Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:04:25.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Latin Imperfect in *bā-

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Philip Baldi
Philip Baldi*
Affiliation:
Penn State University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various proposals for explaining the origin of the base constituent of the Latin imperfect tense formation in *bā- (e.g. amābam ‘I was loving’) are examined. With an explicit phonological derivation, as well as critical evidence from Latin syntax and word formation, it is demonstrated that the present participle, e.g. *aman(t)s, is the source of the base member of this construction; and that it is joined, as traditionally assumed, to a form of the verb *bhū- ‘be'.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1976, pp. 839 - 850
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Lg. 49. 765–93.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1975. Generalization, abduction, evolution, and language. The generative-transformational paradigm and modern linguistic theory, ed. by Koerner, E. F. K., 263–96. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beeler, Madison. 1966. The interrelationships within Italic. Ancient Indo-European dialects, ed. by Birnbaum, H. & Puhvel, J., 51–8. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1951. Prétérit et optatif en indo-européen. BSL 47. 11–20.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1896. Lat. frāgrāre. IF 6. 100–102.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1902. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl., and Delbrück, Berthold. 1916. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionlehre. Vol. 2, part 3, sec. 2. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Buck, Carl D. 1904. A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Boston: Ginn.Google Scholar
Buck, Carl D. 1933. Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1973. Pour une stylistique phonologique du latin. À propos des styles négligents d'une langue morte. BSL 68. 129–45.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1975. Methodisches zu Allegro-Regeln. Phonologica 1972, ed. by Dressler, W. & Mares, F., 219–34. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Otto. 1920. Das lateinische Imperfektum. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 73. 216–31.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of Language 4. 30–57.Google Scholar
Kretschmer, Paul. 1929. Das mit -b- gebildete lateinische Futurum und Imperfektum. Glotta 17. 46–56.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt. (Published version of 1965 Indiana University dissertation.).Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lejeune, Michel. 1964. Osque fufans. BSL 59. 77–81.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu. 1924. Die ital. ƒ- und b- Tempora. IF 42. 60–74.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu. 1930. Lateinische Grammatik: Literaturbericht für die Jahre 1926/7. Glotta 18. 241–74.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu, Hoffmann, J. B.; and Szantyr, A. 1963–65. Lateinische Grammatik (auf der Grunde des Werkes von Friedrich Stolz und Joseph Hermann Schmalz). 2 vols. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Lindsay, W. M. 1894. The Latin language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Löwe, Richard. 1894. Die schwache Präteritum des Germanischen. IF 4. 365–79.Google Scholar
Monteil, Pierre. 1973. Éléments de phonétique et de morphologie du latin. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Petersen, Walter. 1927. The Italic imperfect. Lg. 3. 175–83.Google Scholar
Petersen, Walter. 1932. The relation of the Latin -bo future to the Italic imperfect. Lg. 8. 133–7.Google Scholar
Pisani, Vittore. 1963. Oskisch fufans. KZ 78. 101–3.Google Scholar
Poultney, James W. 1959. The bronze tables of Iguvium. Baltimore: American Philological Association.Google Scholar
Schmalstieg, William. 1973. New thoughts on Indo-European phonology. KZ 87. 99–157.Google Scholar
Skutsch, Franz. 1901. Calē-facere. Zeitschrift für die Osterreichischen Gymnasium 52(3). 195–7.Google Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1914. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Stowasser, J. M. 1901. Calē-facere. Zeitschrift für die Osterreichischen Gymnasium 52(3). 194–5.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1893. Review of Précis de grammaire comparée du grec et latin by V. Henry. IFA 2. 167–70.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1895. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar