Re: [tied] Re: Eggs from birds and swift horses

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:00:41 +0000, P&G
<petegray@...> wrote:

>> the surprising thing to
>> me about the Latin imperfect subjunctive is not the /e:/,
>> which is after all a Latin subjunctive morpheme in its own
>> right.
>
>Not as simple as that. In Latin it functions in one class of verbs verbs
>as a subjunctive, and in two others as a future. It all these forms it
>probably derives from the use of the thematic vowel as a marker of the
>subjunctive, on a root which already has the thematic vowel.

I'll be assuming the future use is derived from the
conjunctive.

The fact that these e:-futures (emam, eme:s / audiam,
audie:s) are in fact a:/e:-futures (< conjunctives), with
/a:/ in the 1st person singular, strongly suggests to me
that there is a link between this /e:/ and the /a:/ of the
other subjunctive and imperfect [eram, -bam] forms, rather
than with the Sanskrit/Greek double thematic vowel. Cf. the
Lithuanian preterite, which also has the allomorphs *-a:- >
-o- and -e:-.

I have suggested earlier that the original paradigm was a
stative subjunctive, i.e. a form with thematic vowel + the
"perfect" endings, as follows:

*-e-h2a > *-a:
*-e-th2a > *-etha
*-e-e > *-e:
*-o-me > *-ome
*-e-te > *-ete
*-o-nt > *-ont

[The verbal stem was originally in zero grade, judging by
the Lithuanian e:-preterite [and my hypothetical Latin
*se:m, *se:s], but one also finds lengthened grade and
normal grade].

With addition of standard personal endings, this must have
given Latin:

*-a:-m
*-e:-s
*-e:-t
(*-e:-mos, *-e:tes, *-e:nt),

i.e. exactly the 3rd. and 4th. conjugation future.

Generalization of 1st. person -a:- gives the a:-subjunctives
and imperfects, generalization of 3rd. person -e:- gives the
e:-subjunctives, altough I cannot deny that this last
category may also be due in part to the "double thematic"
conjunctive paradigm.

>We find it on an athematic vowel only in the verb to be: *es-e-s, *es-e-t
>etc, which goes by regular processes to eris, erit etc, and functions as
>the future of "to be".

Yes, that is the normal subjunctive of *es-.

>The strange thing is the /s/. For the e:-form we would expect
>> *es-e:-m, *es-e:-s > *erem, *ere:s, but we find in fact
>> essem, esse:s.
>
>Latin has exactly the simple thematic subjunctive that we see in Sanskrit:
> PIE *es-e-s, *es-e-t etc
> Skt asas, asat etc
> Latin eris erit etc
>
>So we can guess that if this simple thematic subjunctive is found, the long
>form will not be.
>
>>the forms of the Latin perfectum are all
>> based on the perfect stem + corresponding forms of the verb
>> "to be" (pf.subj. ama:v&- + sim, si:s > ama:verim, -eri(:)s;
>
>An intersting theory, which goes a long way to explaining the anomolous -is-
>in the perfect forms. But what is this form ama:v&? Where does the
>laryngeal at the end come from?

Sorry, I wasn't being very clear. It wasn't meant as a
laryngeal, but as a final vowel, the quality of which I
didn't want to get specific about.

>Do you mean it is extracted from the
>ending of the 1 sg -Ha and generalised to all other forms? Another
>explanation is that we have amav-is-yeH-m etc., based on old optatives.

The -wV is in my opinion derived from the ptc.pf.act. (PIE
*-wo:t-s, *-wot-m., *-ús-os, n. *-wot, f. *-usih2). In
Latin, one would expect m/n. ama:vus, f. ama:vera(?) [what
*would* *ama:vusi: have given?]. The verbal forms, in any
case, appear to be built on a levelled form *ama:vu.

>> but it wouldn't be very
>> surprising in itself if the impf.subj. were also based on
>> verbal root + past subjunctive of *es-.
>
>It would be very surpising. As I have said, there is no "past subjunctive".
>There is only a subjunctive. You have to change the stem to get a time
>reference.

Well, I think besides the normal (active) subjunctive, there
was also a "stative subjunctive"/"hi-conjugation
subjunctive", as sketched above, which would be largely
responsible for all those a:- and e:- forms that we find all
over the place (Balto-Slavic, Italo-Celtic, Armenian,
Tocharian, etc.).

>>If the e:-form had
>> reguralized the zero-grade of the root, the forms would have
>> been *se:m, *se:s, *se:t, *se:mus, *se:tis, *se:nt, which is
>> exactly what we find as the endings of the impf.subj. in the
>> infectum. The verb esse itself secondarily added *e(s)- to
>> that (as in the 2pl.pres. *stes > estis)

I forgot: this must have been to comply with the synchronic
rule that you stated: "the impf.subj. is derived from the
infinitive stem".

>> for its independent
>> forms (essem, esse:s), and those forms were then added to
>> the perfectum stem to create the pqpf.subj.
>
>Neat. I don't want to believe it (yet), but I admit it's neat!

Perhaps my additional explanations will help to lift the
disbelieve :-)


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