> Also noteworthy is the element *w(e) that appears in the "weak"
> perfects (such as most a:-conjugation verbs).
>.....Now, apart from the pf.ind., the rest of the
> perfect paradigm in Latin seems to be based on the verb "to be"
> together with a a worn-down form of the ptc.pf.act. in *-us-/*-wos-:
This origin for the -v- in some Latin perfects is disputed in some quarters,
and in my opinion should be offerred with a note of caution. The -v- only
occurs on stems that cannot take -s- or do not take reduplication. In
consonant conjugation verbs (3rd conjugation) it is an almost invariable
sign that the the PIE stem ended in a laryngeal (e.g. vomo vomui, colo
colui, gemo gemui, etc)
There are several suggested sources for it:
(a) the Proto-Italic perfect paradigm of the root *bhuh (forms in Oscan
derive from *fufuv- + aorist endings). The forms in fuv- were then
reinterpreted as fu-, plus the endings -vai, -vei, ve:ri etc
(b) the perfect active participle (as above, and based on Rix's
suggestion.) The -is- extension can then be taken back to a feminine -i-
form. But some people suggest the -is- is not -is at all. the 2 sing and
plural are really -(i) st- cognate with Greek -stha, Hittite -sta (hi
conjugation), the -(i)- is purely epenthetic.
(c) co-occurrence of two laryngeals in the 1st person singular (which
explains its occurence on laryngeal roots)
(d) Baldi points to a handful of -v- perfects in Umbrian, Gaulish,
Armenian, tocharian, and possibly Hittite. This implies it has a PIE
origin other than the participle.
Peter