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

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

For example divites > dites (nom pl) and see below.

>> (e.g. the preference
>> for loss of -v- between similar vowels)
>Similar? ama:sti: ama:stis [< amavisti, amavistis]

I said "preference". That doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.
Intervocalic -v- is lost most easily in the context -ivi- (e.g. ditis,
dites, as above, or the very widespread perfect ii for ivi, or aetas <
*aivitat- related to aevum); also in the contexts -eve- e.g. delerunt <
deleverunt, and -ava- e.g. lavatrina > latrina.

>**ama:runt

amarunt, and similar forms, do exist

>ama:mus

This form (= amavimus) does not exist. amamus can only be present.

It may be the case that the 3rd person plural in -r- is a survivor (I seem
to remember having read that somewhere) but the rest are less likely to be
so. There will also be a lot of influence within paradigms, and from one
declension to another.

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

Quite right. So you/we should. I'm in favour of bad habits.

Peter