>
> One thing I do not understand is why the accented variant, *é or
*H1é,
> is used as the augment in the meaning 'then' with distinct remote
> deixis, while the presumed enclitic (and it never is accented) *-
(H1)i
> rather means 'now'. Are the two not identical? Or can the
difference
> in word order explain any part of this? Any ideas?
>
> Jens
As for aorists I can visualize this-deixis.
Hearing about a celebration, for instance, you can hear a phrase like
"at this stage I was pretty drunk".
Which gives a more vivid narration than "at that stage".
Isn't it a classical devise to actualize the narration from time to
time, using devises like praesens historicum.
The problem, though, is the augmented imperfect, if you have the
romance change imparfait passé in mind.
Perhaps it was originally used only with those i-less past tense
forms (or rather non-present forms)
when something new was introduced in the narration.
Aorist was perhaps the original augmented form and imperfect the
unmarked one.
And root aorists as a rest of a primitive stage do not differ from
normal imperfects, do they?
Lars