>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
Many apologies to Don, Rod, and the list. If graduate school has taught me
anything, it's CHECK YOUR SOURCES! Thank you for your clarification, Don,
lest we (I) misrepresent you (again), and yours, Rod, else we (I) attribute
contributions to the wrong persons (again).
Robert Brindle
Kansas City, MO