David Kiltz wrote:
> > I don't think the agentive suffix has to do with past tense. ULU-
> > (pour): the past tense (intr.) is _ulle_ without any "n", but there's
> > _ulunde_ (flood).
> > BTW, there's no aorist stem here, the suffix is immediately joined
> > with the root.
> Well, according to what you said above about the assimilation of _n+l_ >
> _ll_ I think _ulle_ is < *_ul-ne_. The notion of "past" resides in the
**Well, I am of the opinion that _ulle_ may be from *_u.n.l-ê_, sc.
the _n_ is infixed and a strong past suffix is added. This is at least
how I explain Telerin past tense _delle_ of _delia_ (WJ:364), sc.
being from *_de.n.l-ê_. For if it were from *_del-nê_, it would
have to be explained why the combination -ln- was assimilated to
-ll- if -ln- in _elni_ (WJ:362) was not.
ps. It is also possible that PQ already possessed two allomorph
*_-lê_ and *_-nê_.
Mi dissero che e quell'epoca per quindici giorni e quindici notti
i retori Gabundus e Terentius discussero sul vocativo di _ego_,
e infine vennero alle armi. (Umberto Eco, _Il nome della rosa_)