Re: [tied] Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

On 05-02-26 16:24, elmeras2000 wrote:

> Sure, right, 'have done' can become 'did' very easily. Now then, if
> that is such an easy and obvious change, why is it *never* assumed
> that is has occurred in PIE too?

I wouldn't even try to defend such a dogmatic position myself. Quite the
opposite, I fully agree it would be natural for some perfects to have
acquired a preterite meaning even as far back as PIE -- no problem, as
far as I'm concerned. The same may be true of other functions, e.g.
modal ones, cf. the blurring of the distinction between the injunctive
and the imperative (which must be of PIE date for some aorists, e.g.
2sg. *doh3-s), or the possible subjunctive origin of thematic verbs.

Piotr

> If the PIE perfect was also changing its functional restrictions so
> as to allow use as past tense there would be a simple inherited
> basis for the past of the hi-conjugation and the Germanic strong
> preterite (and some others), which would then offer no basis for
> those mighty interesting theories of superarchaic categories that
> pop up every now and again. I know this is spoiling the fun, but how
> probable are funny things?