> > I won't exclude there are other avenues, but hardly this one. Weare
> > talking about the creation of a preterite of the subjunctiveIf they decide to form preterites they do. The Latin imperfect
> Subjunctives do not have preterites.
> By definition in IE languages theyAny language can change the definition you impose upon them.
> lose any time reference. They do retain their aspectual reference.
> I agree that an original short vowel *-em *-es *-et is much lesslikely than
> an original long vowel stem *se:-. But I still think some otherform that
> analogical source is better than your suggestion of analogy from a
> is not attested, which includes the reconstruction of agrammatical marker
> not found anywhere in the language!It would be analogy from a form that must have existed. By excluding
> >it cannot matter much what vowel length the subjunctive non-
> > has, since its stem is plainly not involved.does not
> I think the stem is irrelevant for analogy. Analogical pressure
> have to be from forms with the same stem. Since a subjunctive -em -e:s -et
> etc already exists, it sits in contrast with every othersubjunctive, and
> can supply anaological pressure. Any other subjunctive would beunder
> pressure from the three sources of analogy I mentioned:verb to
> (a) no other verb form has short -es (except the present of the
> (b) all other subjunctives have a long vowel before the -s.
> (c) no other paradigm has a vowel change -em -is -et.
> But really we should be looking for a better source of an original
> >And the 1sg and the 3pl
> > which are invoked as models for a short -e- would have had *-om
> > *-ont if the idea is that the ipf.sbj. was the s-aor.sbj. withYou tell me; I was paraphrasing your suggestiong to make sure we do
> > secondary endings.
> Was it?
> The s-aorist subjunctives (really optatives) seem to have givenambissit. etc.
> the Old Latin forms faxim, axim, ausim, negassim, habessit,
> Besides, an s-aorist should lengthen the vowel stem, but we have ashort
> vowel retained in darem < *da-se-m.No, the non-indicative forms of the s-aorist have normal grade.
> Rather the imperfect and pluperfectThat's what I did, but still respecting Latin's IE descent.
> subjunctives must be seen as a new development within Latin.
> Besides, thewhich shows
> aorist is an inappropriate aspectual element in an imperfect,
> incompletion, continuity, or re-iteration.Hey, I am specifically not equating the s-aorist subjunctive with
> It belongs better where we findsubjunctive is
> it, with the completed anterior tense. That the imperfect
> felt within the language to be made up of infinitive + -em, -e:s -et is
> shown by the fact that even irregular infinitives show thisconstruction.