Re: [tied] Re: Some thoughts...

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:37:20 -0000, you wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> 2) The Latin imperfect in -bam, -ba:s, -bat, etc. looks like
>> an originally periphrastic construction with as final
>> element the auxiliary *bhuah2- in a past tense (cf. eram,
>> era:s, erat from the *es-auxiliary). If this is so, then
>> what comes before the auxiliary must be some kind of
>> participle, verbal noun/adjective, infinitive or something
>> like that. Normal thematic stems and i:-stems, mostly,
>> indeed show an element -e:- between the root and the
>> auxiliary. This is absent in a:- and e:-stems, in Old Latin
>> sometimes also in i:-stems, but this can probably be
>> explained phonetically (a:e: > a:, e:e: > e:, i:e: > i:).
>> Since we would _not_ expect the mere root here, this is
>> good. However, there is no evidence that I know of for a
>> participle, verbal noun/adjective or infinitive in -e:
>> anywhere in Indo-European, except in the same indirect way
>> as in Latin, namely the Slavic imperfect in -êax- (<
>> *-e:-e:s-?). What can be the origin of this deverbal
>> derivative in -e:, and what happened to it elsewhere? Any
>> ideas?
>
>What rules out the present participle?
>
>Richard.

Plural forms? Even if ama:bam, -a:s, -at somehow continues
*ama:nts+ba:m etc., it's very hard to get ama:ba:mus -a:tis -ant from
*ama:nte:s+ba:mos etc.

If we take audi:bam as original, could one consider a syncopated form
of the familiar infinitive in *-se, i.e. *ama:s(e)+ba:m > ama:bam.
This has the advantage of being phonologically regular if the syncope
is granted. It would automatically give a long e: in the 3rd
conjugation, as *regesb- would > rege:b- regularly. The classical
audie:bam would have to be explained by influence from the second and
third conjugations, or perhaps just from capie:bam if this was from
*kapyes(e)+ba:m.

Kim Bastin