Re: Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

> >> >>
> >> >> 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?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Because?
>
> Because the augment comes before, not after.

Prespositions come before, postpositions come after. Therefore they
are completely different?

>Also, it has a
> completely different function.

Please elucidate.

> >> >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?
> >>
> >
> >> No, because the other persons aren't monosyllabic without
> >> the augment.
> >>
> >
> >Erh, excuse me, I didn't get that?
>
> beri berer eber berak` berêk` (-ik`) berin
>
> Longer verbs never have e- (e.g. vazec`i, vazec`er, vazeac`,
> vazec`ak`, vazec`êk`, vazec`in).
>

Do the endings outside the 3sg. go back to
*-h2-a, 2. *-th2-a, 3. *-e, 3. M. *-ro- (*-nto-)
or not?


Torsten