Re: The augment

From: Rod Decker (
Date: Wed Apr 09 1997 - 07:12:19 EDT

The note from attributed to Don the ff:

>Don Wilkins wrote:
>>I might argue that the argument is strictly
>>a morphological marker for secondary endings. The evidence is voluminous...
>I am likely overlooking something very simple. If your argument is correct,
>why is there no augment in non-indicative forms?

First, Don would be horrified to have that statement attributed to him! (It
is rather the opposite of what he has been arguing lately.)

Second, though I made the statement, I'm not arguing that position
(yet--and certainly not in the bare, un-nuanced form as stated here). That
statement was deliberately phrased with "might" to suggest a counter
example that someone might offer that would have just as much evidence as
Don's (that the augment always indicates past time); i.e., a voluminous
number of examples could be adduced that illustrate it. On the other hand,
it is one piece of the puzzle I've been working on. Some day I may float
some ideas in this category, but not yet.


 Rodney J. Decker Asst. Prof./NT Baptist Bible Seminary Clarks Summit, PA

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:11 EDT