Re: [tied] Latin perfect tense

> > (a) the Proto-Italic perfect paradigm of the root *bhuh (forms in Oscan
> >derive from *fufuv- + aorist endings).
> But there is no -v- in fui:, fuisti: ...

Not in Latin, but the Oscan forms fufed and fufens do show it.

>But some people suggest the -is- is not -is at all. the 2 sing and
> >plural are really -(i) st- cognate with Greek -stha, Hittite -sta (hi
> >conjugation), the -(i)- is purely epenthetic.
> In Greek oistha, the -s- is from *d (*woid-th2a).

Yes, I had forgotten!

>> co-occurrence of two laryngeals.
> But how does one get *w from a laryngeal other than *h3?

Yes, that's why this theory, otherwise attractive, has had only limited
support. There's a spattering of possible connections, but not enough to
make it convincing. One that I wish to pursue is the number of Sanskrit
forms which show a -u- where we know a laryngeal (not just h3) existed.

>In Sanskrit,
> we have -u in the 1st/2nd. p. singular, persumably from *-h3,

It could be a sandhi variant - see Piotr's note on the wolf word.

> > (d) Baldi points to a handful of -v- perfects in Umbrian, Gaulish,
> >Armenian, tocharian, and possibly Hittite. ...
>
> I'd have to know the details (does he refer to the Toch. 1p. sg. in
> -wa?).

Sorry, I don't have them, but from memory he doesn't give details. I don't
actually like Baldi's book on Latin - it's too superficial.

>The act.pf.ptc. has a PIE origin, and it's not unlikely that
> it was used to make periphrastic verbal forms in languages other than
> Latin (esp. Umbrian, of course).

Yes, I agree, and it's surprising there is no obvious sign of it in Latin.
I know there are some who are convinced it lies behind the Latin -v-
perfects, but others are equally unconvinced.

Peter