In these endings, the -i is originally a deictic marker meaning something like "here and now" (often referred to as the "hic-et-nunc i") this is why the endings that have -i tend to be present-tense endings, while those that lack it tend to be past-tense endings. (The 1pl and 2pl are a bit harder to reconstruct because they vary more in the individual languages). The most common Indo-European 3pl active ending is -nt(i), which is part of the familiar set -m(i), -s(i), -t(i). (This answer is based on Weiss's Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin, which is usually the place to go for this kind of thing.)
Neither of the sources mentioned seems to allow for this interpretation, but they don't fully explain -ere either: is this at all possible? Or are there any other theories? This would make me suspect that -ere also contains this rhotacized suffix -is-, with some mysterious suffix -e at the end. The suffix -is- (was) then rhotacized into -ir-, which in turn became -er. The regular 3rd-person ending -ont was stuck on as expected. He, too, speaks of a primary ending -ri.īoth sources agree that -ĕrunt is from the perfective suffix -is-, found in laudav-is-se and laudav-is-ti(s) (and related to the -s- found in the Greek sigmatic aorist). Palmer seems to be saying it contains the "impersonal" -r- also found in the infinitive ( laudare) and in passive forms ( laudatur). I don't know this marker: I only know the primary paradigma as something resembling -m/s/t/mus/tis/nt.
#3rd person latin endings plus
What is the origin of this ending? Is it connected with any other known endings or affixes?Ĭlackson & Horrocks say it is from an alternative 3rd-person plural ending -er plus a "primary marker" -i. Laudavēre is an (apparently older) alternative to laudaverunt.
0 kommentar(er)
