From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 46767
Date: 2006-12-26
>elsewhere.
> >> (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
> Intervocalic -v- is lost most easily in the context -ivi- (e.g.ditis,
> dites, as above, or the very widespread perfect ii for ivi, oraetas <
> *aivitat- related to aevum); also in the contexts -eve- e.g.delerunt <
> deleverunt, and -ava- e.g. lavatrina > latrina.(I seem
>
> >**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
> to remember having read that somewhere) but the rest are lesslikely to be
> so. There will also be a lot of influence within paradigms, andfrom 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