Re: [tied] Latin perfect tense

On Mon, 21 May 2001 19:30:05 +0100, "petegray"
<petegray@...> wrote:

>Latin appears to have added an -i to these in the singular, and 3 plural,
>just as -i was added to other primary endings in PIE (secondary
>*-m, -s, -t, -> primary *-mi, -si, -ti). The third person singular then
>picks up a final -t by analogy. The earliest attested Latin forms are
> - ai
> -is-tai
> -eit
> -e:ri

Are these really attested? I know -ei, -istei and -eit are, but what
about -e:ri? That would be interesting, as there are two ways of
explaining the final -e : either as *-i or *-e.

*-h2a- i or *-h2 -a (+-i)
*-th2a-i *-th2-a (+-i)
*-e -i *-0 -e (+-i)
... ...
*-r -i *-r -e

Does Tocharian B -re reflect *-re or *-ri?

>The 1 & 2 plural pick up the -s under analogy, as elsewhere in the verbal
>system. The 2 plural appears to be the 2 singular with -s added.

But it's not *-isti:s.

>An original aorist 3 singular should have given early Latin -ed (as in the
>Praenestine fibula, the authenticity of which is sometimes disputed).
>
>The -is- element is not easily explained, but probably it is not the
>sigmatic aorist. The sigmatic aorist forms would appear as stem + s (not
>stem + pefect extension + is). These forms are actually found: amasti,
>dixti, and so on. Some are later contractions of the perfect stem, but some
>cannot be (eg the forms like putasti).

I don't follow. What's the difference between amasti and putasti?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...