From: Rod Decker (rdecker@bbc.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 09 1997 - 07:12:19 EDT
The note from RobertBrin@aol.com 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.
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker Asst. Prof./NT
rdecker@bbc.edu Baptist Bible Seminary
http://www.bbc.edu/DeckrPHP.htm Clarks Summit, PA
_________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:11 EDT