Re: The augment

From: Don Wilkins (
Date: Wed Apr 09 1997 - 15:50:20 EDT

At 6:17 PM 4/8/97, wrote:
>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?

I'm not sure where this was in my earlier post, but it was not my position
(someone else had raised it as a hypothetical possibility). I myself see
the (aorist ind.) augment as a time indicator, which is why it does not
occur in the other moods.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

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