Rob:
> Modern English also does not make any formal
> distinctions between root-duratives and
> root-aorists.
Yes, that's all well and fine, and perhaps English
might be provide a good parallel of this different
way of looking at the early IE system, however...
There's still the matter of how the *n-infix and
*s-aorist fit into this system if indeed there is
no durative-aorist distinction. It looks to me there
still could have been, or at least the seeds of it.
> The past tense would have been *bher-t and the
> non-past ("present") tense *bher-t-i. Then the
> aorist would have been *bher-s-t.
Or rather *bHe:r-s-t, you mean.
It would be more fitting to call *-i an indicative,
not 'present', because it's not used in negative or
hypothetical statements, regardless of tense.
= gLeN
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/