[tied] Re: Perfect, Latin 1st conj, Tocharian pret. I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G.and.P@...> wrote:

>
> >> (b) the contraction involved is so understandable, and so well
> >> attested in other words,
> >What other words?
>
> For example divites > dites (nom pl) and see below.
>
> >> (e.g. the preference
> >> for loss of -v- between similar vowels)
> >Similar? ama:sti: ama:stis [< amavisti, amavistis]
>
> I said "preference". That doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.
> Intervocalic -v- is lost most easily in the context -ivi- (e.g.
> ditis, dites, as above, or the very widespread perfect ii for ivi,
> or aetas < *aivitat- related to aevum); also in the contexts
> -eve- e.g. delerunt < deleverunt, and -ava- e.g. lavatrina >
> latrina.
>
> >**ama:runt
> amarunt, and similar forms, do exist
> >ama:mus
> This form (= amavimus) does not exist. amamus can only be present.

The Spanish and Italians disagreed to their disadvantage.
Well I corrected them as fast as I could.

> It may be the case that the 3rd person plural in -r- is a survivor
> (I seem to remember having read that somewhere) but the rest are
> less likely to be so.

Let me rephrase that: it is almost impossible to claim that ama:runt
is secondary to ama:ve:runt, since the former has solid cognates in
many other languages, unlike the latter. With the other forms it is
possible to claim long-form primacy if we leave Tocharian to
Tocharicists to figure out. That standpoint is not a very helpful
toward the goal of reconstructing PIE perfect endings. Now let's
show M. Kelkar how to do linguistics. Be a sport, it's Xmas ;-)

> There will also be a lot of influence within paradigms, and from
> one declension to another.

Erh, OK.

> >And BTW, personally I doubt everything. It's a bad habit with me.

> Quite right. So you/we should. I'm in favour of bad habits.

Mmm, yes, marzipan. Now where was I?


Now, let's suppose, for arguments sake, that the PIE perfect endings
were similar to those of Tocharian.
Jasanoff has given much attention to the odd man out perf. 3sg in -s
in Tocharian and Hittite. He thinks it was introduced to solve a
problem with the original 3sg. Tocharian and Hittite solved the
problem by importing what I would call the subitive stem, which was
punctual-ingressive, into that position. Latin conceivably imported a
-v- from the 1sg (or was it already there, cf Skt paprau?). Once it
was down that track, alternative long stems in -v- could be made by
analogy for the remaining 4 forms, being obligatory in the 1pl and 3pl
where the short forms could be confused with the present or
infinitive. And BTW, the existence of such alternative forms made
alternation spread to other unrelated forms where it ate up many -v-'s
between vowels (your aetas, etc).


Torsten