From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 21129
Date: 2003-04-20
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:20:10 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard RasmussenThe two do not exclude each other, any more than the use of *nu as a
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >The past was opposed to the injunctive (the unmarked "default form") in IE
> >by the presence of the augment in the past tense. When the injunctive grew
> >out of fashion, the augment became superfluous, so the short form with
> >only secondary endings became unambiguously past. That is the case in
> >Homeric Greek (where the augment is optional) and in Anatolian (where the
> >augment is lost).
>
> If the augment is etymologically connected with the Luwian sentence
> connecting particle a- (Hittite nu-), then the augment is not lost in
> Anatolian, but preserved in its earlier, original function (preterite
> "and then" *h1e-, presentic "and now" *nu-).
>
> If so, the injunctive can still have been the unmarked default form,
> in opposition to a _progressive_ marked with *-i: e.g. *h1es-m "I am /
> I was" vs. *h1es-m-i "I am / was (in) being". When the progressive
> became the unmarked present tense (already in PIE), the injunctive
> retained some of its previous generality instead of simply being
> pushed into exclusively past tense use.