> Also, the meaning of the
> perfect is not so much completion as having an enduring effect.
This is partly true of Greek, but are we right to read it back into PIE?
Even in Greek the "resultative perfect", showing the result of an action
continuing up to the present, is not found as early as Homer (see Szemerenyi
p293). We do find very early the perfect used for actions which continue
in their subject, which is closer to a stative, or an antipassive. A large
number of Homeric perfects indicate attitude or mood, and they describe the
subject, not the object (e.g.: is ablaze,is astir,is undone, fits, has as a
share, etc). Verbs which are transitive in later Greek are often
intransitive as perfects in Homer. (See Monro's Homeric Grammar, p31).
The perfect in Skt is one of three past tenses which at times are not to be
distinguished, and when they are distinguished, even scholars fight over the
difference. In Latin the completion is a stronger element than the
enduring effect. (Remember Cicero's one-word speech, "vixerunt", meaning
"their lives are over."; and Vergil's fuit Ilium = Troy is no more) In
Germanic it appears, in strong verbs, simply as the simple past.
The meaning of the perfect in PIE is hard to establish. It appears to be a
highly marked form of the verb, which may have connections in form to the
middle, and connections in meaning to a stative. But it does seem to
describe the subject, not the object.
Peter