¹ So e.g. Brugmann K. Vgl. Gram. 550, Gr. 2.3.²506, Lindsay Lat. Lang. 489 f., Sommer, Handb. d. lat. Laut- u. Formenl. 568 f., Stolz, Hist. Gram. ⁴ 287 ff.

² I ignore, of course, the use of verbal stems in a narrowly circumscribed function like the second person singular imperative, which can have nothing to do with the first part of the type amā-bam.

³ Otherwise Stolz. However, although there is scanty material to decide the treatment of original -ntsbh- in Latin, the fact that final -ns in Oscan in accordance with its history became either -ss or -f, would lead one to expect either *fuf-fans or *fus-fans instead of the actually occurring fu-fans. Cf. Buck, Gram. of Osc. and Umbr. 72 f.

⁴ Thus Sommer. The quantity of the second syllable varies.

⁵ Brugmann, thinks it is barely possible that *calens-facio became calē-facio through phonetic change (here Lat. f = IE dh); but even so it would not help much for the radically different combination in legē-bam.

⁶ The same may be said of the comparison (e.g. by Lindsay) of legē-bam with Slavic imperfects like vidē-achŭ. A glance at the various possibilities of the explanation of these as cited in Brugmann, Gr. 2. 3.² 516 f., will readily prevent any confidence in them.

⁷ That *fu- got into the subjunctive, e.g. Osc. fusíd Lat. foret, and was used in forms that functioned as futures, e.g. Osc. Umbr. fust and Lat. fore, before it made its way into present indicatives, is exactly what is to be expected of a verb of punctual action. For, on the one hand, it is a common phenomenon that present stems of verbs of punctual action function also as futures (Brugmann 743), on the other hand, the path from use in futures to subjunctives of all types was an easy one because of the fact that the subjunctive referred to future time in the majority of its occurrences (not only the prospective subjunctive, but also most optative and all volitive subjunctives necessarily refer to future acts), and because there was in addition often a formal identity or similarity, as in legam or leget compared to amet (: amāre).

⁸ See Brugmann 754.

⁹ On the possibility of this, cf. Stolz 289.

¹⁰ For more probable explanations, cf. Meyer-Lübke, Rom. Gram. 2, 282, and Lindsay, Lat. Lang. 491.

¹¹ So Brugmann 539.

¹² That *bheu- had a reduplicated perfect is of course beyond doubt in view of Skt. ba-bhū'va, Gr. πέ-φν̄κa, and Umbr. fut. perf. fe-fure (3. pl.). Against this evidence Lat. Juī and similar forms in all languages which are prone to give up reduplication are of no moment.

¹³ Cf. Brugmann 24.

¹⁴ See Buck 170, on the reduplication in the perfects of Oscan and Umbrian.

¹⁵ If *fu- was already considered a perfect of *es- in Italic times, there was no identity of root vowel, as is pointed out by Buck. Whether the change of the reduplication on *fe- to *fu- would have taken place in a verb without any present tense, such as *fu- would be if not associated with *es-, is hard to say. Perhaps, in view of this additional difficulty, the second suggestion of the reason for the change of *fe- to *fu- is the more probable.

¹⁶ Cf. Brugmann 1².323.

¹⁷ Parallel with the development of the fā-imperfect went that of the f-perfect in Oscan-Umbrian. The oldest form of this I consider to be Osc. fufens ‘fuerunt’, which goes back to *bhe-bhu̯-ent with reduplication in e and secondary ending -ent instead of the original r ending. In the Italic period this became *fe-fent, which being structurally obscure was changed to *fu-fent through the influence of forms of the type Osc. fuid Lat. fuit. The next step here too was to mistake *fu- for the root instead of reduplication, and this left f as a perfect suffix, after which it became possible to form similarly e.g. Osc. aíkda-fed (3. sing.).

¹⁸ So e.g. necessarily Sommer.

¹⁹ The analogical transfer of the ē is explained on the basis of the Latin, and may very well not have taken place till late in the development of the Latin language, even if the type amā-ba-m was pre-Italic. On the other hand, if the type legēbam was also developed in the Italic period, we have only to think of the Latin forms as symbolical of the Italic—the nature of the analogy remains the same.

²⁰ This analogy presupposes shortening of vowels before nt, but since this was already Italic (Brugmann 1.²800), this does not by any means involve us in chronological difficulties.

²¹ Here, as elsewhere, it would seem unnecessary to remark that the third plural, which is so often quoted because extant, represents the whole tense system.

²² The ending -m of amā-bam and the like is an exception. However, the same ending is found in the subjunctive and the future of the third conjugation, e.g. lega-m, and was not connected with past time any longer.

²³ In this connection the probability suggests itself that the extreme frequency of the historical present in Latin was due to the fact that the Latin present tense perpetuated the IE imperfect as well as present in all forms except the first singular.

²⁴ See Buck 151 ff.

²⁵ It might be argued that *fu-ba-nt, the assumed pattern, has no existence in Latin, but Osc. fu-fa-ns puts it upon a much firmer basis than either an infinitive *agē or an independent verb *fā-m *fā-s etc. for the Italic period. The disappearance of *fu-ba-nt in Latin was due to the rivalry of erant, which was patterned after the synonymous pluperfect *bhe-bhu̯ā-nt much more probably than after an IE *bhu̯ā-nt (imperfect) which cannot be proved to have existed in any Italic dialect. However, cf. Sommer 578.