Re: Perfect, Latin 1st conj, Tocharian pret. I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G.and.P@...> wrote:

>
> >It seems to me the Tocharian preterite is closer to the Latin
> >supposed abbreviated forms that to the 'proper' long forms.
> >Perhaps the 'abbreviated forms' are the original ones in Latin?
>
> The abbreviated forms can be attested from pre-classical Latin, but:
> (a) the contexts provide at least a rhythmic reason for a
> preference for the shorter form

I could well imagine that the choice between long and short was
made from rhythmic considerations. That has no bearing on the
question of which one came first.

> (b) the contraction involved is so understandable, and so well
> attested in other words,

What other words?

> and so clearly phonetically conditioned (e.g. the preference
> for loss of -v- between similar vowels) that there is no real
> reason to doubt it in Latin

Similar?
**ama:
ama:sti:
**a:ma:t
ama:mus
ama:stis
**ama:runt

Please explain the phonetic principle involved.

And BTW, personally I doubt everything. It's a bad habit with me.


Torsten