In the course of my Psalmic translations, I came upon an unforseen issue: what would be the future ending of a verb in qu(a)--?
The verb miqu- is actually attested, but not in the future. Applying the strong verb rule would give **miquuva, which seems unlikely.
On the other hand, I don't see many alternatives, other than treating it as a half-strong verb yielding **miquva (also unlikely), or postulating a related a- verb yielding miquáva (grammatically sound, but miqu- can hardly be an a-verb, both from the shape and meaning standpoints).
Fiona Jallings Oct 19, 2018 (16:18)
James Coish Oct 19, 2018 (16:32)
Tamas Ferencz Oct 19, 2018 (16:34)
Paul Strack Oct 19, 2018 (17:05)
ܤܡܝ ܦܠܕܢܝܘܤ Oct 20, 2018 (14:40)
Paul Strack Oct 20, 2018 (15:28)
Damien Bador Oct 22, 2018 (14:02)
I will update my translation accordingly.
Damien Bador Oct 22, 2018 (14:15)
Even if such a verb was attested, there are other examples of homophony for past declensions, which shows that this was considered tolerable.
Tamas Ferencz Oct 22, 2018 (14:38)