--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> As I mentioned a couple of times, I think the mi-conjugation (I
> should say m-conjugation, since mean the secondary endings) was not
> in its origin a conjugation, but that a set of non-finite forms,
> derived from the bare verbal stem, which at that time served as a
> verbal noun or participle, plus the deictic endings *-n,W "at me",
> *-s "at thee", *-t "at him", and *-n "everywhere". Without these
> endings the verbal noun alone is the ancestor of the "4th person",
> the t-less 3sg., with these endings it is the ancestor of of 1sg,
> 2sg, 3sg and 3pl, respectively; 1pl, and 2pl of the m-conjugation
> are those of the hi-conjugation, which was originally the only
> conjugation in PPIE.
> In other words, if V is a verbal stem, then we have
> *V "V-ing"
> *V-n,W -> *V-m "V-ing at me"
> *V-s "V-ing at thee"
> *V-t "V-ing at him"
> *V-n "V-ing everywhere"
> In PPIE there were no conjunctions and no subordinate clauses.
> Instead the function of subordinate clauses were filled with
> subordinate constructions, as is the original state of affairs in
> the Uralic languages. In those constructions, the above deictic
> participles or verbal nouns could be construed with a subjective
> genitive in *-Vs and an objective genitive in *-Vm, in the sequence
> SOV. This whole participal phrase was, when suffixed (on the verb)
> with *-kWe/o, formally an adverb. After people began to perceive
> this subordinate construction as a subordinate clause and the
> deictic verbal noun / participle as a finite verb (under the
> influence of Semitic languages?) , they perceived the associated
> subjective genitive and objective genitive as nominative and
> accusative, respectively, and in order to distinguish them from the
> proper genitive function, they separated those functions by
> root-stressing the two genitives when functioning as nominative and
> accusative and end-stressing them when functioning as 'proper'
> genitive, which became gen.sg. and gen.pl., respectively.
Buck: A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian
The Subjunctive in Substantive Clauses
315. The Subjunctive is usually introduced by O. puz, U. pusi 'ut'
(202, 6), but in certain phrases, as in Latin, it may also stand
without any conjunction. Examples are:
U. stiplo aseriaia 'demand that I observe' (VI a 2);
U. etaians deitu 'let him tell them to go' (VI b 64);
U. combifiatu erus dersa 'let him give notice to add the erus' (VII a
44); but with an intervening clause as well as a different verb,
carsitu . . . puse erus dersa 'let him call out ... to add the erus'
with U. tiçit 'decet', herter 'oportet', O. kasit 'decet' (in form L.
U. façia tiçit 'one ought to sacrifice' (II a 17),
O. fakiiad kasit 'one ought to sacrifice' (no. 31),
U. dirsans herti 'they ought to give', etc.;
O. ekss kúmbened . .. puz ídík sakara[klúm] ... fusíd etc. 'it was
agreed that this temple should be' etc. (C. A. 10 ff.; see also 311);
U. eo iso ostendu, pusi pir pureto cehefi dia (VI a 20), best taken
as 'let him set them out in such a manner (iso) that (pusi) he cause
(dia) one fire to be lighted from the other', cehefi depending
directly on dia;
so probably U. pepurkurent herifi (V b 6) 'shall have urged to be
necessary' (as if L. poposcerint oportuerit);
O. factud pous touto deiuatuns tanginom deicans 'let him cause the
people to declare their opinion under oath' (T. B. 9).
In other words, the dependent clause with its verb in the subjunctive
is treated as if that verb were a direct object, which entails that it
is seen as a nominal deverbal form (a participle or verbal noun). This
may be a relic from that PPIE state of affairs which I proposed.
OMISSION OF WORDS
326. Omission of the Subject.
In the Iguvinian Tables, as in early Latin prose, the subject is
frequently left unexpressed, when it is well understood who is the
proper person to perform the action in question. Thus ape apelust,
muneklu habia etc. (V a 17 ff.) 'when one (i.e. the proper person, in
this case the flamen) shall have performed certain rites, he shall
receive certain fees'. Even when there is a change of subject, it may
be left unexpressed. Thus in VI b 48 ff. there is a series of verbs
with no subject expressed, though some of the actions are performed by
the augur and others by the flamen, as is seen from the more detailed
statements in VI a 1 ff.
<apelust> is the future perfect. Buck believes it is built like this:
The Future Perfect
230. For examples, see 205-209 (especially 207) and 223-229. For the
omission of final t in U. 3d Sg. habus and couortus, cf. 127, 3.
The origin of this formation is disputed, but the most probable
explanation is that it is periphrastic, a combination of a short-vowel
Subjunctive of the verb 'to be' with an old Nom. Sg. of a Perf. Act.
Partic. in -us, a possible relic of which is O. sipus 'sciens' (90, l,
b). The forms would then be 2d Sg. -us-ses, 3d Sg. -us-set, whence by
syncope -us(s), -ust. After the analogy of the Future, e.g. after
-azent to -ast, would arise beside -ust the 3d Pl. in -uzent (O.
-uzet, -uset, U. -urent).
I think it's more likely that the personal endings (in my proposal
deictic endings) are added directly to the stem. As for the 'lost' 3sg -t:
127. ... 3. The t of final -st and -rt is also frequently omitted in
Umbrian. Thus fus, heries, etc. for usual fust, fieriest; trio-per
'ter' (cf. also L. sem-per): O. petiro-pert 'quater';U. pis-her
'quilibet' from *-hert, this probably from *-herit (216).
In other words, we don't know if the *-t were there to begin with.
These are the examples of Future Perfect
205. First Conjugation,
3sg U. andirsafust, combifian`siust
3pl O. tríbarakattuset
3sg U. pihos fust
3pl U. cersnatur furent
206. Second Conjugation
207. Third Conjugation
2sg O. fifikus, aflakus, U. benus, kuvurtus, entelus, apelus
O. fefacust, U. dersicust etc.
O. dicust, cebnust, etc.,
U. fakust, benust, habus, etc.
U. entelust, apelust
U. dersicurent, pepurkurent
U. facurent, benurent, haburent, procanurent, eiscurent
3sg O. comparascuster, U. benuso, couortuso
208. Fourth Conjugation
2sg. U. purtiius, purtinçus
3sg. U. purdin`siust, disleralinsust
U. persnis fust, purtitu fust
209. Irregular Verbs
3sg O. fust
3pl U. fefure
2sg U. amprefuus
3sg U. iust
3pl U. ambrefurent
which is more compatible with a part.act.pres. in *-us + 2sg *-s, 3sg
*-t (or not), 3pl. *-ent, with, in the last case, *-us- > *-uz- > *-ur-.
In other words, the verb of this strange subjectless clause turns out
to be a deictic particple, of which one can't expect it should have a
subject at all times.