robert's main point is clearly right, namely:
>the point here is that `more archaic' and `less archaic' are relative
>terms, to be used with a degree of caution.

So this is merely a note on some details and trivia:

>3) The preservation of IE w in English as opposed to its development to v in
>German, e.g., E win - Ge (ge)winnen [(ge)vinen].

Both are developments from an original consonantal u.   The English sound is
much more consonantal than the Latin, and probably more so than the IE.   So
if German and English both develp the sound, I am not certain we can say one
development is more archaic than the other.

>4) The preservation of a three-fold alternation in certain Gc Class I strong
>verb paradigms, e.g., E drive (< IE *-ei-) - drove (< IE *-oi-) - driven (<
>IE *-i-), as opposed to Ge treiben (< IE *-ei-) - trieb - getrieben (the
>generalisation of the reflex of CG *-i-).

Again, both are generalisations.   PIE perfect and proto-Germanic preterite
had singular *-oi-, plural *-i-*.   English generalised the singular, German
the plural.   Why should one generalisatoin be called more archaic than the
other?

>6) The preservation of 1st sg am in English as opposed to its loss in German.

English has 1st sg "be" or even (I believe) "bin" in non-standard dialects.
What does non-standard German have?

>7) The preservation of certain lexical items from Common Germanic (and IE) in
>English as opposed to their loss in German, e.g., E tree, choose, ask.

The same is true the other way round.

Peter