Re: PIE past time (was: isolating is equivalent to inflected)

Rob Haden wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:06:15 +0000, R A Brown <ray@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>>_laudatus_ just is _not_ past. It shows perfect aspect, but is
>>indifferent as regards tense.
>
>
> It is also (generally, at least) passive.  That is, _lauda:tus_
> meant 'having been praised', not 'having praised'.
Yes, I know - but the question was about _tense_, which often gets mixed
up with aspect, so I didn't see much point in mentioning voice. But,
generally, they were passive, it is true; tho there are some notable
active forms such as 'cenatus' = "having dined, having had supper".
Also, of course, the perfect participles of deponent verbs were always
active in meaning.

But the point I was making is that the participle denotes perfect
aspect, not past time.

>
>>>The imperfect is _laudabam_ and the perfect is _laudavi_, without a
>>>dental ending.
>>
>>The imperfect is certainly past and, as Andreas says, has no dental ending.
>
>
> Current speculation has the Latin imperfect and future tenses arising from
> forms of the IE verb *bheux- 'be(come)' (here I use <x> for 'h2').
> Corroborating evidence for this hypothesis comes from related Italic
> languages, such as the closely related Faliscan: cf. Faliscan _carefo_ 'I
> will be without' vs. Latin _care:bo:_ (here Faliscan has */bh/ > /f/ in
> medial position, while Latin does not).
Correct - tho this only applies to the futures of the 1st & 2nd
conjugations, and to the alternative 'non-standard' 4th conj, forms such
as _audibo_ "I shall hear". The futures of the 3rd conj. and the
standard 4th conj. forms seems to have been derived from earlier
subjunctive forms.

However, yes, all imperfect indicatives are though to have originated
from the IE verb *bheux- with the sole exceptions of 'eram' "I was" and
'poteram' "I could".

>>As for _laudavi_ that could be either _present_ perfect (I have praised)
>>or simple past (I praised); the difference between the two meanings was
>>felt by Classical writers in that if the so-called 'perfect tense' had a
>>present perfect meaning, 'primary tenses' of the subjunctive were used
>>in subordinate clauses; but if it had the simple past meaning, then
>>'historic tenses' were used. (Of course 'tenses' when referring to the
>>subjunctive forms did not have the strict meaning of "time reference").
>
>
> The two-way usage here probably comes from the fact that the Latin "perfect
> tense" had its origins in the IE stative conjugation.
I agree.

[snip]

> .  In any case, the Latin "perfect tense" is the result of combining the
> earlier stative conjugation with other IE elements (including some eventive
> endings, such as the present-indicative marker *-i in 1/2sg, 3sg *-t, and
> the sigmatic aorist suffix *-s).
Yep.

[snip]
>>
>>I am not aware of dental being a mark of past time in PIE; but I must
>>confess I have not kept up to date with the latest thinking on PIE. I
>>should welcome enlightenment.
>
>
> What's interesting about the IE verb system is that it must have been a
> system in flux.  Namely, at the time of "breakup" (i.e. earliest dialectal
> divergence to interfere with intelligibility), IE's verb system was
> shifting from a primarily aspect-based scheme to a tense-based one.
I am sure you right. Indeed PIE must always have been in a state of flux
as there was no authority for standardizing language at the time. The
idea, which sometimes seems to be given, that at some time in the past
there was a standard, monolithic PIE is surely incorrect.

The rest snipped - but read with great interest. Thanks, Rob, for the
info. I found it very informative.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY