Re: The augment

Don Wilkins (don.wilkins@ucr.edu)
Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:50:20 -0800

At 6:17 PM 4/8/97, RobertBrin@aol.com 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