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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>
> Latin 1st conj. perf.
> ama:vi:
> ama:visti:
> ama:vi:t
> ama:vimus
> ama:vistis
> ama:ve:runt, ama:ve:re
>
> abbreviated forms (traditionally)
> ama:vi:
> ama:sti:
> ama:vi:t
> ama:vimus
> ama:stis
> ama:runt
>
> and similarly in the 2nd and 4th conjugations
>
> Tocharian B pret. I
> kautäwa
> kautästa
> kauta
> kauta:m(o)
> kauta:s(o)
> kauta:re
>
> and similarly for pret. III
>
> 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?
>
>
> BTW the Latin 3rd conjugation, the only one which doesn't have
> 'abbreviated' forms on the other hand contains many supposed
> PIE s-aorists, eg.
> dic-s-i: (dixi:)
> dic-s-isti:
> dic-s-i:t
> dic-s-imus
> dic-s-istis
> dic-s-e:runt
>
> cf Tocharian B pret III
> prekwa
> prekasta
> preksa
> prekam
> prekas
> prekar
>
> in other words, Latin might have generalized from a sigmatic 3rd sg,
> and not taken over the s-perfects from a sigmatic aorist, as the
> traditional explanation is?
>

BTW, it seems strange to me that eg Italian in the perfect has
parlai
parlasti
parlò

where -i and -sti show preserved final vowel but no trace of Latin -it
in the 3sg (and similarly in Spanish). If late Latin had *-au/-o (au
-> must be Latin, it can't be Italian or Spanish), it must have had a
parallel history of official -avit. Cf Toch B pret I, and Skt 3sg (and
1sg)) dadhau etc. Now if the -ax stative suffix could be voiced to
*-aG (-> *-aw) we would hav a solution for a putative 'bad Latin' 3sg
perf *-aw and Toch B pret I -a. That also fits in with the idea that
3sg pret was the bare stem, except when the stem was the root itself,
in which case, in order to have some formal mark of its status, it was
replaced with the bare 'subitive' stem in -s, from which later the
s-aorist developed.


Torsten