Re: [tied] Latin Perfect (was Re: Reasons)

--- petegray <petegray@...> wrote:

> > I don't think tetuli needs analogy since both
> forms
> > definitely have the same outcome.
>
> I wasn't suggesting it did.

Since you originally wrote no Latin perfect had o,
I wrote some perfects that could possibly have had o.

> > Doesn't a form like fe-feik-e (or something
> > similar) exist in Oscan or Umbrian,
>
> Several reduplicated forms exist, eg Osc. fefacust =
> Latin fecerit.
>
> >making late
> > analogy with other verbs with perfect long e
> unlikely?
>
> Why should any analogy be late? It could operate at
> a proto-Italic level.

If there had been a proto-Italic form with long e,
late analogy wouldn't be needed. It would have been
possible support for oh1>eh1. I didn't dismiss early
analogy, but there would have been fewer perfects with
long e then.




_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com