On Wed, 18 Feb 2004
enlil@... wrote:
> The funny thing is that I could swear reading something
> about the e-augment surviving somehow in Italic. So
> I'm going to hunt down what source led me astray...
I plead guilty: I have suggested the following analysis of the imperfect
subjunctive *-se:- (ama:-re:-s, ppf.sbj. ama:vis-se:-s):
IE 2sg s-aor.sbj. was *wég^h-se-si (Ved. váks.asi, 3sg váks.ati)
that rhymed with 2sg prs. *esi (from *H1es-si).
When a preterite was to be formed (in the consecutio temporum), the
2sg ipf. *e:s (from *e-H1es-s with the augment!!)
was taken as a model, the result being the rhyme
2sg. ipf.sbj. *weg^h-se:-s,
whence the new morpheme /-se:-/.
Jens