Re: Some thoughts...

> 2) The Latin imperfect in -bam, -ba:s, -bat, etc. looks like
> an originally periphrastic construction with as final
> element the auxiliary *bhuah2- in a past tense (cf. eram,
> era:s, erat from the *es-auxiliary). If this is so, then
> what comes before the auxiliary must be some kind of
> participle, verbal noun/adjective, infinitive or something
> like that. Normal thematic stems and i:-stems, mostly,
> indeed show an element -e:- between the root and the
> auxiliary. This is absent in a:- and e:-stems, in Old Latin
> sometimes also in i:-stems, but this can probably be
> explained phonetically (a:e: > a:, e:e: > e:, i:e: > i:).
> Since we would _not_ expect the mere root here, this is
> good. However, there is no evidence that I know of for a
> participle, verbal noun/adjective or infinitive in -e:
> anywhere in Indo-European, except in the same indirect way
> as in Latin, namely the Slavic imperfect in -êax- (<
> *-e:-e:s-?). What can be the origin of this deverbal
> derivative in -e:, and what happened to it elsewhere? Any
> ideas?
>

Since the auxilliary is 'be', the participle before it must have
been an _active_ one. Could there have been a -v hiding between root
and *bhu-?

Torsten