The Oscan Perfect in ‐TT‐

Abstract

Oscan secondary verbs form their perfect with a suffix -tt-, whose origin has been much debated. After a critical review of earlier suggestions, which have assumed either a reanalysis within a specific model paradigm or some periphrastic source, a new periphrastic theory is presented. According to this proposal, the perfect in -tt-is to be traced back to the past perfective variant of a progressive periphrasis involving a present participle + auxiliary STAND (for BE). Such a combination not only provides a phonologically satisfactory starting point for the attested Oscan forms, but it also enjoys typological support from comparable progressive periphrases both in the Sabellic (OscoUmbrian) subgroup of Italic and in the closely related history of Latin/Romance.

Suppletion: Questions for History and Theory

“…And according to Zipf’s Law, the more frequent the shorter. However, the evidence for generalising here seems to us spurious: overall, suggestive instances – such as Archi bič’ni – boždo , suppletive singular and plural of the noun ‘corner of a bag’, sharing a few segments, quite a few features, and the phonotactic template CVC.CV despite originating from distinct lexemes; the German suppletive verb geh‐ – ging‐/gang‐ ‘go’ (see below, Section 4), going back to distinct, but phonologically none‐too‐dissimilar near‐synonymous Germanic lexemes *gai‐ and *gang‐ ; or overlaps in usage and suppletive intermixtures of the near‐synonymous distinct verbs statuere and sistere in Latin, ‘to cause to stand, put, place’, with phonologically rather similar perfects statuī and stetī (Willi ) – must be a small minority. We therefore continue not to see a direct role for frequency in the genesis of suppletion, as opposed to its retention.…”

Lingue sabelliche

“…Le divergenze tra latino e sabellico riguardano, invece, la formazione del futuro I, formato nelle lingue sabelliche con il suffisso dell'antico desiderativo -s(e)/so-e del futuro II in -us-, l'infinito, il cui morfo -om è tratto dai temi nominali in -o e il perfetto dei verbi secondari in -ā , la cui diversificazione tra osco (-tt-) e umbro (-nky-) anche con possibili esiti di compromesso (-ty-) a fronte del formante latino -u̯ -, ne indica la relativa recenziorità (Willi 2016).…”

The Balto‐Slavicā‐aorist

“…/ bā ‐/ without recourse to an ā ‐preterit. Building on a suggestion by Willi (2016: 89 fn. 57), Kashima (2019) has recently argued that the Italic ‐ βā ‐imperfect (the only branch in which “* b h uH‐ā‐m ” is assured) goes back to an eh 1 ‐aorist * b h uh 2 ‐eh 1 ‐.…”