Rob:
> Modern English actually seems to have such a
> distinction. For example, the verb "carry" has
> an inherently durative meaning -- "carries" and
> "is carrying" mean (virtually) the same thing.
In keeping with that analogy, we may all agree then
that the original system had a more generic
'durative-aorist' aspect that contrasted with the
perfect and its unique endings.
In such a system, we can still have an earlier
sigmatic aorist in *-as- and a derived durative in
*-an-. So "find", being aorist let's say, would
more naturally be given *-an- when made into "is
finding". The simple form "carry" and its extended
'durative' form "is carrying" would be basically
interchangeable as you say in early IE, while its
aorist form would need to be explicitly marked with
the sigmatic.
I just need to figure out how to rearrange my current
theory to reflect all of these new ideas.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com