[tied] Re: primary endings

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> elmeras2000 wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Some speculation: the augment may have developed clause-initially

if the

> deictic element was moved from its usual enclitic position for the

sake

> of emphasis. The unaccented finite form of the verb followed it as

a

> second-position (Wackernagel-type) clitic, as in Old English <þa:

co:m

> he:...>. If the Germanic analogy is anything to go by, narration
> ("then..., and then..., and then...) could have favoured the

fronting of

> the deictic element (and so the use of the augment). So, to

continue

> speculating, the past meaning of the augment may have developed in
> story-telling, with "Now I go there..." (with "now" functioning

like

> "next") reinterpreted as "Then I go/went there..." (with remote

deixis).

And with the imperfect? The imperfect is supposed to not be changing
the situation. I find this hard to fit together, though I am
relatively sure it *is* part of the truth.

Jens