Re: [tied] Hittite preterites

>>I think the augment is lurking in the shadow of a
>>number of other language families also.
>
> If that could be shown, then I'd accept your view. But your examples
> seem to be
> based only on the verb to be. (>OCS be^; Old Irish -bi: Lat ..
> rhymed with *H1esi 'thou art', >Tocharian analogy with augmented
> *e-H1es-t)

So 'to be' is not enough? I would appeal to the augment also to explain
the long circumflex vowels of Lithuanian e:~jo 'went', e:~me: 'took' (e:
being the dotted e) which would be regular from *e-H1ey-, *e-H1em- + prt.
morphemes. I have heard the same analysis being tried for OE eode 'went',
but that is quite forced.

>>I also explain the Latin imperfect subjunctive in /-se:-/ as based on
>> the 2sg forms: The s-aorist 2sg sbj. *weg^h-se-si rhymed with *H1esi
>> 'thou art', so the corresponding preterite would be made to rhyme with
>> *e-H1es > *e:s 'thou wast'. That made a type *weg^h-se:-s and, voilà,
>> the se:-type was born.
>
> This is pushing it a bit. Firstly the subjunctive is not and never was
> a preterite form. If anything, a subjunctive on either present or
> aorist stem has a future reference (as in Sanksrit, and its use as the
> basis for futures in Latin). An imperfect subjunctive has no tense
> reference. Secondly the length of
> the vowel in Latin imperfect subjunctives is much more easily explained
> from thematic stem present subjunctives! **bher-e-e-s > *bhere:s
> present subjunctive > -e:s impf subjunctive.
> I prefer the analogy subjunctive ending : subjunctive ending to your
> rhyme of complete verb form : subjunctive ending.

The imperfect subjunctive does have tense reference: It replaces the
subjunctive in case the general setting (as, the main clause) is in a past
tense form. So it makes perfect sense to explain it as a past-tense form
created to fit a pre-existing subjunctive type.

>
>>If it is strange to the point of being unacceptable that the preterite
>> just was unmarked from the very start,
>
> I can't accept that - there are a number of unrelated langues where
> "non-present" or "non-continuative" is the unmarked form - e.g. Semitic
> and Maori. It is quite normal for an unmarked tense to become a
> preterite.

Good, theen there is nothing wrong with the injunctive as the starting
point of the Hittite preterite.

>>I know of no other good candidates for Greek-Armenian-IndIr innovations
>> to support the diagnosis of this as a tight-knit special group. Where
>> are they?
>
> Watch it! No one said "tight knit special group" But I did say
> "innovating group". We have had this discussion before. A quick answer
> is paradigmatic oppositions, verb structures and vocabulary.

I know some remarkable vocabulary items that combine Gk. and Arm., but all
three? Well, perhaps ikti~nos, c.in, s´yéna- (a bird of prey).

Jens