Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!alderson
From: alderson@netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III)
Subject: Re: duplication?
In-Reply-To: Bruce McMenomy's message of 3 Mar 1995 17:46:45 GMT
Message-ID: <aldersonD53Ew8.2s7@netcom.com>
Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com
Fcc: /u52/alderson/postings
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3j4pjn$ct@amhux3.amherst.edu> <smryanD4tLtx.Dwz@netcom.com>
	<3j5e55$5ga@panix2.panix.com> <3j7km5$knr@news.halcyon.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 23:07:20 GMT
Lines: 35
Sender: alderson@netcom20.netcom.com

In article <3j7km5$knr@news.halcyon.com> Bruce McMenomy <mcmenomy@halcyon.com>
writes:

>Latin uses reduplication (if this is what you are referring to) to mark the
>perfect stem sometimes: curro (run) -> cucurri; peperci; etc.  The feature
>seems archaic: Old Latin gives an example from "facio" (to make) that would
>have been "fecit" in Classical Latin: an inscription on a sword or something
>(I can't remember quite what) reads:

>  MANIOS NUMASIOI MED FEFAKHED

>which is equiv. to CL

>  Man[l?]ius Numerio me fecit

>i.e.,

>  Man[l]ius made me for Numerius

"Manius" is correct.

However, I was under the impression that the Praenestine Fibula on which this
inscription is found had finally been demonstrated to be a forgery.

In any case, it is simply a matter of the Classical Latin perfect comprising
old perfects, aorists, and a couple of formations found nowhere outside of
Latin--not unlike the English past tense.

The perfect as reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European involved reduplication and
o-grade vocalism of the root.
-- 
Rich Alderson		[Tolkien quote temporarily removed in favour of
alderson@netcom.com	 proselytizing comment below --rma]

Please support the creation of the humanities hierarchy of newsgroups!
