None that I would really accept myself, but it is somehow inherent in the
story, is it not? Or should we prefer not to understand things? Surely
there is nothing strange in loss of a linguistic element. The only
semi-valid argument I have seen is Eichner's earlier derivation of Hitt.
3sg prt. e-es-ta 'was' from *e-H1es-t with the augment tagged on to yield
the length reflected by the plene writing. But that can be handled by the
accent alone, since accented vowels are lengthened. There is, however,
the circumstantial evidence that the ablaut es-/as- of eszi, asanzi is not
repeated in the preterite: 'they were' is eser which could reflect
*e-H1s-er (or *e-H1s-ent, if -er is a replacement of -ent). That would
reflect expectations on two points simultaneously: (1) there would be the
same ablaut in the prt. as in the prs.; (2) there would be no reflex of an
injunctive of the root *H1es-, a thing PIE is believed not to have
possessed because it was replaced by zero.
Jens
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, P&G wrote:
> > 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).
>
> Do you have any evidence, Jens, for this assertion that the augment once
> existed in Anatolian?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>