Re: [tied] Re: Slavic and Latin imperfects

On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:07:56 -0000, "petegray"
<petegray@...> wrote:

>Interpreting and translating loosely,

From?

>"The key to understanding the
>whole category is the form FUFANS in Oscan, which would correspond to an
>unattested *fubant in Latin.

Is that a 3rd.pl.?

>This is by form the past of a reduplicated
>perfect (making it a pluperfect in form) from the root *fu: < *bhuh
>"become". Compare the Oscan perfect FUFENS < *fuBu < *bhu-bhu < PIE
>*bhe-bhu. The basic meaning of this verb made it an ideal starting point
>for the creation of a new verb form. The perfect "I have become" = "I am"
>and so the pluperfect "I had become" = "I was". Since in proto-Italic the
>reduplicated syllable fu- was interpreted as a new root, giving forms such
>as futurus, the ending -ba- could be interpreted as a new suffix. From the
>pattern fu- : fuba- developed the present : imperfect pattern ama- : amaba-
>and so on."

If FUFANS is a 3pl., with short /a/, I don't see how it can have
anything to do with the Latin morpheme /ba:/ with long /a:/ (the
shortening in -bant etc. is surely recent). Why invoke a reduplicated
form if *bhu-a:- (with the same ending as er-a:-, etc.) will do
equally well?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...