On 2006-12-30 20:29, Patrick Ryan wrote:
> ***
> If I understand correctly, there are three indicative aspectual forms
> from which subjunctive forms might be derived:
>
> 1) injunctive (really punctual): *bhert
Both perfective ("aorist") and imperfective ("present") roots formed
injunctives. Injunctives are finite verb forms with "secondary" endings
but no augment, i.e. with neither present-tense nor preterite markers.
> 2) present (really durative): *bheret(i)
>
> 3) perfect (really stative): *bhor(H)e
Or rather *bHe-bHor-e.
> The earliest significance of the subjunctive mood is obligative
> ('should') or necessitative ('must').
I don't know about "the earliest", but in PIE the subjunctive is the
"modus irrealis", expressing hypothetical or not-yet-true (but possibly
imminent) actions and events, rather than what the speaker thinks ought
to or must happen. The mood that expresses the speaker's subjective
wishes and hopes is the optative (with the *-jéh1-/*-ih1- extension of
the stem and primary endings). In many daughter branches (including
Germanic) the functions of the optative and the subjunctive fell
together, but originally the two moods were distinct. As I have said
before, the subjunctive was also used in prohibitions (with *méh1), and
so tended to encroach on the turf of the imperative, but that too is a
secondary development.
Apart from these modal forms we also have derived verb stems called
desideratives (meaning 'to want to do sth.') in *-h1s-e/o-; the *h1 of
the suffix is lost after stem-final obstruents.
Piotr