Henrik Theiling wrote:

>Hi!
>
>John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>
>>ObRant:  It's a mystery to me how the verb _bow_ 'bend the body' and its
>>derived noun _bow_ (both /bau/) got separated from the noun _bow_ 'missile
>>weapon; viol implement' and its derived verb (both /bou/), since a bow
>>is transparently "that which is bent" (as in _rainbow_, very plainly).
>>But it was already so in OE:  bugan, boga respectively.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe it is a help that in German, one is the perfect and preterite of
>the other:
>
>beugen = OE bugan
>Bogen  = OE boga
>
>The verb 'beugen' has pret. 'wir bogen', and PPP 'gebogen', i.e.
>
>   'Der Bogen ist gebogen.'   'The bow is bowed.'
>   'Ich beuge den Bogen.'     'I bow the bow.'
>   'Wir bogen den Bogen.'     'We bowed the bow.'
>
>Thus the reason for separation is ablaut: bow /bou/ is derived from
>bow /bau/.
>
>
>

I'm not sure, but I think the construction you refer to as 'preterite',
despite being just that, is, in fact, normally called the imperfect.  Or
at least, that's how I'm taught it.