Timeline for Do any Latin verbs use a temporal augment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2017 at 16:03 | vote | accept | brianpck | ||
| Mar 6, 2017 at 23:25 | comment | added | TKR | @JanusBahsJacquet, Smyth (435 D) does say "Initial α becomes ᾱ in Doric and Aeolic", but he doesn't give examples. Of course, even if there are examples from verbs with *h₂, they could easily be analogical too. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 18:37 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | If we happen to know what augmented forms of verbs like ἀμέλγω (< *h₂melĝ-) looked like in Aeolic or Doric, we might get a hint: if they’re ἤμελγον, that would be a fairly good indication that the augment was not lowered; if they’re ᾱ̓́μελγον (I’m sure that looks awful), that might be an indication that it was. But my Doric/Aeolic isn’t quite good enough to know offhand how such forms looked. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 18:20 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | Precious little, if any at all. I thought I remembered that there was some evidence, but I can’t find what it was I was thinking about now. Greek isn’t worth much here, of course, since the contractions are later (so even where PIE would have had an actual consonant between the augment and the root, e.g., *e-seĝʰ-, Greek contracts into εἴχ-). There are some marginal cases like Skt. यभति yábhati, impf. अयभत् áyabhat, where the root is *h₃i̯ebʰ-. If regular, you’d expect PIE *e-h₃i̯ebʰ- > *o-h₃i̯ebʰ- > IIr./Skt. *ā-yabʰ-. But that could so easily be analogically levelled. | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 23:30 | comment | added | TKR | @JanusBahsJacquet, by the way, what evidence do we have for whether the augment was colored by laryngeals? | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 23:07 | comment | added | TKR | @JanusBahsJacquet, that's a valid point about e+a contraction; I was addressing the specific question about a temporal augment, i.e. vowel lengthening rather than e- prefixing. (Of course, Latin has no temporal augment, so there's not much point in speculating about what it would have looked like.) | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 10:38 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | Also, if it were an actual augment, I believe it would indeed yield ēgī without the need for an Attic-Ionic-style change of ā to ē, since *e+a in Latin regularly yields ē, not ā. If the augment was indeed a (Late) PIE thing, it was likely—at least going by available evidence—considered separate enough that it did not lower to [a] in the vicinity of /h₂/. | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 10:33 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | It’s probably worth mentioning that in the case of agō, it is the a that is secondary in PIE, not the e. The underlying root is *h₂eĝ-, and PIE /e/ was phonetically lowered to something like [ɐ ~ a] after /h₂/ (phonetically probably [x] or similar). In the Narten imperfect (let's assume that's what it is for simplicity), however, the vowel was /eː/, which was not lowered after /h₂/. So phonetically it would have been something like [xɐɡʲ-] in the present, [xeːɡʲ-] in the preterite. | |
| Mar 4, 2017 at 1:43 | history | edited | TKR | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 4, 2017 at 0:14 | history | edited | TKR | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2017 at 0:00 | history | answered | TKR | CC BY-SA 3.0 |