Re: [tied] Hittite preterites

>I think the augment is lurking in the shadow of a
>number of other language families also.

If that could be shown, then I'd accept your view. But your examples seem
to be
based only on the verb to be. (>OCS be^; Old Irish -bi: Lat .. rhymed
with *H1esi 'thou art', >Tocharian analogy with augmented *e-H1es-t)

>I also explain the Latin imperfect subjunctive in /-se:-/ as based on the
>2sg forms: The s-aorist 2sg sbj. *weg^h-se-si rhymed with *H1esi 'thou
>art', so the corresponding preterite would be made to rhyme with *e-H1es >
>*e:s 'thou wast'. That made a type *weg^h-se:-s and, voilà, the se:-type
>was born.

This is pushing it a bit. Firstly the subjunctive is not and never was a
preterite form. If anything, a subjunctive on either present or aorist stem
has a future reference (as in Sanksrit, and its use as the basis for futures
in Latin). An imperfect subjunctive has no tense reference. Secondly the
length of
the vowel in Latin imperfect subjunctives is much more easily explained from
thematic stem present subjunctives! **bher-e-e-s > *bhere:s present
subjunctive > -e:s impf subjunctive.
I prefer the analogy subjunctive ending : subjunctive ending to your rhyme
of complete verb form : subjunctive ending.

>If it is strange to the point of being unacceptable that the preterite
>just was unmarked from the very start,

I can't accept that - there are a number of unrelated langues where
"non-present" or "non-continuative" is the unmarked form - e.g. Semitic and
Maori. It is quite normal for an unmarked tense to become a preterite.

>I know of no other good candidates for Greek-Armenian-IndIr innovations to
>support the diagnosis of this as a tight-knit special group. Where are
>they?

Watch it! No one said "tight knit special group" But I did say
"innovating group". We have had this discussion before. A quick answer is
paradigmatic oppositions, verb structures and vocabulary.

Peter