Re: Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

> If we compare the middle/perfect/hi-conjugation endings with
> what we see in Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Uralic, Chukchi,
> etc., we would expect the following endings:
>
> 1. *-h2
> 2. *-th2
> 3. *-0
> 3. *-(e)r
>
> The actual PIE endings have an added element *-e- (*-o- in
> the middle, but still *-a- after *h2), which comes after the
> personal endings:
>
> 1. *-h2-a, 2. *-th2-a, 3. *-e, 3. M. *-ro- (*-nto-)
>
> My suggestion is that this *-e somehow turns the stative "I
> am" (with *-h2 as subject) into a verbal form meaning "it is
> to me" = "I have [it]" (with *-e presumably the subject, and
> *-h2- the indirect object).
>

= the augment? If yes, it is something that may be both pre- and
suffixed, eg. a pre-/postposition meaning "after" (if the -o- verbal
form is a participle)? I recall Armenian restricting the augment to
3rd person; 'eber' (or the like, by memory!), would it be because
the augment was suffixed in the two other persons?


Torsten