Rob wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> That was going to be my next point. :) The so-called tudáti-type is
> then, in origin, nothing more than the subjunctive of a root durative.
> However, there is again no formal distinction between root duratives
> and root aorists, so their subjunctives should also be formed
> identically.
My gut feeling is that the durative/punctual contrast is not terribly
fundamental in historical terms, just like the contrast of tense. The
inherently "present" or "aorist" value of a verb was a function of its
meaning, so that it tended to be used in certain contexts, accompanied
by certain adverbs, etc., but didn't have to be specially marked for
aspect. There were, however, some secondary Aktionsart markers that
gradually came to be used in the forming of "default" presents and
aorists, replacing such aspectually ambiguous formations as root verbs
and reduplications. The most important of them (apart from the special
case of nasal presents) are the athematic *-s- of inchoative stems and
the thematic *-jé/ó- that formed derived duratives. If Jens is right
about iterative *-sk^é/ó- being a combination of the two, we get a neat
symmetrical system. I'm not sure about the original function of
root-vowel lengthening. The historically surviving "plain" Narten stems
are all durative, but the same kind of alternation is found in the
sigmatic aorist, so identically formed root aorists may have existed as
well.
Piotr