[tied] Re: primary endings

From: elmeras2000
Message: 37957
Date: 2005-05-19

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> elmeras2000 wrote:
>
> > One thing I do not understand is why the accented variant, *é or
*H1é,
> > is used as the augment in the meaning 'then' with distinct
remote
> > deixis, while the presumed enclitic (and it never is accented) *-
(H1)i
> > rather means 'now'. Are the two not identical? Or can the
difference
> > in word order explain any part of this? Any ideas?
>
> Some speculation: the augment may have developed clause-initially
if the
> deictic element was moved from its usual enclitic position for the
sake
> of emphasis. The unaccented finite form of the verb followed it as
a
> second-position (Wackernagel-type) clitic, as in Old English <þa:
co:m
> he:...>. If the Germanic analogy is anything to go by, narration
> ("then..., and then..., and then...) could have favoured the
fronting of
> the deictic element (and so the use of the augment). So, to
continue
> speculating, the past meaning of the augment may have developed in
> story-telling, with "Now I go there..." (with "now" functioning
like
> "next") reinterpreted as "Then I go/went there..." (with remote
deixis).

And with the imperfect? The imperfect is supposed to not be changing
the situation. I find this hard to fit together, though I am
relatively sure it *is* part of the truth.

Jens