Re: [tied] Latin perfect tense

From: petegray
Message: 7379
Date: 2001-05-23

A quick response, Miguel - I'm running late. More later.

> Are these really attested? I know -ei, -istei and -eit are, but what
> about -e:ri? That would be interesting, as there are two ways of
> explaining the final -e : either as *-i or *-e.

There is the form steterai (6th century) for the 3 plural, normally
explained as -ai for -i from the 1/2 singular. It is harder to explain -ai
for short -e.

> >The 1 & 2 plural pick up the -s under analogy, as elsewhere in the verbal
> >system. The 2 plural appears to be the 2 singular with -s added.
> But it's not *-isti:s.

True - and I note Meiser offers *istes.

>>These forms are actually found: amasti,
> >dixti, and so on. Some are later contractions of the perfect stem, but
> >cannot be (eg the forms like putasti).
> I don't follow. What's the difference between amasti and putasti?

None, in this context. I was giving two different examples. The
earliest contractions occur when -v- occurs between two similar vowels,
especially in -ivi-, hence the idea that these forms are more likely to be